Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RandomUsername600 t1_j84q21y wrote

> she is not a person who would support the policing and imprisonment of the people who harmed her

Justice isn't just about the victim or their families, it is also about protecting society.

499

Locuralacura t1_j84szhx wrote

Oakland is shreds. The fabric is just torn to shreds. Living there I felt like I wanted a big safety vest that said 'civilian'

Just working a job and living in the city was traumatic. Ended up homeless. Punched off my bike, held up whole closing a cafe, watched people die of bullet wounds, and generally just felt threatened and hopeless at all times. Sucks because I remember the city being much better in the early 2000's. Maybe that was just my nativity.

139

[deleted] t1_j87fppu wrote

[removed]

102

Kharnsjockstrap t1_j88iy4n wrote

Clown world. As if their opinion should matter since arresting them would primarily be so they don’t rob and kill other people lol

41

in-game_sext t1_j8gcwj1 wrote

The delusion is very real here in the Bay. People are actually like this, its mindblowing...meanwhile my friends kids are witnessing dead bodies being shoved out of vans at stop signs in broad daylight and all the dudes working the taco trucks wear bullet vests. At minimum twice a week i hear sideshows and gunfire within a couple block radius. Totally super normal...and our DA's are letting it all ride.

It's a trip living and working around some of the planted wealthiest zip codes but much of it looks like a third world country...

3

Skreat t1_j861rbw wrote

We’ve been working in the Bay Area for the last 10 years or so, it’s definitely gotten worse. Especially parts of Oakland.

People stealing our tools while guys are up in the air working. Homeless people threatening our workers. Even parts of Berkeley are bad.

59

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j853e9y wrote

That's also the point of restorative justice, too.

The linked article is exceptionally light on detail as to how it would apply here, but it does briefly mention that the victim saw crimes like the robbery that led to her death as "a symptom of poverty". I'm admittedly inventing the following example out of wholecloth, but it's only intended as an example:

If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area), locking up her assailant for years (if not life) does nothing to address the larger problem (and might exacerbate it, if the perpetrator had dependents, etc); having the perpetrator—if they accept responsibility and actually want to try to make amends (which is a necessary first step in restorative justice methods)—spend that time giving back to the community instead of just sitting in a cell, it might at least contribute to improving the conditions that led to the crime in the first place.

Obviously, just one person doing this isn't going to fix everything—it might not even "fix" anything—but considering how many people are imprisoned in the US (both by number and rate), a larger systemic shift would be an entirely different story.

To be clear: I'm not necessarily advocating it for this case; I'm just giving one (admittedly vague) example of how and why the theory could be applied.

43

empfindsamkeit t1_j86dj0l wrote

> If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area)

Would be kind of insulting to the vast majority of poor people who don't commit these kinds of crimes. Maybe it's fairer to say that shitty people like this exist among the rich and poor, but being rich just masks it (i.e. they are the type of people who would rob/burglarize if they were poor).

55

Kharnsjockstrap t1_j88jaq0 wrote

Right? Need a job, place to stay and some money? Just find some rube to kill then say you’re sorry.

20

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j86jynm wrote

You’re basically saying the same thing.

Neither my comment nor any of the links that I provided about restorative justice suggests that poverty inherently turns people into criminals, and suggesting otherwise just badly misses the point.

As you said, not all poor people commit burglaries; that’s obvious. At the same time, even fewer rich people do.

Of course, in no way am I suggesting that poverty is the only source of these sorts of crimes. However, unless you choose to believe the (completely unsupported) notion that criminals are simply born criminals, that means that there are many environmental factors at play. The entire point of restorative justice is to attempt to mitigate those factors and reduce crime overall.

−4

AmITheAltAccount t1_j88ystg wrote

Rich people just commit different (but arguably equally harmful) crimes like wage theft, tax evasion, embezzlement, etc.

