This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Crime has a very easy and effective solution to it that is known to every civilization: ruthless and immediate enforcement of the law. Delinquents need to be beaten, murderers and rapists need to be hanged, and it all needs to happen as swiftly as possible so as to impress the right connection in the mind of the criminal between the illegal act and the punishment. Criminals need to fear the law as a basis for civilization.
Once you have this basic thing done, you then encounter the two long lasting problems: organized crime and impulsive deviants.
The former is almost impossible to squash totally but can be negotiated with and restrained to specific areas of life (and actually help make law enforcement more practical in some cases).
The latter is the more ugly side of it because if you want to have civilization, the only answer to it is ostracism or death. Some people are functionally incapable of participating in society, and they need to be taken out of it or it ceases to exist.
Now it is not nice to have to face the reality that some people cannot participate in society, that there is such a thing as savages, it's almost unfathomable to Liberal ideology that axiomatically models the individual as a rational educated bourgeois from the 1800s.
But crime as a phenomenon is real, in the sense that it's still there even if you refuse to believe in it. That one guy will reach for a cop's gun in the middle of a precinct because his mind is incapable of connecting fucking around with finding out.
Older Liberals recognized this reality and made some dispensations for it. They just failed to integrate it properly into their ideology and now the logical conclusion of their political formula (helped along by its opponents of course) ends up at absurdities like the idea that the pathological criminal is a victim of society existing, and that we should therefore dismantle society. Conveniently forgetting that in the resulting state, he visits horror upon the innocent.
They deserve to be excluded from society. Because mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
If you are a violent creature who can't be reasoned with, you are more like a tiger than a human in moral terms, and should be treated as such. Do dangerous animals deserve to be locked behind bars? Perhaps not, but we don't let them feast on human flesh because we don't extend the same moral community to them as we do innocent human life.
OK, to be super explicit:
Yes, this would be ideal if it could be accomplished on exactly the terms that you lay out.
The obvious problem (and come on folks, you're not really this dumb not to get this) is that if you empower any actual institution composed of human beings with the ability to quickly hang criminals, then control of that institution becomes a key locus of power which ends up being used, as power always does, to take spoils and entrench itself. This is such a recurring pattern in historical record as to be a meme -- oh, look, the body for public safety turning to infighting and executing its founding members -- lol.
This is especially true when building a machinery that can then be turned around when someone decide that "hate speech" is now criminal and starts sending journalists and others to jail (happening right now over the.pond) or whatever-it-is-they-are-on-about-today.
Look, I'm not actually here to preach soft on crime bullshit or to suggest that punishment should be slow or that criminals shouldn't fear the law. But things are the way they are for a very good reason. This isn't even a plausibly-useless fence! It's a fence coated in innumerable layers of blood.
Of course. This is essentially impossible to prevent. Power cannot be destroyed. And it's always absolute, however many lies it hides itself behind.
I am simply demanding that whoever holds power act as a responsible steward and punish criminals. A sovereign that doesn't have the power or inclination to do so deserves to be deposed. Which is why many a dysfunctional democracy turn to dictatorship. Not in a tragic bout of madness, but in a quite pragmatic demand for a ruler, any ruler, that will take his basic duties seriously.
If the political system of your nation is designed so as to prevent the consolidation of power to a degree that it becomes impossible to rule, then it is ripe for a coup.
Americans should know this, since this is how their constitution was instituted, in exactly this kind of a coup against the articles of confederation.
That's not quite true. Power cannot be destroyed, but the utility of power is, at some point, super-linear and so dispersal of power functions in practice to dampen and diminish it. This was figured out (at least) as early as the Roman Republic.
Moreover, power can be bound up into systems of formal ritual and circumstance that act as a similar dampener. Again, the Romans stumbled upon this, as did many other effective ruling structures. Even in absolute rule, the emperor would exercise it from a specific place and in a specific manner.
And likewise I am demanding that whoever holds power also refrains from using it against the innocent and, in particular, against threats to their political power.
