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 -
I linked an ACX article a couple times. It's a good overview. If you disagree with it I would love to know why.
I should be more clear: harsher punishment is not a deterent. Getting caught and punished generally is a deterent. Increasing a sentence is not. That makes sense for many reasons (criminals are worse at risk management, passionate crimes, crimes of opportunity where the criminal doesn't believe he will be caught, social pressures).
I agree that putting criminals in prison is the best way to prevent crime.
Cost and benefit is in terms of society as whole. It isn't free to punish people, just as it isn't free to repair a road. It costs money to detain people, or otherwise punish them. It costs money to have a police force and arrest people. Crime also costs money. The simple way of framing it: does it cost society more money to detain a criminal (easier to calculate), or deal with their crime (very difficult to calculate)? That's a cold calculus, but it's a starting point. I think you would agree that punishment clearly has diminishing returns after a certain point. Locking someone up for minor theft for 20 years costs more money than the theft is worth.
If I may, you’re giving the 101 argument which many people here already know and have moved past. Wlxd has very likely read that ACX article, and still thinks prison sentences should be increased. I’m a utilitarian and I agree. Forget deterrence, just incapacitate as much and as cheaply as possible. It is more expensive to catch & try more criminals to give them small sentences than to simply increase the sentences on those already processed.
The marginal extra year in prison of violent offenders costs society far less than the crimes they would commit during that time. And that's despite our incapacitation method costing society far more than it should. We should bring back marooning, penal colonies and exile.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I can believe that increasing a sentence from 5 to 20 years might not have a huge effect on people who commit the kinds of crimes that get you 5 years in prison, but I don't see it as relevant. First, it's good for the victims to inflict more retribution on criminals, and second, as the ACX article you mention clearly shows, it would prevent a lot of future crime too.
Yes, and the cost of crime in American society is tremendous. It's so high, in fact, that it would be extremely hard for government spending on crime prevention to come even close to it. We actually spend trivial amounts of money on law enforcement and justice system.
There are diminishing returns, but whether they exceed the cost in your 20 years for minor theft example is far from obvious. In fact, the way you phrase it, comparing the cost of imprisonment to just the direct cost of the theft, suggests that you either don't understand the arguments being made, or are trying to pull a fast one. You also need to include in the benefits column things like crime prevented by incapacitating for 20 years the kind of a person who'd engage in petty theft even when it risks 20 years in jail. That kind of a person is highly likely to cause enough violence, property damage, and cost to the system to make up for the 20 years of imprisonment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link