5

empfindsamkeit t1_j86m9lf wrote

> Neither my comment nor any of the links that I provided about restorative justice suggests that poverty inherently turns people into criminals, and suggesting otherwise just badly misses the point.

You linked a landing page to one site about restorative justice and I'm not about to read an entire website to figure out what you want me to take from it. The portion of your comment I quoted supposed that we accept the idea that robbery/burglary are consequences of poverty and/or lack of opportunity. If it's a consequence of poverty that means poverty causes it. But clearly it doesn't since 99% of poor people don't do it.

> However, unless you choose to believe the (completely unsupported) notion that criminals are simply born criminals, that means that there are many environmental factors at play.

That is what I'm saying, so we must not really be saying the same thing. There are many people who grow up desperately poor, or in abusive families, or suffer various traumas, etc, and they don't end up as violent criminals. In particular women are vastly less likely to end up that way. So clearly it must be something in their genetics, though it might only manifest itself in certain circumstances, e.g. if you're not rich. But it's just masked in the rich person. There's no need to steal if you can just buy, no need to rape if you can just pay call girls or woo a woman into marriage with cash. Little upside to criming, but a lot of downside.

I don't see how you mitigate that without making the poor person rich, which is equivalent to making everyone rich (because who wouldn't resort to burglary if one attempt was enough to cause society to make you rich?). Making them perform community service in lieu of prison is not going to change who they are. The only way to treat it is to in effect give them everything they want, or lock them away.

−5

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j86ob84 wrote

> The portion of your comment I quoted supposed that we accept the idea that robbery/burglary are consequences of poverty and/or lack of opportunity. If it’s a consequence of poverty that means poverty causes it.

No…that’s not at all how causality works. I’m not really sure how to help you through that one.

> So clearly it must be something in their genetics

Yikes.

OK, you have a good one.

2

empfindsamkeit t1_j86rv95 wrote

> No…that’s not at all how causality works. I’m not really sure how to help you through that one.

Definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."

So to restate what you said: "If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are the result or effect of poverty..."

> Yikes.

> OK, you have a good one.

Yeah, if you're not even going to admit the existence and influence of genetics on how a person behaves, we're done here. Though I am kind of morbidly curious to hear you explain why women around the world are considerably less likely to engage in robbery/burglary, no matter how poor.

−2

[deleted] t1_j87xdxr wrote

[removed]

−7

empfindsamkeit t1_j882g1r wrote

I find that really difficult to believe, but if true for the sake of argument, how else would you explain that? It seems like you think this is some kind of "gotcha" argument, but the other guy's argument was that crime was a result of poverty/environment. Your alleged facts foreclose both of those. So what else could it be? You also said "commit more crimes", implying that we're talking about being actually guilty, and not just being convicted/arrested more (otherwise law enforcement misconduct or racism could be at work). But we are arguing about actual criminals here and what makes them that way.

−4

dukeimre t1_j88yqrb wrote

The point here is, correlation is not causation. For black people in America:

There was a series of policies that set them up for poverty. Slavery, sure, but more recently and relevantly redlining and other policies that set up black communities for failure. Black people were all forced into the same, poor communities (nobody would sell them homes anywhere else); their communities were ravaged at times by urban development ("where should we put this highway? Just stick it through the black neighborhood"); they were all put in the same schools that lacked basic essentials (and when they tried to go to other schools, white parents fled to the suburbs), they were discriminated against in hiring.

They were ravaged by the drug epidemic, and they were ravaged by the tough on crime approach that responded to the drug epidemic. For example, the consequences for possessing a small amount of crack were much, much greater than for possessing an equal amount of regular cocaine-- so, you wound up with poor black people getting ridiculously long prison sentences where wealthier people received relatively light consequences for the same crime. Likewise, there were many more police on black neighborhoods, with less oversight, so poor black people were much more likely to be caught and harshly punished for really low-level crimes, and noncriminal black youth were more likely to develop massive fear and distrust of the police due to antagonistic policing methods.

