161–170 of 244 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what sort of violent crime do you propose to legalize Hundreds of thousands die and are injured every year from prescription drugs, faulty automobiles, guns, and all manner of other defective products. Why not criminalize those violent crimes?
Manslaughter and murder are already criminalized, at least in the United States. Where do you live?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true, and this is precisely what I find troubling -- that you misunderstand them and miss the actual problem they point out. Obviously, I can't vouch for everyone , but since I haven't seen any behavior of the kind you refer to (certainly not among more-or-less mainstream figure), I can safely assume it's not done by "lots of people".
Do we need to start linking famous peoples tweets to show that your position is false? Plenty of people jump on the “that’s racism” bandwagon. If they can’t attack the math they attack the author and make wild accusations about their intent. Truth is treason in an empire of lies, and socially most would rather live with comfortable lies.
Yes, obviously
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define a “smack” versus a “hit”?
You probably also need to consider things like how often is physical discipline being used, and is it actual discipline or just an excuse for abuse.
a parent physically abusing their child when they feel like it (bear in mind the parent is also taking care of said child)?
a parent bound by society reduced to moaning at their child (think kids under 10) hoping to control them?
I know which is more perverse.
Humans consistently make the same mistake about understand the motivations, the inhibiting and promoting pressures of other people. We assume that everyone else is exactly like us. Therefore, when we build systems and institutions that attempt to alter behavior, we encode our own motivations and desires as the impetus. I.E. why we have UX researchers, do user testing, A/B testing etc when we develop products. Our ins…
Prison is a deterrent, certainly, but it also exists to keep violent folks away from the rest of society so they can't do more harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would work but incarceration is an unscalable solution. Some CA stats: - $71k/person/year - 130,000 inmates - 135% of capacity - highest rate of incarceration in the world We're maxed out - and all this doesn't even solve the root issues of mental illness and poverty. We need alternative ideas with better ROI.
Sure. But what are these alternatives? 1% of the population are psychopaths and no one knows how to make them not be so. What else can we do but put them away?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me put it this way: the current “standard” criminal justice system is exceedingly effective at dissuading the sort of people who designed and operate the system from committing crime, but those folks are not the population that in fact commit crimes.
Tautology - People who are effectively deterred from committing crimes do not commit crimes. The system may be very effective at deterring many would-be criminals. Any system will be ineffective against some subset and so this statement would still apply. Under any system, most crime will be committed by those whom that system does not effectively deter.
Crimes of passion (i.e. many violent crimes, especially) don't take the system and its deterrents into account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP said "Google", not the "US". What's "silly" about thinking males are the majority at Google?
OP said "population level gender differences might better explain Google's hiring pipeline". Men may be the majority of Google employees, but they clearly aren't the majority of the population. That suggests there is discrimination somewhere, either in Google's hiring approach or in wider society (it's unlikely that there is some innate difference between men and woman that would account for such a disparity).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mind summarizing what that is a bit? I’d like to read about it, but either the link isn’t working for me (I’m on mobile) or it doesn’t contain much information aside from the homepage.
Copy pasting from their website: About one-third of probationers and parolees fail the terms of their supervision. Over three-quarters of parolees are re-arrested within five years, and over half return to prison. High failure rates for people on probation and parole—whether for new offenses, revocations, or individuals who abscond from supervision—result in increased crime, crowded prisons and jails, and strained pu…
Drug use is a symptom, the result of another problem. Consider, for example, an undiagnosed personality disorder, or an untreated childhood trauma. Furthermore, what I'm going to mention next isn't helping that either.
> the opportunity for a fresh start
That's just marketing shenanigans. In reality this is rather relative; if one has become a convicted felon, they remain a convicted felon for life. This haunts them till the end of their time. The stigma hampers functionality in society in multiple ways: friendships, and employment first and foremost, but also hypocritically the 2nd amendment (of which I as a European am no proponent of, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander), and the loss of other rights [1]. This society inhibited perfectionism inhibits a defeatist attitude which lures a convicted felon back on the dark path of criminal behaviour on top of things like personality traits or already financial issues. Prisoner series like Orange Is The New Black (though certainly not the first!) beautifully articulate this specific problem, and a myriad other.
The problem is that we see criminals as individuals who cause an issue in society. Instead, we should regard them as individuals who are unable to participate in society and look at it from that angle, by trying to make them participate in society. Getting rid of the defeatist attitude is one way to increase participation in society, looking for medical treatment. Some examples of problem solving procedures (vary on individual basis) are dental procedure (for e.g. former meth addicts), basic insurance, medicine/drugs (methadone for e.g. former heroin addicts), psychological therapy.
I don't want to be negative about the program, though:
> Fair: The clear demarcation of the offenders’ new supervision conditions and the opportunity for a fresh start allow the offender to regain their sense of self-control. The contract enhances the perceived fairness of any subsequent punishment; this perception of fairness is further supplemented by the sparing rather than harsh level of punishment upon violation, which additionally limits disruption of employment and other non-criminal routines and relationships.
This puts the other parts into perspective, making it indeed more fair for the convicted felon (or less unfair, depending on your perspective). That doesn't mean the sentence itself isn't still out of proportion; it already is put out of proportion because there's societal punishments on top of the sentence. Some of which are harmful for rehabilitation.
Incidentally, fixing this might also make things like arrests generally less violent.
[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicte...