|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What? Why? Why do we need an adversarial court system? Sorry turned up while I was typing. You don't need it, the inquisitorial system seems to work fine for France et al but on first blush seems to be even more hierarchical than the adversarial system. You don't agree with how the judge is working through the case, sorry Amanda Knox.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Agreed that there are negative outcomes (but also positive ones but put that aside), which is why sometimes just working within the rules set by parliament is not enough, sometimes (all the time) it is important for your union to provide direction and organisational support to the best path available electorally. This is to change the rules that your union works within so that the consistent message to your fellow members is to work within the rules even as you work on changing the rules. Capitalism creates wealth concentration that distorts the labor field so heavily that you have a black hole spacetime field of stupid poo poo around the wealth concentrators, like an Earl's court of hangers on. Bureaucratic centralist socialism with a work fetish creates a bunch of unnecessary jobs to ensure that nobody is 'shirking', but in doing so hamstrings itself. But worker ownership, with board elections and so on, despises both of those like no theoretically efficient market ever could. And most of the original unions pushing for that, like the IWW, had a heavy anarchist leaning, because anarchism isn't "let's throw all structure away and then things will be perfect" (that's ancap libertarianism), it's "let's organize and fight illegitimate structures and replace them with accountable ones." As Bakunin put it: quote:Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. So absolutely consult between several chartered engineers for a project, but don't make an engineer king, because that never ends well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:So absolutely consult between several chartered engineers for a project, but don't make an engineer king, because that never ends well. Something to consider is where standards and regulations come from, as in the knowledge itself required say how much safety margin you need to build into a suspension bridge or under what pre-existing conditions the prescription of a certain medication should be avoided. Coercive regulation is not the source of the knowledge to tell a bunch of engineers to figure out how to calculate the right safety factor for a bridge or a federation of doctors when to use a drug. Engineers are more than happy to figure that out amongst themselves, document it, and then require that anyone who wants to be recognized as an engineer by other engineers needs to abide by that common standard or propose that it be modified. They're happy to refer to the guidance of the chemists and materials scientists when determine what temperatures a specific material is safe in. Doctors refer to the work of chemists, chemists to physicists, and so on. Creating the learned knowledge of safety and technical standards is a horizontal activity, not a hierarchical coercive one. The coercive aspect is needed to hold back capital from knowingly building the bridge less safe than what the engineers said it should be because it's more profitable to do it that way and inducing engineers to try to figure out how to make it work with coercive inducements. This is fundamentally where libertarians and anarchists part ways; anarchists know that you can never have "free association" when capital wealth accumulation is allowed to place some people far above others where they can coerce them into acting against their own better judgment. The fact that you then inevitably end up with more than one federation of engineers is a feature and not a bug of this method of organization, and there are many areas of civil oversight now that have multiple competing regulatory or certification authorities. For example, you can't rent a sailboat without a certification from an accreditation organization because no one wants to let you have their boat if you don't know how to sail. However, there are two fully parallel sailing accrediting groups in the US and most people are more than happy to rent you a boat if you've been certified with either one. Coercive authority gloms onto that horizontal activity and is used to turn horizontal, humanistic learning and federation into permanent hierarchy and unaccountable advantages for a few winners who happened to be in the right place at the right time. It should be unsurprising that the authority then inhibits the iteration and adoption of new learning because learning something new would often be a threat to the capital winners who are already entrenched and sit on top of the hierarchy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:You don't need it, the inquisitorial system seems to work fine for France et al but on first blush seems to be even more hierarchical than the adversarial system. You don't agree with how the judge is working through the case, sorry Amanda Knox. Why do all justice systems have to be hierarchical? Can't we have a democratic justice system where everyone gets an equal say?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Why do all justice systems have to be hierarchical? Can't we have a democratic justice system where everyone gets an equal say? In the Western representative democratic tradition, the idea that people should be able to pick who determines the rules is mandatory, the idea that people should be able to determine the rules themselves is idealistic and utopian, and the idea that people should be able to interpret the rules themselves is chaos. It's just cultural norms being turned into universal absolutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:In the Western representative democratic tradition, the idea that people should be able to pick who determines the rules is mandatory, the idea that people should be able to determine the rules themselves is idealistic and utopian, and the idea that people should be able to interpret the rules themselves is chaos. It's just cultural norms being turned into universal absolutes. And folks who are brought up in this situation tend to stick to "but it wouldn't make sense otherwise" as if that's a fact rather than an admission that they haven't tried.