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 -
Realize that “Homicide” and “parking tickets “ are representative of heavier and lighter forms of criminal behaviour respectively.
The data is all over the place on this police/prison ratio. If you go by homicide rate, the US is not spending nearly enough on prison.
One thing missing in this discussion is the cost of judging them, which are major costs the ‘catch a few and pound’ strategy is supposed to alleviate. Seems pointless to go through the trouble of making sure they’re guilty if they’re not going to be punished/incapacitated anyway. ‘if it weren’t for the lawyers, old boy, we wouldn’t need lawyers’.
Don't you have ways of figuring that out? The answer is Yes.
What data are you referring to?
I am really not sure what you are trying to say. What, precisely, are you saying the US should spend more money on, and why?
But isn't "catch a few and pound" precisely what you are advocating when you say, "it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime, and not enough actually punishing"? And I am skeptical that, in a system in which something like 98% of convictions are via plea bargains, the cost of judicial proceedings is all that high.
More murders (higher homicide rate) should equal more time spent in prison (therefore higher prison costs, in a rich society squeamish about the death penalty). Accordingly, all else equal the US should spend 6 times more of its gdp on incarceration than western europe (instead of 0.5% : 0.2%, 2.5 : 1). Policing is a separate issue. I am arguing for longer sentences, which does not require more police. As Gary Becker says: “maximize the fine and minimize surveillance. “
I see. I misunderstood and thought when you said " it’s clear we spend too much resources monitoring and judging crime," that you meant we spend too much on policing.
Why 6x more? As I understand it, US crime rate other than homicide isn't that much higher than those countries, and homicide arrests make up a very small percentage of violent crime, let alone all crime.
I think the comparison is fairer if you just take europe's big four : germany 0.8 france 1.3 UK 1.1 italy 0.5 compared to US 6.4 , hence the approximation six to one.
Due to it being precisely recorded, as well as its inherent larger impact than other forms (loss of life), homicide rate is a good proxy for the damage crime as a whole inflicts on a society.
I still don't get where you get 6-1.
Homicide rate might well be a good proxy for the damage caused by society. but what does that have to do with how much it costs to incarcerate those convicted of homicide, versus those convicted of other crimes?
Average out the numbers (0.8 + 1.3 + 1.1 + 0.5) / 4 = 0.925 . Then 6.4/ 0.925 was appromixated to 6 to 1. You could weigh the big 4's values by population, but they're pretty close, and then 6.4/ 0.925 is in fact far closer to 7 to 1, but I try to approximate to my opponent's benefit for good faith.
If damage amount X (correlated to homicide rates) is inflicted on a society, it should correspond to Y years in prison. And X/6 should result in Y/6 years in prison.
But I don't understand why you are averaging those numbers.
If the US incarcerates 600 murderers per 100,000 people and France incarcerates 100 murderers per 100,000 people, the cost of incarceration in the US will NOT be 6x the cost in France, unless the US also incarcerates 6X as many robbers and other felons. It will be higher, but not 6X higher.
Eg: This says that in 2019 (I am skipping 2020 because I don't know how COVID releases affected the numbers) 163,000 of 1.2 million prisoners were in jail for non-negligent homicide. Were the homicide numbers only 27,000 (1/6), the total would still be 1,060,000. So the hypothetical US with the same murder rate as France spends only 13% more, not 6X as much.
But I said homicide rate was a proxy for crime as a whole, and you appeared to accept that. That means for every murder there are close to 20 rapes, 35 aggravated assaults, etc , all else equal, in both france and the US. Therefore 6x the incarceration.
Now the US does not have a recorded 6 times the rate of rape (and assault etc) of the big four (it's 2x for rape) but as I said those numbers are far less reliable than homicide numbers . A more violent society might have a less expansive defintion of rape and assault than a less violent one, and the people in it might report less crimes etc, while there is no way to fudge the numbers on homicide, so that ratio is privileged. That’s the argument. However, as the recorded ratio is nowhere near 6x on the other crimes, I grant that 6x criminality, therefore 6x the incarceration costs, might be too much.
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