|
No one forced him to go around robbing stores. That's something he decided to do for himself.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:No one forced him to go around robbing stores. That's something he decided to do for himself. Poor people have a greater rate of committing robbery than rich people. Clearly, this is because the rich are morally superior to those dirty poors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:And what about all the people that will possibly get fired for not stopping him? Sucks to be them, I guess. There's also the people that will eat the increased insurance premium costs, which will then get reflected by reduced wages and benefits for employees and so on and so forth. And there's also loss of business during which a building is being repaired, if any damage is caused during the robbery-- which again is lost wages to the employees. You're right. We should totally ignore the systemic problem and just expect people who are hosed by design to keep their heads down and suck it so that the privileged people don't have to put up with their existence. I mean, poo poo, it's not like our environment has any bearing on our range of possible actions whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
Do we have enough caricatures of each other's comments yet? When someone is convicted (on the weight of bought testimony) of turning to armed robbery as a way to improve his job prospects, that points a pretty clear path for politicians who might want to prevent some robberies before they happen, rather than playing karma games after the fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:Do we have enough caricatures of each other's comments yet? The point of playing karma games after-the-fact is in order to avoid discussing fixing things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:No one forced him to go around robbing stores. That's something he decided to do for himself. Yes, and he should be punished. No one is arguing that. We're arguing that for a first offense with no injuries, 162 years is insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
nm posted:If people committing crimes thought they'd get caught (assuming the thought about getting caught), they wouldn't do it. Oh I am completely aware of that, my post was 100% sarcastic, and I am bad at projecting that with ones and zeros from several hundred/thousand miles away. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:The point of playing karma games after-the-fact is in order to avoid discussing fixing things. Indeed, in a certain sense, being tough on crime and tough on criminals are opposite goals, since if being tough on criminals is a priority and a sign of justice, a steady supply of criminals and therefore crime is desirable, and reducing crime drastically would be a bad thing because it would rob society of countless opportunities for punishment, thereby reducing the amount of justice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, and he should be punished. No one is arguing that. I agree. I'm just targeting the argument that he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions because he is poor and a minority.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Indeed, in a certain sense, being tough on crime and tough on criminals are opposite goals, since if being tough on criminals is a priority and a sign of justice, a steady supply of criminals and therefore crime is desirable, and reducing crime drastically would be a bad thing because it would rob society of countless opportunities for punishment, thereby reducing the amount of justice. If the amount of crime being committed in this country was drastically reduced, the current prison-industrial system would collapse and hundreds if not thousands of people would be out of a job. Do you really want these hardworking servants of the public good to be thrown out onto the street, unable to support their families? What kind of monster are you? If anything, we should be throwing more people in jail for even newer and more exciting types of crime, if only to protect these precious  JOBS from drifting away into the ether to be replaced by something more (ugh) productive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 09:13
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:I agree. I'm just targeting the argument that he shouldn't be held responsible for his actions because he is poor and a minority. That is not the argument, the argument is we need to understand why he did what he did, and try to fix it. People don't commit crimes because they are evil, they do it because that was what circumstance has made them do. That in no way says they should not be punished though. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is not the argument, the argument is we need to understand why he did what he did, and try to fix it. People don't commit crimes because they are evil, they do it because that was circumstance has made them do. That in no way says they should not be punished though. ToxicSlurpee literally said that he was robbing stores because he would starve to death otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:ToxicSlurpee literally said that he was robbing stores because he would starve to death otherwise. That is a little presumptive, I don't think its been stated anywhere that is the case, but it does not clash with what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:That is not the argument, the argument is we need to understand why he did what he did, and try to fix it. There is political opposition to asking questions like 'Why do people commit crime?', because the answer- 'In many communities, the best choice for an ambitious hard-working upwardly-mobile youth is organized crime.'- doesn't fit into our national myth of egalitarian upward mobility through hard work. So the very idea of trying to understand social issues at all is demonized and ridiculed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:25
|
|
|
Ratoslov posted:There is political opposition to asking questions like 'Why do people commit crime?', because the answer- 'In many communities, the best choice for an ambitious hard-working upwardly-mobile youth is organized crime.'- doesn't fit into our national myth of egalitarian upward mobility through hard work. So the very idea of trying to understand social issues at all is demonized and ridiculed. Not disagreeing, but do you think this is a conscious decision on anyone's part? Is there someone on the right who thinks about all the same elements of the situation that you think about, and decides deliberately to promote ridicule of this kind of inquisitiveness? Or is it just natural selection at work re: memes and organizations?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 10:53