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Something to consider is where standards and regulations come from, as in the knowledge itself required say how much safety margin you need to build into a suspension bridge or under what pre-existing conditions the prescription of a certain medication should be avoided. Coercive regulation is not the source of the knowledge to tell a bunch of engineers to figure out how to calculate the right safety factor for a bridge or a federation of doctors when to use a drug. Engineers are more than happy to figure that out amongst themselves, document it, and then require that anyone who wants to be recognized as an engineer by other engineers needs to abide by that common standard or propose that it be modified. Which was once upon a time known as a guild. And was how society worked for a very long time until it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Why do all justice systems have to be hierarchical? Can't we have a democratic justice system where everyone gets an equal say? Well, vigilantism is maybe the colour of justice you were looking for? If there is no scarcity, there is no need for an engineer because why build a bridge when you could just dig a diversion around whatever city you didn't want to cross a river for? The bulk of the point of an engineer is to do the mostest with the leastest and specifying minimum factors of safety is not an engineering problem but a statistical, demographic and political one (albeit, getting over FoS = 1.0 is an engineering one). Engineers work to hierarchical limits while solving problems of physics. ANCOLD for large dams has slowly gotten more conservative over time not because the physics has changed but because of things like Brumadinho and the appetite for risk or collateral costs have changed. Agreed that an element of the hierarchical control is to hold back the different needs or desires of stakeholders such as cost, overabundance of safety, looks, jobs for life, sitting on top of the esteemed mantle of engineering association etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Well, vigilantism is maybe the colour of justice you were looking for? Somfin posted:And folks who are brought up in this situation tend to stick to "but it wouldn't make sense otherwise" as if that's a fact rather than an admission that they haven't tried. Can you try thinking of a third thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Can you try thinking of a third thing? Well between vigilantism, adversial and inquisitorial that is three so I guess you mean more than third. There is also royal court, various trials (fire, water, combat etc), eclectic divination, mediation, village communion and others. Maybe you can tell me which system of justice or dispute resolution that you are thinking of that does not rely upon authority, mutual violence or third party enforcement of finding or outcome?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 00:27
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Well between vigilantism, adversial and inquisitorial that is three so I guess you mean more than third. Cards on the table here, I'm a prison and police abolitionist, so I'm not sure your punitive idea of "justice" is compatible with what I'd propose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:If there is no scarcity, there is no need for an engineer because why build a bridge when you could just dig a diversion around whatever city you didn't want to cross a river for? If you want to pretend that "determining which problems need to be solved and solving those problems both by community consensus" is impossible short of post-scarcity then that's on you. Your friends must have a good time figuring out where to get takeout when one person suggests pizza, another suggests curry, and you pull out your gun on the basis that resolving such a dispute without mutual violence is impossible in a world of finite possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Cards on the table here, I'm a prison and police abolitionist, so I'm not sure your punitive idea of "justice" is compatible with what I'd propose. Maybe just articulate your viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:If you want to pretend that "determining which problems need to be solved and solving those problems both by community consensus" is impossible short of post-scarcity then that's on you. Your friends must have a good time figuring out where to get takeout when one person suggests pizza, another suggests curry, and you pull out your gun on the basis that resolving such a dispute without mutual violence is impossible in a world of finite possibility. I was more referring to your comments which seemed to suggest that if it was not for other people getting in the road, engineers would make everything super safe and never be at risk of failing when the reality is, engineers love being cute and generally need people in the road just so they DO put in more effort than the engineer thinks is required to make things safe enough. But in any event, our friends are China, Russia, India, Africa and the EU amongst others, one wants to eat coal, another wants to do nuclear, one is opposed to the other doing nuclear and one can't afford to eat but everyone has an opinion on how they should eat with the general consensus of those with plenty to eat is that last one should eat less. It absolutely requires consensus because no-one has a gun that can shoot someone else and then pretend the gun misfired - some are holding grenades though and hopefully the world does not rely upon anarchy to decide how we move forward. To Somfin's post, I think you must be from the US where policing has taken a weird creepy uncle turn for the worse. Way too much authority that has gone to their heads which attracts school yard bullies and predictable outcomes. Police were originally envisioned as a big tall calm dude from that community that would walk around, be helpful and mediate disputes through power of calm discussion, example and a professional uninvested third party view. Now it is dickheads roaming in gangs with guns and body armour afraid of the people they are meant to be helping but imagining themselves as soldiers. Incidentally, my old man believes a lot of the best coppers were returned servicemen that had seen too much bad juju during war (WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc) to glorify force as a desirable outcome, yet calm in stressful situations. Long story short, London became a better place to live after the introduction of police so I think there is a place, just not what the US has now for police. Saying that I need to read up that thread on this topic as it is interesting if dry thought exercise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:
So all this violence and terror they inflict is pretty much working as intended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
 at a poster in 2020 unironically going to bat for the police of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
If you're going by the peelian principles then I guess you could suggest the police originated with some sort of "noble" intent but I feel like if you read them, it applies pretty well to... anarchist concepts of voluntaryist community self defence???quote:To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. gently caress knows how much opium you have to stuff into a tory home sec to get them to come up with that poo poo but it sure as poo poo has no bearing on actual things that exist in the 21st century, or that existed in the 20th for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Policing in the Peelian tradition isn't incompatible with an anarchist society, because it recognizes that the fount of all legitimacy is the public consent.Peelian Principles posted:
None of those (especially the highlighted bits) have much in common with how American (or many other) police operate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Police were originally envisioned as a big tall calm dude from that community that would walk around, be helpful and mediate disputes through power of calm discussion, example and a professional uninvested third party view. Were they originally envisioned as that where, when, by whom. Police in the US originated from runaway-slave patrols. E: also if that was their original theoretical purpose, doesn't it suggest there were some problems with that theory since they started throwing dispossessed peasants into workhouses and cracking the skulls of labor organizers at the behest of the aristocracy almost immediately? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
You need someone big and tall to get the description of your escaped slave obvs. If you want someone to wield force in your name, you want them to be calm and respectful to you, and the loving monster in Alien to the people you expect to inflict discipline upon. To serve and protect the public* *for strict definitions of who the public is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:gently caress knows how much opium you have to stuff into a tory home sec to get them to come up with that poo poo I suppose it's not that strange if you consider that Liberals aren't actually closer to Leftists than Conservatives are, they just keep saying that they are. VitalSigns posted:also if that was their original theoretical purpose, doesn't it suggest there were some problems with that theory since they started throwing dispossessed peasants into workhouses and cracking the skulls of labor organizers at the behest of the aristocracy almost immediately? What the principles get right, is that when this inevitably happens, this is the fault of the police.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think the principles hold even if the application immediately goes to poo poo in capitalist society. Maybe but the poster I quoted also explicitly said we need capitalist society, so there's still a problem
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2020 19:34
|
|
|
I'm starting to realise that the role, scope and ethics of the police has become the most recent issue where "liberals" and "conservatives" just reflexively disagree with each other on essentially tribal grounds. I don't want to diminish a serious issue, but it's the most recent symptom of the plague that is oligarchs trying to keep useful people sniping at each other so that they don't turn on the rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm starting to realise that the role, scope and ethics of the police has become the most recent issue where "liberals" and "conservatives" just reflexively disagree with each other on essentially tribal grounds. I don't want to diminish a serious issue, but it's the most recent symptom of the plague that is oligarchs trying to keep useful people sniping at each other so that they don't turn on the rich. The police are the force of violence that protects the wealth and their possessions and any positive change for the future must address them as they enforce the poverty that capitalism requires to exploit for profit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I'm starting to realise that the role, scope and ethics of the police has become the most recent issue where "liberals" and "conservatives" just reflexively disagree with each other on essentially tribal grounds. I don't want to diminish a serious issue, but it's the most recent symptom of the plague that is oligarchs trying to keep useful people sniping at each other so that they don't turn on the rich. The police are literally the publicly funded army that protects the rich and their poo poo from everyone else. Conservatives want more of them. Liberals, at least in the US, want more of them but they want them to be nicer people so that they can continue to pretend that they are not implicitly tasked with the maintenance of white supremacy. Fascists want more of them and they want them to be explicitly chartered with rather than implicitly tasked with the maintenance of white supremacy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
Badactura posted:Maybe just articulate your viewpoint. It's a long viewpoint and there's not really a purpose to it if the person is going to disagree on the fundamental grounds of what the police are actually there to do. I've spelled it out in the past and gotten fairly blank looks so unless there's the ability to agree on the axioms (that current policing is punitive and it shouldn't be) there's no reason to proceed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 03:49