These are not incompatible goals, but you're kind of glossing over the insane difficulty of it. Creating a system that punishes the guilty and not the innocent with any kind of accuracy/speed and that is resistant to corruption remains an unsolved problem. You're posting here saying "I demand they do it" doesn't actually solve anything.
Of course, within the three goals of accuracy/speed/fidelity, there is a tradeoff margin, and it's totally fair to say "they should prioritize X over Y or Z over X". But that doesn't appear (?) to be the case.
It is better to be unruled than to fall into dictatorship (or worse). I'm reminded of the last part of this book review in terms of the tradeoffs between ungovernability and ability to slip into collective psychosis.
It was "figured out" by every republican form of government and subsequently refuted every single time by circumstance. As in the case of the Roman Republic which died precisely out of a need to split power which necessarily coalesced interest onto two rival factions with no choice but escalation, ultimately leading to a winner take all struggle and a return to monarchy that neither side wanted.
It turns out however fancy your rituals are, the incentives of consolidation are simply stronger.
Republics try to pretend that they can bound power in ritual. But a keen observer of their inner workings will notice that this is a sham. In the state of exception, they act as arbitrarily and beyond the spirit of their own rules as the most temperamental of personal tyrants.
I'd like to remind everyone we personally witnessed this a few years ago.
I'm tempted to point to the obvious that this place doesn't capture the sum total of my political action.
But if you understand how power works you know that making this demand often and publicly is the only way to get a good ruler if you are not an elite yourself.
The mistreated masses cannot solve this problem. They need a counter elite to form and their best bet is therefore to loudly advertise that they will pledge undying loyalty to their would be saviour. I believe this is called "populism".
But I understand your objection is that I'm not engaging in the liberal game of making sophisticated chains for the State.
All I can really tell you is that it is a fool's errand because the nature of power escapes all such chains, that the separation of powers is a myth that has never been instantiated, that politics revolves around group coalitions, not rituals, that every single political regime ever is a totalitarianism in waiting and that you'd understand this if you had considered politics as it is instead of how it ought to be.
Freedom is not to be found in establishing lasting rules to constrain power, it is found in the cracks that exist when it has no need to consolidate itself at one's expense.
A secure ruler can be far less tyrannical than a feckless one. Consider, for instance, how the gridlock of the US parliamentary system has reemerged as vast executive power and legislation from the bench, the total opposite of the intention. Meanwhile laissez faire is a maxim coined under absolutism.
I don't mean to imply that I hate republics. They are perfectly serviceable. But their political formula is fiction, in no less true a sense as divine right is. Acting as if setting up rules will change political reality is a kind of magical thinking. As above, so below. But that's not how it works. It's the incentives and the people that matter ultimately, not the written rules.
This is simply not true and the only way you can even have this opinion is because you have never set foot in true lawlessness.
I beg you to actually visit a country that is experiencing it, as I have, and you will see what manner of horrors humanity can produce when it is left to mob rule. I hear Libya is nice at this time of year.
Not that the desirability of government is a matter of any import, since it's restoration is inevitable. Feudal rulers start out as successful bandits after all. But chaos can last for a while, and I happen to value my life and property, so the maintenance of public order is a concern.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is that what is also happening right now is rapists being let off with a slap on the wrist, so I don't quite see how being soft on crime is supposed to protect anyone from this.
I think you are conflating being soft on crime in a policy sense (e.g. some knob that increases or decreases the relative punishment) and adopting procedural guardrails (e.g. some knob that tradeoff accuracy(x)specificity).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with that approach is that it will quickly become incompatible with liberal democracy when the swift and ruthless standard is applied with political motivation.
Consider how Jan 6 would have worked out in your system of ruthless efficiency: likely either Trump has Pence arrested, convicted and hanged for subverting an election before sundown, or he himself is hanged for treason. (And no, you can't separate political and non-political trials reliably. The best you might do is to have summary justice for commoners (presumed non-political) and some refined justice system for nobles.)