This in turn destroyed black families (imagine if a quarter of the men you know who ever did any illegal drug went to prison and their kids spent a portion of their childhood without a father).

All this taken together means that more black people are poor, more black people are less educated, more black people are in prison, etc.

But it doesn't mean black people are genetically inferior.

(Happy to provide a source for anything mentioned above upon request!)

3

empfindsamkeit t1_j89t0ti wrote

> The point here is, correlation is not causation.

No one was saying it was. Guy above was claiming that even controlling for wealth and location, black people allegedly commit more crime. If that were true (which I very much doubt for a number of reasons), what would be the explanation? If men commit more violent crime than women when you control for pretty much any variable, what does that leave as the explanation?

> All this taken together means that more black people are poor, more black people are less educated, more black people are in prison, etc.

> But it doesn't mean black people are genetically inferior.

And no one said that. The guy above said that controlling for income and geography, it was still true. Which means even rich, educated black people living in wealthy areas commit more crime than rich, educated whites in the same area. As I said, I think that's bullshit, and I could list the reasons. But if it were true, it would seem to preclude much other reason but genetics. At least that I can think of.

0

dukeimre t1_j8a3bwa wrote

Ohhhh, I missed the "even controlling for...". Sorry!

I do think it's possible that the original commenter is right because there might be other factors to control for besides geography and income. For example, perhaps black kids who live in a rich neighborhood and have a high income are still less likely to do well in school because of stereotype threat. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are performance differences between groups that remain after you control for geography and income... but I'd expect that the more additional factors you control for, the smaller the differences would become, until they eventually vanished (or, at least, almost vanished, to within a tiny margin).

1

empfindsamkeit t1_j8cm6si wrote

I'm not saying there can't be any differences, I'm saying I think it's unlikely that there's a statistically significant difference when it comes to major crimes. Why would a rich black guy in a wealthy area commit robbery or burglary? For fun? Does the commenter just mean white collar crime past a certain income level? That arguably makes it harder to believe. I can't remember the last time I read about a white collar crime committed by a black guy who wasn't a minister (and even then white evangelical ministers have elevated it to an art form).

I think he just threw that out there because he thought he could shut me up about arguing that genetics influence criminals by trying to trap me into saying black people are genetically predisposed to crime. Hence the Trumpian "they say". I'd also wager any serious study attempting to establish that would be unlikely to receive funding or see publication. Which means he's probably either referring to a far-right source or his own skimming of basic stats where he didn't really "control for" anything, assuming he wasn't outright making it up to see what I'd say.

1

eamus_catuli t1_j85hf54 wrote

Do restorative justice advocates believe in addressing factors that lead to criminality across the board, or only in certain instances and with certain classes of criminals?

It's a statistical fact that men commit far, far more sexual assault than women do. So there appears to be sex/gender component to the crime of sexual assault - whether that be biological or psycho-social.

Would restorative justice advocates call for not jailing criminals convicted of sexual assault, but instead having them engage in some sort of psychiatric treatment to address the larger (biological, psychological, social) factors contributing to their sexual crimes?

Personally, I believe in the not-so-controversial view that there's a pressing need, for the protection of the public, to jail rapists. And while I agree that addressing "big picture" factors is important, that need is secondary to this more immediate need of protecting society.

In short, this discussion is far more open-ended than simply "poverty tends to lead to crime". As science advances in the area of understanding brain chemistry, genetics, and their tremendous impacts on our personalities, how we behave, how we cognize, etc. the questions that arise are ones like: "Is anybody really 'responsible' for anything they do? Does anybody actually have free will?"

But answering those questions does not obviate the need to protect society from violence in the meantime.

35

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j85w5w7 wrote

If you could reduce the recidivism of rapists through counseling more than through jail, would you support counseling over jail?