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:ToxicSlurpee literally said that he was robbing stores because he would starve to death otherwise. I mean, I'm pretty sure he's not robbing stores because he thinks that robbing enough stores will get him a six-figure salary and a Manhattan penthouse. It's not true that poor minorities must rob stores in order to live, but I find it very unlikely that many people who participate in armed robbery thinking that there's some other way to live a decent life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
Piell posted:Poor people have a greater rate of committing robbery than rich people. Clearly, this is because the rich are
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
Tesla Was Robbed posted:Poor people need to get into high finance in order to avoid robbery charges. Or they could try not doing things that cuase them to be charged with robbery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Or they could try not doing things that cuase them to be charged with robbery. Yeah, they should just get one of the good jobs that are just out there for the taking! Pull themselves up by their bootstraps! It's not like there's a lack of jobs that require no education and pay a livable wage or anything!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 15:10
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Or they could try not doing things that cuase them to be charged with robbery. Such wisdom. How is it that millennia of banishment, execution, and long prison sentences for robbery absolutely have by and large failed to deter it? How is it that countries that have looked past this mindset of vengeance and aim to improve social services and rehabilitation programs have both far lower rates of both violent crime and recidivism for those that do end up committing those crimes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Piell posted:Yeah, they should just get one of the good jobs that are just out there for the taking! Pull themselves up by their bootstraps! It's not like there's a lack of jobs that require no education and pay a livable wage or anything! Or have the decency and moral fortitude to starve to death!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Or they could try not doing things that cuase them to be charged with robbery. The unemployment among blacks is radically higher than among other races. Good jobs don't magically appear. People from poor, black neighborhoods tend to be very poorly educated and aren't qualified to do much more than flip burgers because of this fact. Getting into college is basically impossible and any sort of government aid is highly unlikely to give them a standard of living higher than sharing a tiny apartment in a building that should be condemned with 6 other people in a lovely neighborhood with high crime. The kind of neighborhood where "good jobs" literally don't exist. As for my starving to death comment, government food benefits don't necessarily give you enough money to not be hungry. Florida is an especially lovely place to be poor. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished. He committed robbery. A crime. What I'm saying is that the punishment he received is absolutely loving crazy and 162 years of prison time without parole is exactly the wrong response here. What I'm saying is that the sentence should be way, way shorter and he should be given the opportunity to have the life of a regular dude when he gets out if he wants it. You know, job training, some proper education. Send him to a trade school or let him start taking classes at a university or something, then set him up to succeed so that, when he gets out, he's less likely to crime again. But what the system advocates is destroying the criminal's life forever or...destroying his life forever. It's a life sentence or, if somebody in that situation does get out, they are told to go work lovely minimum wage jobs forever with no hope of advancement, while their status as a felon makes it difficult or impossible to function in normal society. Which, of course, drives them back to crime. What I'm saying is that this decision is an insane call made by a fundamentally broken system. The other side of it is that if we understand why this guy did what he did, we can do things that will prevent similar people in similar situations from doing similar things. Deterrence can only do so much and is only part of the equation, especially when you have people that are utterly desperate. Aside from that, when you have people that are dirt goddamned poor and have lovely prospects, they have less to lose, which makes them more likely to commit crimes. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jul 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
They could take the money they were going to spend on locking him up and set him up as a security guard at the place he robbed. Clearly they need one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:They could take the money they were going to spend on locking him up and set him up as a security guard at the place he robbed. Clearly they need one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Not disagreeing, but do you think this is a conscious decision on anyone's part? Is there someone on the right who thinks about all the same elements of the situation that you think about, and decides deliberately to promote ridicule of this kind of inquisitiveness? Or is it just natural selection at work re: memes and organizations? While there are people who want to promote prison/industrial complexes and anti-intellectualism consciously, they're probably not thinking about it in the same terms I do. On the other hand, there's people promoting every goddamn idea out there consciously, and the anti-intellectual prison/industrial complex guys are having the success they are mostly due to existing cultural ideas and garden-variety cognitive dissonance. So, I guess my answer is, 'yes.