The stable configuration for your efficient system of punishment is some kind of autocratic regime. This is why in the legal system of western democracies, swift efficiency was not the primary design goal. There is a reason why the designers of the US constitution (and subsequently the SCOTUS) were so big on procedural checks. It is not because they were having too much sympathy for murderers.
As H.L. Mencken said:
--
Also, you say about organized crime:
I tend to disagree. Sure, if the law prohibits something which is very popular, such as drugs, gambling or prostitution, then trying to stop can be practically impossible. But just turning a blind eye to the mob's enterprises hardly seems like an adequate solution. I mean, it works fine for the upper crust of society, who are unlikely to frequent harsh gambling dens, be sex workers or consume impure drugs.
A better approach would be to legalize and regulate the vices which society can stomach (likely prostitution), and crack down hard on the vices it can not (e.g. snuff movies).
This simply isn't true historically, except for very loose definitions of "quickly" or "liberal democracy".
Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and the Englishmen of that era were hardcore believers in law and order and in a standard of liberal democracy that is much stronger than what you probably mean.
The missing ingredient isn't lenience. On the contrary, speedy execution of laws makes everyone know where they stand and political participation an important and sacred part of life, since it has tangible effects on your life.
What it's incompatible with is managerialism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's an obvious third problem.
I too am failing to see the obvious third problem.
Speak plainly, not with these snide, low-effort jabs that you've been warned about repeatedly now.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm real dumb, can you tell me what the obvious third problem is so I feel less dumb?
More options
Context Copy link
If you've something to say, please say it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hence the right to a SPEEDY trial.
The reason the average trial takes so long to commence is defendant delay. If you shoot a clerk at 7/11 and get picked up that day. You'll be charged by tomorrow, in bond court the day after, indicted and arraigned within 30 days, and the prosecution will be ready for trial in 60. But your public defender (because lets be honest you dont have and cant keep a real job) wont be. And you will flirt with a private attorney half a dozen times. And they will lose the discovery the state already gave them and demand the same video surveillance 10x before trying to get you to plea, and you will flirt with said plea for 3 years before demanding a trial that you will lose. But now it will be a big pain for everyone because the murder detective retired to Florida and all the 7/11 employees who used to maintain that video system now work for wal mart on the other side of the state.
If the perp gets picked up the same day, why can't he be tried the same day? It sounds like an optimization problem. Maybe you need a drawn-out trial for something like homicide, but for shoplifting you could have a streamlined sentencing center:
It's still a lot of time wasted on the jury trial (just 4 cases per jury each day), but hopefully most crimes will be done at the first step, which takes only 2 hours per crime.
By the time they guy is arrested and booked our officer and store clerk are probably on hour 10 of their shift. You want them to hang out for another 2 for some sort of preliminary hearing, then another 3 for a jury trial (where are these jurors coming from, and who is doing voir dire by the way?).
No, they just submit their testimonies and leave. The recorded versions are used during the quicktrial.
The jury comes from the same place all other jurors come from, voter rolls? As for voir dire, do you mean juror selection? Whichever assistant attorney and public defender are the first to arrive in the morning can do this.
Do you want speedy trials or not? Because the alternative is Cousin Wang and his merry gang disincentivizing theft on their turf by breaking bones.
I would think no defense counsel would agree to basically any of your plan.
Why should anyone ask them? I'm talking about a judicial reform, is it a federal legislative matter or a state legislative matter?
Its a constitutional law matter
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You've denied the perp the right to a lawyer, instead turning his case over to someone who gets his paychecks from the same place the prosecutor (and the judge and the jailers) get them.
Who do public defenders get their paychecks from right now?
Same place; the system is a farce.
Even a public defender trying his middle in the system described (finances aside) would not agree to the system proposed. On call PDs dont currently exist. Their job is, on average, super easy, but from time to time they can actually do good and get an innocent person acquitted, and that takes a lot of time. Maybe some woman's wife is dead and he hated her, but establishing the alibi takes months. This is uncommon, but exists.
More options
Context Copy link
Still miles better than an NKVD trojka.
I'm pretty sure they use a Makarov, not a Trojka.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link