3

eamus_catuli t1_j860xuq wrote

If a magic wand existed by which you could tap people on the head and cause them to never rape again, sure, I would prefer that to jail.

But therapy doesn't work that way. It takes time (sometimes an entire lifetime), it doesn't always result in desired objectives, and it requires genuine effort and a desire for change on the part of the person being counseled.

So if you're asking me whether I think jailed rapists should receive counseling? Yes, I agree with that. If you're asking me whether we should substitute jailing for counseling, hell no.

What would you say to a woman who is raped by a person who was recently given a sentence of counseling instead of prison? "Sorry, I guess the counseling didn't go as planned!"

Again, you can't use long-term solutions to address imminent safety requirements.

49

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j8688yj wrote

I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

There’s basically three different motivations in criminal justice. The first is isolation - removing a dangerous member of society from an environment where they can do harm. That doesn’t mean the incarceration needs to be brutal, or even uncomfortable. You can encase them in carbonite or lock them in a room at the Ritz, because the goal of preventing additional harm is effected.

The second is restoration and reformation. Again, this runs the gamut from counseling to Clockwork Orange. This approach both prevents additional harm and restores an individual as a functioning member of society.

The third is punishment. Punishment itself has a few different motivations. The first is reformation, as in the above, but it does it’s job less efficiently than other, less ham-fisted methods. The second is disincentivizing other people from commuting a crime, either through fear of punishment or (in an economic sense) decreasing the net benefit of committing a crime such that a rational actor will decide not to do it. That one is a mixed bag in terms of effectiveness. The evidence does not support the proposal that harsher penalties reduce crime. The third is just balancing the karmic books - the idea that society must avenge itself violently against someone who caused crime, just because “they deserve it.” I’m pretty sure that last one lacks support from either a pragmatic or an ethical standpoint, but it does seem to be a major motivating factor in the American justice system.

0

silasgreenfront t1_j86cwut wrote

>I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

Do you have any sources on the success of reformative justice in the reduction of sex crimes, specifically? I'd been under the impression that crimes of that sort were more resistant to reformation efforts but my knowledge of the research is limited and dated.

18

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86gjmh wrote

We can dig through the efficacy of treatment programs, but just to get a feel for the kind of question we are trying to answer, how would you feel if we were to hand a book of moral philosophy to a rapist and were able to with perfect foresight tell that they would never rape again?

Would your first impression be that they got away with something, or that they were successfully reformed and do not require further punishment? I’m coming from a theory of justice angle here just for kicking things off.

1

silasgreenfront t1_j86lk7p wrote

I'd feel immense relief. Mostly for any potential future victims and, to a lesser but very real degree, for the rapist himself. I'm not religious at all but I grew up in a deeply Christian household and that concept of redemption still influences me a great deal.

7

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86mhkg wrote

I think we are very much on the same page, and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about it.

2

empfindsamkeit t1_j86ekl2 wrote

It feels to me like you'd in effect be making it the rule that everyone gets at least 1 free rape or murder as long as you successfully refrain from doing it again. You just claim afterwards that you're "reformed" and don't repeat it - voila, you've been cured by counseling. I think there are a significant number of people who would treat it that way, keeping it in their back pocket.

And I say "at least 1" because I imagine people would be making excuses for the ones who "slipped" and re-offended. "He didn't rape anyone for 20 years, he was trying so hard and just had a minor lapse! He just needs to be topped up with a little more counseling".

26

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86ew94 wrote

Please expand on what you believe the approach to someone who has committed a rape should be, and why.

−7

becksrunrunrun t1_j86i0hv wrote

Rape is terrorizing, the victim is traumatized for the rest of their life. It's not like getting your car window broken, it scars your soul. My mom worked in the ER where a BABY came in that had been raped.

So what should happen to someone who does that? Why are we even asking the question? Society must be protected from people who prey on others for their own sexual gratification. The risk to society is too high to prioritize a child rapist, or any rapist over the rest of society simply because they've promised to be on their best behavior.