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:And what about all the people that will possibly get fired for not stopping him? Sucks to be them, I guess. There's also the people that will eat the increased insurance premium costs, which will then get reflected by reduced wages and benefits for employees and so on and so forth. And there's also loss of business during which a building is being repaired, if any damage is caused during the robbery-- which again is lost wages to the employees. I think it'd be cheaper to prevent the robbery with proper social services. You named some of the extended costs of robbery, but there are more. All would be mitigated if the accused weren't just trying to swim through the Social Darwinism we call an economy. -Troika- posted:No one forced him to go around robbing stores. That's something he decided to do for himself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Economic reality dictates that people will make the most rational choice available This isn't the thread for this, but this quote right here is bullshit. People will make irrational choices, often against there own interests. Hell I do that all the time by staying up too late browsing these very forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:This isn't the thread for this, but this quote right here is bullshit. People will make irrational choices, often against there own interests. Hell I do that all the time by staying up too late browsing these very forums. You are correct in the literal sense, but in the context of his post, he implied rational as in, "what a person in their own circumstance thinks is rational."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:This isn't the thread for this, but this quote right here is bullshit. People will make irrational choices, often against there own interests. Hell I do that all the time by staying up too late browsing these very forums. S.T.C.A. posted:You are correct in the literal sense, but in the context of his post, he implied rational as in, "what a person in their own circumstance thinks is rational." Exactly. You may think it's irrational to browse late into the night and forego sleep, but you have made a decision that the browsing is more important than sleep. It provides you more utility. However, you hit the hammer right on the head. From another point of view, staying up late is stupid and you should be getting more sleep to be more effective during the day (I know, I'm in the same boat). So, people will make the decisions they think are best, even if these decisions don't maximize economic benefit. It's the same for the robber. They look at their options and choose the one they believe is best in their circumstances, from their point of view, with possibly damaged psyches, and most certainly a lack of awareness of viable options. If the economy squeezes a person with little education, few resources, and perhaps several examples of other law-breakers getting ahead by robbery, they will break the law, too. It's a simple given. It's almost a law of economics. The best crime prevention program is a "good life". Of course, a good life doesn't prevent all crime, just look at Wall Street and K Street for real examples of that. But, when talking about common crime, property crime, and violent crime, the driver is almost always poor economic standing. When people prosper, blue collar crime decreases. anonumos fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
anonumos posted:It's the same for the robber. They look at their options and choose the one they believe is best in their circumstances, from their point of view, with possibly damaged psyches, and most certainly a lack of awareness of viable options. If the economy squeezes a person with little education, few resources, and perhaps several examples of other law-breakers getting ahead by robbery, they will break the law, too. It's a simple given. It's almost a law of economics. Actually, it basically is a law of economics at this point. Gary Becker has been studying this sort of thing and found that there's a weighing of the possible punishment, the chances of getting caught, and the reward. On the other side, there's the costs involved in hiring police, investigating crimes, and building prisons. Both sides are ultimately economic decisions. And, at the same point, you can't prevent all crime through deterrence OR prevention. Wall Street and K Street are kind of outliers, just as there are always those few people that are going to go try to rob a bank because they're just greedy, or arms dealers and what have you. Some people give no fucks, they just want as much money as possible as quickly as possible, risks be damned. Most people, however, prefer to avoid risks. Something like 90% of the human race is quite risk averse. The vast majority of people, if given a choice between the safe life of a steady, secure job that doesn't pay well, but is enough to live on, and you can keep it forever, and a risky shot at riches, will generally choose the safer bet. Game theorists study this sort of thing. Though the other side of it is the AMOUNT of stuff being risked. If I, for example, called you onto a game show, handed you a $50 bill, and said you could either walk away and keep it or take a 50/50 double or nothing chance, you'd probably take the shot. $50 isn't much. But if I handed you a check for $50,000 and gave you the same offer, you'd probably walk away with the check. Same game, higher stakes. Which is why that "good life" thing is very, very valid and is part of why poor folks commit more crime than middle class folks. Why would you risk prison time for $5,000,000 if you already make $75,000 a year and have full medical benefits? It's to risky. But if you have no job, no prospects, and nothing to lose, well...take the shot, you might win. As for high-profile white collar crime, generally, these are either inherited wealth or people that did take a major gamble and won. For every investor that makes millions on the stock market, there are a bunch of others who broke even, lost, or are making safer bets. Think of it like a casino. If you offer games with high payouts but lovely odds beside games with low payouts but good odds, people are going to mostly gravitate toward the better odds games. However, there are people that are going to be willing to take the biggest risks. You'll have a few winners, sure, but a gently caress ton of losers. But who gets the attention? This is, of course, also why there are so many people that dream of being rockstars, even though they have little actual chance of it happening. The payouts are massive. It's a risky bet to rely on it. Granted, in this case, you can snag a guitar for a few hundred bucks and have fun along the way, so unless you put all your eggs in that basket, you didn't really LOSE much along the way. Which is also part of why so many people play guitar, even though they'll likely never get the biggest payout. edit: Something occurred to me about Wall Street. The reason that they keep doing the things they do is that punishment is unlikely to happen and, if it does, will be mild, at best. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