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's a long viewpoint and there's not really a purpose to it if the person is going to disagree on the fundamental grounds of what the police are actually there to do. I would be interested to read it though if you can't be arsed typing it all out that's understandable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
This is a webforum. It's literally made for typing out long explanations that nobody cares about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's a long viewpoint and there's not really a purpose to it if the person is going to disagree on the fundamental grounds of what the police are actually there to do. The CSPAM cool zone thread has all sorts of long effort posts in it specifically on this topic and I've read most of them so I'd be glad to read your view on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Somfin posted:It's a long viewpoint and there's not really a purpose to it if the person is going to disagree on the fundamental grounds of what the police are actually there to do. I don't think an adversarial justice system or an inquisitorial justice system is incompatible with prison abolition or police abolition, though. So I am curious why you think they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
I actually wrote something about that in the police abolition thread. There is nothing stopping you having a judicial system without a police force. It just means the judicial system will have very limited enforcement powers. Which is generally the point of police/prison abolition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Okay so I should probably give this an actual shot. The core problem with all of the primary ways we're discussing justice- adversarial, inquisitional, vigilante- is that they fundamentally don't actually address the idea of what crime actually is. They all start with "crime happens and is bad what do" and they go from there, so it's important to start with that definition. Crime is a set of actions which are defined entirely by the fact that the legal system within that society is allowed to punish them. No other definition exists or works. There's no consistent morality driving what is defined as "crime," just a hodgepodge of activities which fall under its reach. The only consistent feature of "crime" is that we say that "crime" is something that gets punished by the law. The problem is that I don't actually agree with the idea of punishment. I do think that there is absolutely a place for a set of actions to be declared "not good" and "should be averted when possible" and "if they keep happening maybe that person doesn't belong here" but the idea of a definition based entirely on punishment fucks me up a bit. I'm gonna be using the words "justice system" a bunch throughout this post; when I do, I want you to imagine the whole process included in those words, from writing the law to policing to sentencing. The core aspect of this is it is punitive. The procedure for how punishment is meted out is a frankly minor detail of this overall system, and it wouldn't really matter if it were vigilantes hanging people from lampposts or lawyers arguing before an impartial judge. My disagreement with the justice system is somewhat more elemental than that. So let's talk about why crime happens. I don't believe that people are evil and I don't believe that people who commit crime are a special kind of person, different from "normal" people; I will try to avoid the word "criminal" because it plays into the dehumanisation that a punishment-based system relies on and I encourage folks who read this to avoid the word as well. At a fundamental level, I believe that there are three and only three reasons that crime happen- desperation, reality disconnect, and reasonable decision-making. Desperation is the reason that a lot of morality questions love to bring up- is it wrong to steal bread to feed your family?- and it's the one that no justice system is going to be able to deal with appropriately. If the choice is death or possible punishment, any thinking being will choose possible punishment, every single time. This applies really to any case where the "choice" being faced is between a need that cannot be otherwise filled- food, medicine, drugs while under the influence of an addiction, safety for one's family, not dying of exposure- and punishment under the law. Desperation is a drive that justice systems tend to deal with via Shirley exceptions, ie, surely it's not a crime in that case, surely the cops would let them go, surely the jury won't convict. The problem, obviously, is that this leaves the interpretation of whether this is one of the "that case" cases open to the interpretation of judges, juries, police, and dozens of other people, any of whom might have the hostile brain coding to decide that yes, the white billionaire who stole millions to finance his yacht is fine, but that black man mugging someone for fifty bucks to make rent and keep his family housed really needs a stint in the clink for a decade plus. No justice system is going to be the actual solution to crime caused by desperation, because justice systems are only there to punish, because that is our definition of crime. Justice systems must not become bad enough to be worse than the damage caused by not filling one's needs. Most people who are desperate enough to commit crime out of desperation know that they're committing a crime, and would have decided otherwise if it were possible, and it is not possible. The actual solution is to remove that desperation- and thus, the tools which the powerful use to inflict that desperation on those below them. Reality disconnect is another fun one in the Big Hypothetical Bullshit set- what if someone truly believed that they were doing the right thing by killing people / stealing money / locking someone in a bunker to avert the end days?