21

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86ita4 wrote

I’m saying that if one of the purposes of system of justice is to reduce the impact of unjust behaviors (or crime) on society, then should we take the path with the highest payoff? Just theoretically, if we were to hand a stack of books by Rawls and Sandel and Parfitt to a rapist, and we were able to know with perfect knowledge that the person became a pure altruist and would never harm again, would they have “gotten away with it” (assuming no punishment occurred)?

−3

black641 t1_j87hj1k wrote

Obviously we should take the path with the highest payoff, and I agree that not every criminal is worthy of “punishment” or is beyond saving. But we must ALSO contend with the very real fact that some people not only CAN’T change their antisocial behavior, but actively resist treatment. There is no functional form of treatment capable of making anybody a perfect altruist, and some people just need to be separated from society. While psychologists have begun to begin considering new methods of treating adult “sociopaths,” they also admit that it is incredibly difficult because their habits are deeply engrained, and that they fight against attempts to “fix” them.

I’m not saying these people need spend their lives naked and chained to a wall, but what makes people nervous about some of the rhetoric around restorative justice is that, many times, it’s proponents side step answering the question of what to do with people who can’t or don’t want to be fixed?

5

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j87vn6y wrote

I do think that people who cannot be fixed (although I do think that’s a bit of a loaded word) should be removed from a context where they can do harm, and I’m including other people in correctional facilities in that.

That being said, I don’t think that prisons should be places of torture. American prisons are pretty bad, in large part because making them into places of suffering and violence feels right to people because the people subjected to those conditions deserve it due to their actions.

If teaching someone job skills while having them study ethics with Chidi in the evenings helps make someone less likely to reoffend, then I think that’s clearly the path we should take, because punishment for punishment’s sake isn’t ethical.

−7

Unrealistic_actress t1_j88qaxw wrote

I've been reading through some of these thoughts and you raise some interesting questions. I feel if we gave out say books on moral philosophy that based on this thought experiment could reform someone completely, then we should require it in schools. Or even required therapy. Or both. Why even wait for a crime happen? (Not sure if you've answered this in another reply.)

Sexual crimes are a touchy subject for me because it hits close to home. So forgive me if I disappear from this discussion.

3

empfindsamkeit t1_j86gn1g wrote

About the same as it is now. Punishment, deterrent, and a timeout period that prevents reoffense. And yes, prison does serve as a major deterrent for most people. It's merely that among the people it does not deter, it's not a question of scale - i.e. making it harsher does not succeed in deterring the undeterred.

In the future it may be possible to offer some alternative form of punishment like an implant that delivers some sort of medication to reduce aggression/sex drive, or at least something that allows police to not only track them but visually check in on them periodically, or perhaps have an audio receiver that a victim can yell for help from.

What we have now is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. But going easier on them is probably going to hurt more than it helps. It can be hard enough to catch and convict criminals the first time (particularly for rape). Giving them 1 or more freebies just makes it so much harder.

11

chi_type t1_j86i2kq wrote

Most rapists already get at least one freebie. Rape is very rarely successfully prosecuted and receiving jail time is even rarer. 25 out of 1000 rapists will be incarcerated.

Perhaps a different approach would get the justice system to do ANYTHING about it.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

9

empfindsamkeit t1_j86iabo wrote

Then we're talking about freebies upon freebies. Even if it's particularly heinous and you're caught dead to rights, we're going to let you off with a warning and some counseling.

3

chi_type t1_j86you3 wrote

You should look into what restorative justice actually involves. It's not probation or a suspended sentence. It's nothing like what you're describing. First of all - victim involvement and discretion is a key part of the process.

−1

empfindsamkeit t1_j87ae37 wrote

Ah, well the good news then is that victims can already do that in many cases either by not reporting the crime, not pressing charges, or declining to testify, and they could hold that over the perpetrator's head to get them to meet and talk things out. And if they need government force to get the perpetrator to sit down with them then I dunno why you'd think they were being sincere in their contrition in that case. But I'd wager the vast, vast majority of victims want nothing to do with it and so it's all moot.