nm posted:If people committing crimes thought they'd get caught (assuming the thought about getting caught), they wouldn't do it. Speaking of this, I had an interesting discussion with a DA once. The topic revolved around America's disproportionate prison population in relation to the rest of the world. The DA thought that the reason for this is because "we aren't tough on crime." Because in other countries, "they actually punish crime, and we don't." So, because we are "soft" we therefore have higher recidivism. This reminds me how much I hate that dumb Republican conservative thinking that all you really need is to be "tough on crime" and that will certainly solve it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Anonymouse posted:Speaking of this, I had an interesting discussion with a DA once. The topic revolved around America's disproportionate prison population in relation to the rest of the world. The DA thought that the reason for this is because "we aren't tough on crime." Because in other countries, "they actually punish crime, and we don't." So, because we are "soft" we therefore have higher recidivism. This reminds me how much I hate that dumb Republican conservative thinking that all you really need is to be "tough on crime" and that will certainly solve it. Our guys spend a few years working out and developing gang ties - their guys spend a few years in group therapy and job training. Conclusion: Our criminals just aren't suffering enough to straighten out like Norway's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 12:42
|
|
|
Radd McCool posted:That is a sick irony. America's recidivism rate? ~70%. Norway's recidivism rate? ~20+% It's just not the length of prison sentence or therapy that explains those rates. It's the whole system, excellent social security network for example, after you are released you don't end up in streets with nothing as in US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any good summaries/companions to Foucault's Discipline and Punish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Cpt Thorne posted:It's just not the length of prison sentence or therapy that explains those rates. It's the whole system, excellent social security network for example, after you are released you don't end up in streets with nothing as in US. Very true. However, our justice system resorts to prison quicker than others. It also will imprison for longer, which reduces the ability to reinigrate into society. Each year reduces the number of friends and family who one can rely one. One more year out of the workforce. One more of learning how to live in a prison mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
nm posted:I live in a state where shoplifters are routinely sent to prison for years (well, now county jail, but for years, not months) nm, That is very stiff sentencing. May I ask what state you're referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:nm, Good old Penal Code 666 (yes, really) and 459 (remember a 2nd degree commercial burg just means you entered the Wal-Mart with the intention of stealing something) Both at 16mo-3 years county jail, used to be 16mo - 3years state prison before October 1, 2011 when Ab109 happened (virtually no one goes to state prison anymore, now you get to be bored as hell for years in county). Note that if you have a certain record, you can still go to prison. I know of one guy facing over years in prison for stealing (not robbing, not even burglering) a $25 pair of clippers from a barber shop. It always amuses me that people think California is some hippy dippy place in terms of criminal justice. You will get hosed up. Oh and our State Supreme Court makes Scalia look like a humanitarian. nm fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jul 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
nm posted:California Thank you. I am surprised. I did live in LA for a year for job 1999-2000. Of course, I never learned this detail in such a short time there. quote:Both at 16mo-3 years county jail, used to be 16mo - 3years state prison before October 1, 2011 when Ab109 happened (virtually no one goes to state prison anymore, now you get to be bored as hell for years in county). Note that if you have a certain record, you can still go to prison. I know of one guy facing over years in prison for stealing (not robbing, not even burglering) a $25 pair of clippers from a barber shop. I have no criminal record and hence have done not time. But I hear/read that County is much more difficult that actually doing state prison time. Why is this? And the 3-strikes law. I saw the "60 minutes" episode on the guy who got 25-to-life (no Joke) for stealing a bicycle out of an open garage. A garage is legally defined as a house/dwelling. This guy had 2-3 non-violent priors. He qualified under "3-strikes." And of course, we know of Jerry Williams in Redondo Beach. 25-to-life for taking/stealing/robbing a slice of pizza.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:And the 3-strikes law. Don't forget George Jackson, who got 1-to-life for stealing $70 from a gas station before 3-strikes was a thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Leandro Andrade - nine children's videos Gary Ewing - three golf clubs ^^^^^^^ Positive Optimyst posted:I have no criminal record and hence have done not time. But I hear/read that County is much more difficult that actually doing state prison time. With so many people coming in and going out of county, a stable hierarchy never gets established inside, so you're always jockeying for position and it's hard to establish a small back-watching group. Prison has some programs (however few) that help train/rehabilitate/ease the transition back to the outside - county is just warehousing. This may be more local, but around here (Oklahoma) you get fewer good-time credits in county than in prison. (1/3 to serve vs. 1/2 to serve) You can work for slave wages (and good time credits) in prison. In county, you work unpaid, and get fewer good time credits for it. On the other hand, drugs are easier to get in county, your family is able to come visit you (if they are so inclined), and judges may give less time because they know your time is coming out of their bottom line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 21:12
|
|
