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 am very confused by your point, even after going back to read the essay to see if I didn't remember it clearly. You say it was clear what the judge was doing - what, exactly, was she doing? It isn't clear to me that she had any sort of plan or agenda, she simply changed her mind when asked. And in that light, the rest of the essay makes perfect sense. You say he was missing the point, but as far as I can see there was no point to be missed. All he could do was speculate why she changed her mind so suddenly.
Yes, that was largely Meshkout's take as well. I believe it's a failure of theory of mind to chalk it up to randomness or whimsy, and it was obvious to me what her likely thinking entailed.
Meshkout's eleven words was an unusual request--as Dean says above, signaling through exceptional effort. The judge decided to take it seriously, as a test of Meshkout's credibility and judgment--that it wasn't a last-ditch effort at empty posturing on behalf of a client that didn't deserve it. The correct lesson to draw from the situation is to use that request--or similar--in cases where you are sincerely trying to prevent a miscarriage of justice and not use it in other cases. It's an opportunity to preserve the integrity of the signal.
In light of this, the essay's response of "it was so random, what can it mean" was intensely frustrating.
I don't think you're completely off-base, but seems like Meshkout was taken aback because for that moment the assembly-line nature of the process stopped and some attention was given to one case in particular and he was actually able to change the state of this machine, where before he was a semi-helpless cog that simply chugged along with it.
The power to convince a judge to drop a sentence from 180 days to 2 shouldn't be based on the vehemence of the attorney making the request.
The legal system isn't supposed to consider the, I guess, 'honor' or reputation of the defense attorney when rendering judgment. So while perhaps the Judge was indeed signalling her willingness to extend leniency in cases where the attorney credibly believes it to be justified, it is still weird that simply asking such a question can completely reverse an outcome like that.
By default, in practical terms, a defense attorney who claims "this situation is different, please treat my client more leniently than the norm" has zero credibility. Everyone else involved has been around the block enough times to know that this is almost always reading from the defense attorney script, and probably has no relevance to this particular situation. It's not even lying, exactly, because the defense attorney has no expectation of being believed.
So when it's (arguably) true, the defense attorney has a problem. In this case, Meshkout tried to signal sincerity by pushing past the script, asking for lenience past the point where "normally" a defense attorney would just take the L. The judge noticed, and took the risk that it was a true signal, not just yet another defense attorney coming up with yet another shred of credibility to burn.
In direct terms, no, but that's not exactly the point. Actors in the legal system have some level of discretion (like the judge, here), and they are supposed to use that discretion in the interests of justice. This case is about communication--how can an actor with no credibility signal sincerity? Usually, he can't. In this case, Meshkout found a solution that might work in the future if it's not misused.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is a really bizarre interpretation to me. You're basically saying that the judge went "you asked enough times so I'll let you win". But that is an idiotic way to behave. I don't really think that a person qualified enough to be a judge would act in such a bizarre and irrational way.
No, it’s not about “enough times,” but about signaling sincerity. The magic incantation was the opportunity, not an obligation, for a judge to act on ymeshkout’s apparent belief in the client.
The judge’s role is not to be adversarial, but to ensure the best outcome of such hearings. The flight risks should be restrained and the reliable should be released. Ymeshkout had laid the groundwork of expressing his trust; that judgment was the crystallization of informal relationships and nonverbal cues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think the point was that it was literally whimsy, but that - within the broader process of the justice system - most public defenders in that position wouldn't say that, most judges in that situation wouldn't lower the jail time from six months to ten days, and, given that, most defendants for similar crimes do not get only ten days, despite likely comparable situations. Which is stark and surprising. The essay's response, as it highlights, is about the impact it had on the defendant, not that the judge was dumb and random. Maybe they should've gotten six months in jail, or that it doesn't really matter, but that sounds rather reactionary, and if they shouldn't have, that's a massive impact from a very small plea that just occurred to him, which is a stark contrast to his usual role in facilitating expected outcomes, and suggests that said 'expected outcomes' might not be ideal!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link