1

chi_type t1_j893tj1 wrote

Okay I see you still didn't look into what it actually involves. Never mind I guess

0

empfindsamkeit t1_j89sefq wrote

Or you could summarize. I don't just read about any random topic someone puts in front of me without being at least somewhat sold on it first. It doesn't seem like anyone else knows what it actually involves either because everyone is just linking random websites and telling you to "look into it". No thanks.

1

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j86i3xr wrote

If your position is that the raison d’etre of addressing an exhibited criminal activity is to prevent re-offense, then we’re in full agreement. If your major concern is that re-offense may still occur because of our imperfect knowledge, that’s where we can research which approaches are statistically more likely to result in reducing recidivism, and I can agree with that.

For any class of offenses, we should take the approach that most probably reduces both the rate of reoffence by the individual and reduces the incidence of that offense socially. I would agree to that.

0

eamus_catuli t1_j86qw8u wrote

I was going to reply to you upthread in the specific comment thread we were having, but instead will reply here.

I agree with much of what you've been saying throughout this comment thread. I think that we're probably about 75% in agreement about the goals of and preferred approaches to criminal justice.

Two areas where I suspect we differ slightly:

  1. I do see some utility in retribution besides simple restoration of "karmic" or "cosmic" balance.

Whereas I agree with you that on a personal scale, I don't find much utility in punishing so as to "balance scales" or what have you, I also understand that you and I are in a distinct minority. Particularly among the Abrahamic religions (which comprise an overwhelming majority of both the global and U.S. populations), retribution is integral to the concept of criminal justice in those belief systems. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that a criminal justice system - a political creation - will reflect the beliefs of a majority of a given population's members, it should do so. For failure to do so leads to the pervasive sense that the justice system doesn't work which leads to both a) more criminality; and b) all manner of vigilantism and lawlessness.

In other words, it's important that we change people's beliefs about criminal justice first, THEN we change criminal justice.

  1. An area which, IMHO, you are overlooking is the fourth goal of criminal justice. You referred to three upthread (a great comment, BTW), but in my criminal justice studies I was always taught four - with the fourth being general deterrence: the notion that it's important for a society to signal at-large that crime will be punished, and specific crimes will be punished in a specific way.

So while you've been talking a lot about recidivism, or preventing specific criminals from re-offending, there is a view that the justice system should seek to avoid offending in the first place by sending such clear signals.

I'll concede that the justice system shouldn't be the primary method through which we seek to prevent crime from happening in the first place. We should focus on root causes of crime: economic inequalities and deprivations, substance abuse, child abuse, mental health problems, etc., even beyond - into the newer scientific frontiers of understanding the human brain and genetic predispositions to various biological traits that might correlate with criminality.

However, that doesn't mean that we should exclude from the criminal justice system the objective of preventing crime in the first place. It can and should be part of a multi-faceted approach that includes the aforementioned societal changes. Because while the empirical evidence shows that severity of punishment does not reduce criminality, the prospect that criminality will be apprehended and punished does appear effective at reducing it.

In other words, giving people "Get out of jail free" cards, by which we completely forego privation of liberty in lieu of therapeutic methods could, and likely would result in increased criminality. It simply wouldn't be seen as a real punishment.

7

empfindsamkeit t1_j86jucv wrote

I think your approach rests on the assumption that rapes happen almost by accident. That they don't really know better. Everyone is inherently good or wants to be good, and some just stray from the path. If they were confronted with their victim's pain and you explained why it was wrong, they'll have an epiphany and refrain from doing it again. I think by and large they already know how wrong it is and they just don't care. Some perfunctory counseling isn't going to change their disposition, any more than "a better education system" is going to teach conspiracy theorists "critical thinking" skills that disabuse them of their beliefs. Something inside them is just fundamentally broken and it's probably beyond our abilities to fix right now.