- but this is a real problem as we've seen in Christchurch, people driving through BLM crowds, and other horrors. People being radicalised into seeing their enemies not as human beings but as monsters to be slain- that's going to keep happening and it's probably going to get worse. It's a major part of current media around crime, in fact, and the reason I avoid the word "criminal"- if I say someone breaks into a house to steal poo poo, do you see that person as human? Or as a cartoon character with a domino mask, or a balaclava, or a sack over their shoulder? What colour is their skin? Reality disconnect is something that the law explicitly does not have a good answer for, from insanity pleas to "ignorance of the law is not an excuse," there is an admission that this scenario happens but no actual process for dealing with it other than treating it as a disease- and then refusing to actually administer a cure. At best, a justice system trying to punish someone out of a reality disconnect scenario is going to force them to "act normal" for a period of time before their fundamental disagreement with the nature of reality breaks things again. At worst, it makes things worse, giving their reality a new set of enemies. People who exist in another reality do not comprehend that they are committing a crime, because, by the rules their reality, they are not. The actual solution here is to try to help these people return, or remove them from the community if they can't be brought back; not to beat them into pretending. Reasonable decision-making is the third kind of crime and it's the only one that modern justice systems actually try to address, because it's the only kind they can. It's the kind where someone actually weighs up the numbers in their head before doing the action; they assess the likelihood of being caught versus the payout of the action, the time that they might serve versus the benefit of doing the thing. This is the "professional criminal" concept. The first problem, here, is that professionals exploit weaknesses in order to get what they want. Jacking up the punishment for crimes only works if the people involved are caught, and then only if they are convicted, and then only if they are punished. If avoiding being caught is the easy part, then that's what they will focus their attention on, and all of the punishment will be for nothing. The second problem, here, is that it is fundamentally a blurry line between this and desperation under capitalism. We all need money to survive. All of the problems of Shirley exceptions hit here and hit much, much harder. Justice systems tend to make the bold assumption that all crime happens in this third block. That's why you have varied punishments for varied levels of theft, why you have the ability to hand out multiple life sentences, why people driving the cars are punished just as harshly as the people taking the money from the bank. The justice system is almost entirely built around deterring these folks. This tends to be what people think about when they think about "justice." The narrative here is fun, cops and robbers, sleuths and criminals  et cetera. It's nowhere near as fun when the crime is someone daring to sleep under a bench in a nice neighbourhood rather than dying from exposure, and the punishment is getting kicked half to death by a cop who won't face any sort of reprimand.Ultimately the question of how "justice" is meted out, whether the court is involved or not, whether the accused gets a lawyer, all of these questions, are fundamentally built around the idea that people who commit crimes do deserve to be punished for doing so, and the question to answer is how much, and whether or not they're getting a fair shot at proving they didn't do it. This is something that I don't agree with; as we've seen here, I don't agree that people who commit crimes will be motivated not to do so by punishment, and I don't really agree with how "crimes" are set up in our society in the first place. The idea that the solution to someone causing harm is to cause them harm to balance some cosmic scale is, in my mind, obviously wrong and childish on the level of two brothers making things "even" by hitting each other repeatedly. The objective of society should not be to make sure that the amount of harm is even and fair, but that it is reduced, in all cases, with all available tools. I think that's good for now, this is like the fifth time I've tried to put this together and it's about where my head's at. There's more, there's a whole thing about punitive vs preventative vs restorative justice, but this is a decent start. e: bunch of minor grammar edits, the words are basically the same Somfin fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Oct 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
These are a whole lot of good words and I'd like to thank you for putting them together in such a fashion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
For desperate crime, the courts, legislation, etc spend a great deal of resources and consideration on assessing the desperation factor - As a simple example - that a reasonable person would do the same thing if given the same set of circumstances generally exonerates you from the crime. For reality disconnect - the reasonable test kicks in against. Except this time, if it was unreasonable but if you are seen as loopy, mentally diminished, etc, then you will have a diminished sentence or the sentence is generally more about protecting society via exclusion (which is still a punishment but the focus is on removing that person from society more than deterrence, for instance). Some of the anti-terrorist stuff goes against this line of thinking but I honestly think this is a bad move and more would be achieved by treating the offenders like common criminals without martyrdom hysterics, etc. Completely agree that the US especially has gotten drawn into justice as a cops and robbers rather than than the societal problem solution of last resort that it should be. It is not only the US mind you, in Aus, Aboriginals are completely over-represented in the justice system which tells you the systems supporting society have not solved the inequities that are facing aboriginal communities. As a digression; a thought experiment, you are in a line of traffic awaiting to turn left in the only turning lane and a car drives up the side using the straight through lane as another turning lane and awaits the left turn green in the straight through lane. It is very common where I live so everyone just merges with the people that drive to the front of the line and you have to make space for them (the receiving street was only designed to accept one lane of traffic of course). Generally taxis and large SUVs. As an