7 ms·

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 sy

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.

saas_co_de 9y ago
> exceedingly effective at dissuading the sort of people who designed and operate the system from committing crime More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal and only criminalize the activity of people not like them.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal This is true by definition. Anyway, what sort of violent crime do you propose to legalize?
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    Here is one that is fraught where I live - disciplining children with a smack. Many people think hitting children in a disciplinary context should be legal.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Hitting or smacking? Smacks are a very limited subset of hits.
    - bradknowles 9y ago
      How do you define a “smack” versus a “hit”?
      - stordoff 9y ago
        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.
        ygaf 9y ago
        What is more wrong - 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.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        You don't. All forms of hitting children are abusive.
        dane-pgp 9y ago
        Shouting at, or ignoring, children is also (emotionally) abusive. Should we lock up parents who ever act in one of those ways towards their children? Also, what about when children hit their siblings, or their parents, or their class mates? I don't think that locking these children up is conducive to their welfare either.
      - lostlogin 9y ago
        If one does neither it doesn’t matter.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Bar brawls between consenting adults.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      It'd be interesting to see how often the state presses assault charges without much participation from one of the parties involved.
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
        Not often unless they already have a reason to target the person (repeat offender, wanted for another crime they can't prove, etc). I remember being in Texas and seeing on the news how a guy shot another guy in a bar and they were not prosecuting because the person who was shot was not pressing charges, but that's Texas.
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    > 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?
    - throwaway894345 9y ago
      Manslaughter and murder are already criminalized, at least in the United States. Where do you live?
      - saas_co_de 9y ago
        How many executives and board members of companies manufacturing opiate pain killers (to give only one example) have you seen charged with manslaughter recently?
        refurb 9y ago
        Well considering drug companies aren't the one who prescribe the drug, I'd be shocked to see many of them in prison. Doctor's, on the other hand, have been sent to prison for out of control prescribing of opioids.
      - tehwebguy 9y ago
        Sure but parent mentioned things that are virtually un-prosecutable.
weberc2 9y ago
To play devil's advocate, maybe the system is very, very good as evidenced by all of the people who aren't running around committing crimes. In other words, survivorship bias.
- olavk 9y ago
  To verify if this is the case, you should compare incarceration rate and crime rate with otherwise similar countries.
singlow 9y ago
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.
- splitrocket 9y ago
  Yes, true. So, in order to improve the system and reduce crime, you need to understand those who are currently not effectively deterred. More of the same is not going to work if you hope to improve outcomes.
  - Anon1096 9y ago
    But you don't want people who currently aren't committing crimes to begin doing so. Who's to say that the current deterred subset of the population won't begin to commit crimes if our style of punishment is changed?
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      That seems to start from the assumption that everyone would commit crime if they could.
      - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
        They specifically referred to the "deterred subset" ... which is much smaller then "everyone". In any case, the parent's point seemed pretty empty. > Who's to say that the current deterred subset of the population won't begin to commit crimes if our style of punishment is changed? This is what research is for. We may never know what is optimal in an absolute sense, but we can figure out some relative costs/benefits of different approaches to problems and choose our tradeoffs appropriately.
- WhitneyLand 9y ago
evgen 9y ago
In the minds of many people the purpose of the system is not entirely to deter crime; some criminals will not be deterred and the secondary purpose of the system is to segregate such people from society by placing them into little boxes until the system decides they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.
- splitrocket 9y ago
  So are you saying that the solution is to lock up these people for life? Because I hope that’s not what you are saying.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    You hope that’s not what the commenter is saying, but what is your proposal instead? We can put significant effort into understanding criminals, for the purposes of both preemptive treatment and reactive rehabilitation, but this is not likely to eradicate crime. What do you suppose we should do with criminals who continue to commit violent or disruptive crimes in perpetuity? To clarify, I think the system could improve: extremely long sentences may not need to be issued for first time offenders, even if they are very serious. But I don’t think the system can remove permanent sentences if criminals exhibit a clear predilection that is resistent to all known forms of treatment.
    - splitrocket 9y ago
      http://www.swiftcertainfair.com http://www.swiftcertainfair.com Been studied, replicated, and thoroughly tested. It’s just one option as well. There are many many more.
      - dsacco 9y ago
        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.