Now, if you want to argue for some kind of early intervention system I think that'd be a great idea. Trying to predict and treat these kinds of behaviors in schoolkids before they crystallize could be worthwhile.

4

_Psilo_ t1_j86wscz wrote

I don't know if assumptions on psychology or philosophy are particularly important here. What that other poster mentioned, and I agree with them, is studies that show stats on recidivism and whether they support that approach or not.

2

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j874ina wrote

The approach that most probably reduces recidivism and reoffence rate is elimination. It’s the most hardline and brutal approach, but also the most effective. It likely wouldn’t be accepted or legalized in most modern legal systems, but I also doubt that American society in general is prepared to enact change based on the best available research, at least not in the current generations.

1

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j8753pt wrote

What do you think the overall cultural effect of that would be? Has capital punishment been broadly applied historically, and what was the environment like at the time?

2

SuperSaiyanCockKnokr t1_j878rra wrote

Capital punishment and what we call murder today have, in certain contexts, been norms in many past societies and cultures. There’s so much complexity in how these traditions and systems developed that hypotheticals, though intriguing, often produce results that don’t really make sense in the real world. The cultural effect of the sudden introduction of hardline capital punishment here in the US would obviously be incredibly disruptive, riots in the streets and perhaps more. I can’t personally envision a society reliant on elimination that doesn’t eventually look like North Korea. But there’s always the possibility that future research indicates permanent removal or destruction (either via death or transformation to the point that a person is so far-removed from their original self that the destruction of said person has essentially occurred) is the best option in certain cases, if not many. I like restorative justice as a concept and it’s encouraging to see places try out new systems, but I’m not sure there will ever be a time when long-term incarceration won’t be a part of it.

2

InternetCommentRobot t1_j87oaz2 wrote

Seems like a pretty heavy moral hazard here.

2

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j87podo wrote

I think it's important to remember that "moral hazard" is an economic theory, not a sociological one.

Nevertheless, both the Canadian government and the US Department of Justice have found it to be more effective than tradtional, strictly-punitive measures.

−1

InternetCommentRobot t1_j89plew wrote

I mean, it can apply. If I knew this was a codified system and I was poor I would just commit crime until I am caught and then show remorse if it happens. I get the benefit of the crime and the chance of not being caught at all and then if I do get caught I can just quit at no loss.

2

W4ffle3 t1_j855ami wrote

>If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area)

As a proof by contradiction, if robbery and burglary are not consequences of poverty, then I'd assume just as many rich teens would be robbing stores and breaking into cars as poor teens.

Last time I checked, rich teens are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens for burglary and robbery.

Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I'm not blind to how environments influence people and communities. I want to see the right balance struck.

1

pheisenberg t1_j858an3 wrote

Similarly, most poor teenagers don’t commit crimes, therefore poverty is not a sufficient cause of crime.

55

dern_the_hermit t1_j85bfrg wrote

That doesn't track. It's not like a light switch where there's just the two "crime" or "not crime" states. It's a matter of likelihood that someone will commit a crime, not a guarantee.

If the crime rate increases as economic standing decreases, that establishes a link between poverty and crime, there's no need for most of the group to be exhibiting the behavior.

2

pheisenberg t1_j88y149 wrote

The point is that there must be many other factors that tend to increase or decrease the likelihood someone will commit a crime, because their wealth is not a very good predictor of crime at all at the individual level.

4

dern_the_hermit t1_j8aceti wrote

> The point is that there must be many other factors

Exactly, which is why it's weird to see someone insist that most members of a group must exhibit the relevant behaviors to establish a connection. Crime is a complicated issue and remains opportunistic even when there is greater incentive to commit it, for instance.

