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 -
Deterrence is one philosophical justification of punishment (i.e. we are causing harm--punishment--in order to achieve a benefit; how do we describe that benefit? Deterrence answers "by making future harmful acts less likely."). It comes in two flavors: general and specific. General deterrence might be thought of punishment as an example to others: "do this bad act, and this is what you'll get." Specific deterrence is the effect of that message on the person punished.
Incapacitation is another philosophical justification, though it answers the same question above with "make it impossible for the punished person to repeat his bad act." Incapacitation can be temporary (imprisonment is the most common example) or permanent (execution, similarly).
Putting a bullet in the back of someone's head certainly meets the terms of permanent incapacitation and specific deterrence. It may also produce general deterrence, though the best evidence in this area tends to suggest that higher certainty of punishment is more effective than higher severity.
Recidivism is a measure of the failure rate of specific deterrence. If that failure rate is unacceptably high, then changes should be made (and will be made, extra-judicially if necessary in the long run). The famous "three strikes" laws were demanded and enacted by the public in response to an earlier era's judgment that prisons were functioning as revolving doors, and criminals were neither deterred nor incapacitated from committing rather a lot of crime, even after being caught and prosecuted.
(Other justifications not mentioned above include retribution and rehabilitation. Even though a particular type of punishment might fit a justification, there is still the weighing of the costs of punishment vs. the benefit produced. Executing jaywalkers is certainly one form of incapacitation, but the benefit is slight and the cost very large.)
Arguably retribution is just another form of deterrence, except this time the state is deterring the victims' friends and relatives from taking revenge on criminals (likely to get out of hand when it's a personal beef) by carrying out a more measured form of revenge.
Niether the friends of the victim nor the friends of the perpetrator are happy with the state's decision, but in both cases just enough punishment and just enough fairness has been shown that no one is going to risk jail to fill the gap in justice which the state has left.
While this is an excellent rationale for the criminal justice system generally, retribution and deterrence are distinct. Deterrence justifications are consequentialist--they are focused on reducing future bad events. Retribution justifications are deontological--a criminal deserves punishment for his crime, and the purpose of the justice system is to make a best effort towards matching punishment to crime. A particular policy or type of punishment could be supported by either or both justifications, but they are fundamentally different rationales.
That said, you're correct that the point of the criminal justice system is to replace ad hoc vigilante justice with an orderly system run by disinterested parties.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link