saas_co_de 9y ago

> exceedingly effective at dissuading the sort of people who designed and operate the system from committing crime More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal and only criminalize the activity of people not like them.

weberc2 9y ago
> More like the people who designed and operate the system consider everything they do legal This is true by definition. Anyway, what sort of violent crime do you propose to legalize?
- lostlogin 9y ago
  Here is one that is fraught where I live - disciplining children with a smack. Many people think hitting children in a disciplinary context should be legal.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Hitting or smacking? Smacks are a very limited subset of hits.
  - bradknowles 9y ago
    How do you define a “smack” versus a “hit”?
    - stordoff 9y ago
      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.
      - ygaf 9y ago
        What is more wrong - 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.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      You don't. All forms of hitting children are abusive.
      - dane-pgp 9y ago
        Shouting at, or ignoring, children is also (emotionally) abusive. Should we lock up parents who ever act in one of those ways towards their children? Also, what about when children hit their siblings, or their parents, or their class mates? I don't think that locking these children up is conducive to their welfare either.
    - lostlogin 9y ago
      If one does neither it doesn’t matter.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Bar brawls between consenting adults.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    It'd be interesting to see how often the state presses assault charges without much participation from one of the parties involved.
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
      Not often unless they already have a reason to target the person (repeat offender, wanted for another crime they can't prove, etc). I remember being in Texas and seeing on the news how a guy shot another guy in a bar and they were not prosecuting because the person who was shot was not pressing charges, but that's Texas.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  > 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?
  - throwaway894345 9y ago
    Manslaughter and murder are already criminalized, at least in the United States. Where do you live?
    - saas_co_de 9y ago
      How many executives and board members of companies manufacturing opiate pain killers (to give only one example) have you seen charged with manslaughter recently?
      - refurb 9y ago
        Well considering drug companies aren't the one who prescribe the drug, I'd be shocked to see many of them in prison. Doctor's, on the other hand, have been sent to prison for out of control prescribing of opioids.
    - tehwebguy 9y ago
      Sure but parent mentioned things that are virtually un-prosecutable.

weberc2 9y ago

To play devil's advocate, maybe the system is very, very good as evidenced by all of the people who aren't running around committing crimes. In other words, survivorship bias.

olavk 9y ago
To verify if this is the case, you should compare incarceration rate and crime rate with otherwise similar countries.

singlow 9y ago

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.

splitrocket 9y ago
Yes, true. So, in order to improve the system and reduce crime, you need to understand those who are currently not effectively deterred. More of the same is not going to work if you hope to improve outcomes.
- Anon1096 9y ago
  But you don't want people who currently aren't committing crimes to begin doing so. Who's to say that the current deterred subset of the population won't begin to commit crimes if our style of punishment is changed?
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    That seems to start from the assumption that everyone would commit crime if they could.
    - oddlyaromatic 9y ago
      They specifically referred to the "deterred subset" ... which is much smaller then "everyone". In any case, the parent's point seemed pretty empty. > Who's to say that the current deterred subset of the population won't begin to commit crimes if our style of punishment is changed? This is what research is for. We may never know what is optimal in an absolute sense, but we can figure out some relative costs/benefits of different approaches to problems and choose our tradeoffs appropriately.
WhitneyLand 9y ago

evgen 9y ago

In the minds of many people the purpose of the system is not entirely to deter crime; some criminals will not be deterred and the secondary purpose of the system is to segregate such people from society by placing them into little boxes until the system decides they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.

splitrocket 9y ago
So are you saying that the solution is to lock up these people for life? Because I hope that’s not what you are saying.
- dsacco 9y ago
  You hope that’s not what the commenter is saying, but what is your proposal instead? We can put significant effort into understanding criminals, for the purposes of both preemptive treatment and reactive rehabilitation, but this is not likely to eradicate crime. What do you suppose we should do with criminals who continue to commit violent or disruptive crimes in perpetuity? To clarify, I think the system could improve: extremely long sentences may not need to be issued for first time offenders, even if they are very serious. But I don’t think the system can remove permanent sentences if criminals exhibit a clear predilection that is resistent to all known forms of treatment.
  - splitrocket 9y ago
    http://www.swiftcertainfair.com http://www.swiftcertainfair.com Been studied, replicated, and thoroughly tested. It’s just one option as well. There are many many more.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      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.