1

SatanicNotMessianic t1_j85vvnm wrote

That’s not how statistical analysis of correlation works. If chewing tobacco causes oral cancer rates to soar by a factor of ten, it doesn’t matter if only 35% of chewing tobacco users get oral cancer.

2

pheisenberg t1_j88xt7w wrote

If your output variable is “#cancer in large population”, yes, an increase in tobacco use rate causes it to go up. I don’t think that’s true of crime, though. Not every recession causes a jump in crimes rates.

But I was talking about the output variable “Does person X commit a crime?” For that, most of the time poverty will not cause crime. There must be many other factors involved such as community relationships, opportunity, values, likelihood of going to prison, etc.

2

eamus_catuli t1_j85d5qg wrote

>Last time I checked, rich teens poor people are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens rich people for burglary and robbery white collar crime.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's rich person's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

OR

>Last time I checked, rich teens women are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens men for burglary and robbery sexual assault.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's man's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

Does your proof hold when the criminal is somebody who is a member of a group that you may not sympathize with?

11

W4ffle3 t1_j85e02e wrote

As a man, I sympathize with men 🥺

−6

eamus_catuli t1_j85j9iy wrote

OK, but do others who would ascribe to restorative justice? And what are the implications of that?

In other words, economic condition is only one of many factors that lead people to commit crime. Do we eschew jailing people generally for crimes related to these factors? Or only ones that we happen to sympathize with?

Should we eschew jailing somebody who scams little old grandmas out of their life savings because their parents never taught them empathy or impulse control? Should we, as a society be doing a better job teaching young people about empathy for others, selflessness, and controlling impulses, and therefore, nobody should be jailed for scamming grandmas until we figure out as a society how to do so?

8

[deleted] t1_j85bq2s wrote

[removed]

2

pohart t1_j85o15x wrote

True, but why bring it up here? It feels like you're trying to imply that these hypothetical kids are poor because they break into cars.

4

hostile65 t1_j87hzuk wrote

I mean. Let's say Kid A is poor, but spends their day inside playing video games, has a basic understanding of technology, still smokes some weed from time to time, like's to read and get's books and games to play from the library.

Now there is Kid B who is poor, but likes to spend his nights with a group of young men who like to break into places, steel cars, do drugs, get's arrested multiple times, etc.

Now say they both get a job at a fast food place. Kid A and their interests don't interfere too much with showing up on time and job duties.

Kid B misses days because they are dodging the cops, got injured from the hijinks, maybe spent the night in jail and was a no call no show for work.

Who do you think is going to do better in life and their career after 18 years old? Who do you want as your neighbor? Who is going to pay rent? Afford a kid and to help raise it properly?

If your hobby is "hood rat shit"/"meth head shit" with "hood rat friends"/"meth head friends" you will be poor.

3

MountainDuck t1_j8595jh wrote

Your counter assumes that counterfactually they would be arrested at the same rates if they were doing the same actions. If they are not in fact arrested at the same rates even if they are doing the same actions, the counter doesn't go through.Using arrest rates only works if we ignore differential application of the law itself (and as my philosophy of law, and logic, classes get to learn, empirical evidence fully shows that the law is not applied equally across demographics 🤷🏼‍♂️)

1

Alphaplague t1_j8e5991 wrote

Once restoritive justice figures out how to bring people back from the dead, it might be relevant in this case.

1

AwesomeBrainPowers t1_j8e8i4l wrote

That’s only a relevant criticism if imprisoning someone did resurrect their victim.

1

risingstanding t1_j8769eq wrote

Exactly. Victims don't choose the criminal's punishment. That's already in place.

10

cologne_peddler t1_j882umn wrote

Both of the things she wouldn't support have been a detriment to society so

2

UltraMegaSloth t1_j8a1mmu wrote

Yeah I mean murderers need to go to prison, you can’t blame every action on the society you live in.

People suffer in cities that go too soft on crime, and murder is exceptionally heinous.

2