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 want to talk about one of the first points in this article.
I know this makes sense and has data backing it with regards to deterrence. But I want to talk about a vastly under-discussed part of incarceration, which is incapacitation.
As a bit of background, I am an attorney who has worked as a prosecutor as well as many other parts of the law over a mid sized career so far.
The argument about punishment is wrong, because the goal isn't just punishment, the goal is no more crimes by that specific individual during that specific time period that he/she is incarcerated. You see this most importantly IMO with people who are serial thieves. They will have an MO. Its either retail theft where they keep going to Macys and stealing something like perfume or $90 shirts, or they go into a grocery store and steal booze. Others have the MO of following Amazon trucks and hoovering up delivery boxes. The point is, often these people will have 3+ pending cases at once, then they take a plea, get a short sentence, then are back out thieving a year later, get 3 more cases, take a plea. Repeat for 30 years.
Prison can solve this problem. First, we can have legislatures eliminate sentences running concurrently for multiple offenses. Commit 3 thefts, get 1 year on each, that is 3 years instead of 1 (under the current system). Thats still a deal for the defendant because they are now facing a max of 18 instead of 6 years (or whatever the math is for your specific state). Second, bring back strikes laws. You do some time, next time you do more, third time there is release even if it is just nonviolent theft. These crimes do significantly impede the law and order of communities.
side note, this sort of pattern, while common with theft, is not only relating to theft. I have seen rap sheets where people have committed 5+ burglaries, went in for a year, then committed 3 more plus a kicker charge for drugs/guns and still got out in time to be back in court a year after that second sentencing. In fact, it even happens with violent crime. I recall one case where a person's rap sheet had over 5 armed robbery convictions on it within 5 years of being back in court on another armed robbery. This sort of sentencing structure defies anything resembling sanity.
So, my conclusion is that we probably need more policing as everyone generally suggests. Boots on the ground both deterring and investigating crime. BUT we also need people to just not being allowed back into society. At this point, mere incarceration is not enough. We also need to expedite the death penalty not just for murder and sex crimes, but for all common law crimes wherein the defendant has a previous felony common law conviction. This is a cost saving measure. The whole anti-death penalty bar needs to be put in a corner. There shouldn't even be sentencing hearings at some point. Just ask 12 people did this person commit this crime. If yes, 100 days later the defendant gets to walk the plank. Literally. We should also bring back public hangings to assuage the deterrence-inclined folks.
My God.
I am replying to my own post because as I read the article I continued to find more and more problems. This person has...essentially no grasp on the reality of the situation in criminal law. Are public defenders underfunded? Maybe. When compared to the states attorneys they are up against? Not at all. The SAs have to handle every case in a courtroom, and have the burden of proof. The PD handles about half that (and in the county I worked outnumbered the SA 3 to 1) and has no real job for most of the case. In the event of trial they review the same evidence (with almost no caseload) and only need to prevent the SA from overcoming an incredibly high bar of proof.
Juries and grand juries also make basically no sentencing decisions. Those are made by judges, who are mostly just attorneys who are good at raising money. I dont think that is partisan.
DAs are elected to be hard on crime? Does this guy live in reality? This happens from time to time, but in the most crime ridden jurisdictions the pendulum swings back and forth. Sometimes hard on crime is a winner politically, sometimes soft on crime is. Either way, because this is America, the Defendant wins if he wins at any part of the case.
Mass incarceration started in the 70s? You mean the same time the CRA was kicking in, communities were being destroyed by crime and the prelude to the coke epidemic was manifesting? You dont say.
I suppose the police union part is somewhat fine, but they are far less insidious than teachers unions in my experience. The sex crimes alone are enough to end those. But his argument is flawed by comparing it to NIMBYs. Police have clearly shown that the unions aren't the real problem, it is police haters that made the unions needed (also a good indicator is that it was the 70s when such people started to take power). If cops were able to billy club thieves and then hang them without facing litigation we could field many more for far cheaper. As it stands, they are afraid to arrest a guy who hit a stop sign with a bottle a Jose Cuervo in the back seat because a judge might find the arrest was improper.
Overall, I find this article linked to be incorrect from my personal experience as an attorney in a large major metropolitan area who has worked in criminal law.
It's anarcho-tyranny. They can't do that, but they can arrest a guy and threaten to send him to Riker's Island because he rode his bicycle on the sidewalk to avoid hitting a cop who stepped in front of him. And if you give cops more free reign, they'll do more of the latter because it's easier and safer than the former.
Yes. Effective policing runs the unavoidable risk of a copper billy-clubbing or shooting a black person on video. Then mainstream media covers it, college campuses and urban areas protest over it, and our streaming services make movies, shows, and documentaries about it. Then Democrats swoop in like heroes to implement policy that will kneecap law enforcement, and the societal burden of impulsive criminals will shift back to law abiding citizens, a lot of whom voted for Democrats in the first place.
That said, I blame our media apparatus and academics far more than I blame Democrats. Dems generally just lick their finger and stick it in the air to see which way the cultural wind is blowing and they position their sails accordingly. Journalists, on the other hand, dedicate their lives to exposing unfairness; except the unfairness they uncover almost exclusively involves the kind that benefits their belief that current power systems must be dismantled. What they rarely consider is the new unfairness that emerges when their version of justice is implemented. When equity replaces order the burden doesn’t vanish, it just gets redistributed and usually onto the very people who can't afford to carry it.
I agree with you and one consolation is that print media is dying and with it a whole cohort of left wing journos who no longer have a livelihood. There’s fewer and fewer each year, and That’s a Good Thing
As an aside, does anyone else remember when in 2019 you could get banned on Twitter for telling a journalist to learn to code? Ahhh memories
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