Aussie, it done my head in for ages that SUVs and taxis just pushed into/ahead of traffic as they liked. However, I have become accustomed to it and it is a part of life. Old mate wants to the front of the queue like usual and as a go along to get along guy, you go along with it (even if I notice it every time). That is what proponents of anarchy/libertarism don't want to come at - they either are thinking they are going to be the SUV or they think no-one is going to cut in line. Except it is not traffic which doesn't matter a poo poo at the end of the day but many other societal decisions where pushy people willing to be unreasonable will leg-up themselves relentlessly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I honestly think this is a bad move and more would be achieved by treating the offenders like common criminals This line right here kind of suggests you missed the point of my post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:For desperate crime, the courts, legislation, etc spend a great deal of resources and consideration on assessing the desperation factor - As a simple example - that a reasonable person would do the same thing if given the same set of circumstances generally exonerates you from the crime. . None of this has ever happened perhaps in the history of mankind. Nobody has ever been exonerated from accusations of theft because they pled "I was hungry". The only relief they can ever truly be assured of is the 3 square meals they receive in prison. That's our most coherent welfare system: jail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:None of this has ever happened perhaps in the history of mankind. Nobody has ever been exonerated from accusations of theft because they pled "I was hungry". The only relief they can ever truly be assured of is the 3 square meals they receive in prison. That's our most coherent welfare system: jail. The alienation of our society is such that we are horrified at the idea of someone taking the sandwich without paying, but totally OK with paying for their room and board to keep them in a concrete box for years in order to exact retribution against them for taking the sandwich. I wonder if there is anyone who stands to profit in the latter scenario and not the former who might have a reason to spend tens of millions propagandizing us that only the latter is "justice."
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:For desperate crime, the courts, legislation, etc spend a great deal of resources and consideration on assessing the desperation factor - As a simple example - that a reasonable person would do the same thing if given the same set of circumstances generally exonerates you from the crime. Just to re-iterate what I said earlier in the paragraph about desperation, this is justice based on the Shirley exception- the idea that the crime is real, and definitely happened, but surely this is an exceptional case. The problem, there, even if what you say is true, is that we are relying on the justice system to not do what it is set up to do in specific cases which can be assessed and misassessed depending on the prejudices of individuals. For example, putting a 22-year-old in jail for life because he stole 50 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
So, and I don't mean this as a gotcha, how do you deal with crimes of passion? Or those people you've mentioned who keep breaking the rules? Is no part of your ideal system punitive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:So, and I don't mean this as a gotcha, how do you deal with crimes of passion? Or those people you've mentioned who keep breaking the rules? Is no part of your ideal system punitive? That's a fair question. So, I'm calling the current system "punitive," meaning that its primary purpose is to cause harm to the people who commit crimes. The primary lever of the system is to cause harm, usually through prison- which, if we're being honest, is simply a complicated version of state slavery. Some people suggest that prison works as a deterrent, which is just a way of saying that it should scare people out of doing crime, and other people suggest that it has a preventative function, as it is difficult to commit crime while inside prison. I disagree with these. The deterrence function, if applied only to my "why people do crime" function above, should show that it again only works for the third group, the logical group, and then only mildly. As for the others, well, one doesn't think about punishment at all, and the other is willing to accept any punishment because the alternative is always going to be worse. The preventative function is a possible benefit, but one of the things you'll notice is that most people who are for prison abolition are not for the abolition of jail. Putting someone in a box for a while to simmer down, or sober up, or until we figure out what to do with them, is still going to be a possible avenue after abolishing prison. The main issue with prison is that its function is to cause harm, rather than being a holding space while we figure out how to remedy that harm. As I've suggested in the big block, one of the potential options for a full reality disconnect scenario is equivalent to exile; if someone is impossible to deal with due to their inability or unwillingness to, for example, see other people as human, then they may need to be excluded from a particular society due to the harm that they will likely cause. This should be seen not as victory over a wrongdoer, but as giving up on someone who needs more help than can be given. Note that some crimes are not punished through prison, but by a monetary penalty. Not enough to actually deter anyone of real means from doing those crimes, mind. As for crimes of passion, they likely fall into the category described above as desperation, a temporary but urgent need that overwhelms the ideal of following the law. Brains are complicated and rage is a powerful emotion. Please note that I'm not sure what to do about these. I don't have an ideal system, not really; my vague and fluffy ideal would be one steeped deeply in restorative justice and therapy, combined with removing capitalism (as it is the driver of many of the pressures that cause people to do harm in the first place).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 04:05
|
|