|
In my perfect system, jail would be used strictly on people who have proven they are a danger to themselves or others and it is impossible to offer treatment. They are treated humanely, and made as comfortable as possible. Everything else will result in rehabilitation. People do not turn to crime because they *enjoy* being criminals, aside from white collar criminals anyway. I hesitate to focus on fines unless this is a world where all basic needs are met but we still somehow have capitalism, money and the lack of it can quite literally lead to death. Community service would probably be the biggest go-to regarding minor offenses, along with mental health services to try and find out why it happened to begin with. The fact of the matter is prisons as we have them now, do nothing more than impress upon those incarcerated that their lives are now functionally over. There is no coming back from a charge. It is legal for businesses to discriminate against convicts, and the best way to ensure people keep repeating their previous actions is to tell them they will never be judged as anything more than their record. So why bother trying? You'll be a monster no matter what you do, might as well become the monster they say you are. Of course, if we're talking about perfect systems I'd prefer we just. . .help one another. We work together as a community. Those who can't, we care for, those who refuse are given the basics but if they want anything beyond enough to survive they'll work with us.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
But what do you do with all the ex-police or Harvey Weinsteins who just love to rape? They have all their material needs met, they just love to rape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
Shoot them? Like I think if you level the power structures that help them get away with it they're probably gonna end up getting shot one way or the other if they resort to grabbing people off the street. The example of massive crimes abetted by terrible institutional power structures seems like a good example of how you can't really police your way out of the problem. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Oct 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:But what do you do with all the ex-police or Harvey Weinsteins who just love to rape? E-Tank posted:In my perfect system, jail would be used strictly on people who have proven they are a danger to themselves or others and it is impossible to offer treatment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 17:04
|
|
|
Somfin posted:This line right here kind of suggests you missed the point of my post. I think you misunderstood. 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. Rubbish arguing a specific irrelevant edge case to refute a generalised argument. Battered wife, self-defense, an emergency situation, force majeure are all well established means for mitigating or exonerating a party from paying damages or serving justice despite that it being clear that damage was done by the defendant against the plaintiff*. Ok, I am not going to go and try and find the one white crow that one person was steeling a sandwich when he could not otherwise get food or money for a length of time such that stealing the sandwich was his action of last resort, it actually going to court and at the last, the judge not taking such a pitiful situation into account at all. Maybe in the US there is no charities or other means of finding enough food to feed yourself without resorting to theft - in Australia, there is no excuse because between unemployment benefits, charities, etc you will be able to feed yourself (not saying you wont be in poverty because you quite likely will be but you wont be desperate for food unless you are unwilling or unable to take the action a reasonable person would take. If unable, that sounds like a medical issue and whilst much room for improvement in Aus, there are mechanisms for that as well. When you talk about not being sure what to do about the cases where people let their frustrations of the moment (red light, attractive girl turns old mate down, idiot in a BMW refuses to park in one bay only, it's the fifth beggar/scammer that has hassled you today) overwhelm themselves, there is this thing called deterrence/education. That it is what the deterrence part of the system (ie, not that protective part of getting Ted Bundy off the street) is for. Not for solving drug addiction, solving poverty, gay people, outlet for bullies or other misappropriated reasons that have stigmatized the system. Someone that gets caught for repeatedly running a red light would argue that it is a victimless crime if no crash happened but old mate will be educated via a ramping punishment system. I don't think it is a coincidence that millionaires don't run too many lights despite being able to afford the 350 easily. Anyway, I think saying that there is no need for police is a copout for being unwilling to face up to the need to hold the police accountable. They need to be given the tools to do their job and they need to be given the oversight to not get carried away with themselves. *As an aside, someone posted talking about special cases (I don't know shirley references) but the whole point of the complexity of legal systems is that they are dealing with countless permutations of themes. Large number of cases ARE unique special snowflakes. The systems are trying to simplify without being reductive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Completely presupposing the need or benefit of police is not an argument against their abolition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I think you misunderstood. If I have a big block in my post where I talk about why I think people shouldn't use the word "criminal" and your response uses the phrase "like common criminals" as a throwaway line it really suggests you didn't engage with it. I'm going to ask you, directly, to please not use the word "criminal" to refer to a human being again. It's a thought-terminating word. Electric Wrigglies posted:*As an aside, someone posted talking about special cases (I don't know shirley references) but the whole point of the complexity of legal systems is that they are dealing with countless permutations of themes. Large number of cases ARE unique special snowflakes. The systems are trying to simplify without being reductive. Shirley exceptions are not about "cases being unique special snowflakes," Shirley exceptions are about cases where the correct action is to explicitly ignore the written law because it is clearly unjust. The reason that this is a bad idea and a horrible basis for a legal system is that it is an obvious vector for prejudice. Again, I covered this in my big post, did you actually read it? Electric Wrigglies posted:Rubbish arguing a specific irrelevant edge case to refute a generalised argument. The rest of this post is complete just-world garbage that has obviously not engaged with previous posts, especially the bolded sections. I talked about deterrence already, dumbass, it obviously doesn't work because otherwise you would be able to show statistics rather than appealing to logic. There are no statistics suggesting that harsher sentences actually result in reduced crimes. And the last bolded section is obviously wrong. Police have the tools to do their job, and they refuse the oversight to "not get carried away with themselves," which is a cute way of saying murdering homeless and poor people. What tools do you think they need to be given? What more power should cops have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I think you misunderstood. You do realize that being homeless is actually illegal, right? It’s called loitering, or trespassing, or whatever. The act of sleeping in a place you do not own is punished by the justice system if not by actual prison time, then by police harassment and a night or two in jail. Please explain why, if the justice system is actually lenient on the desperate, the actual state of desperation is illegal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Somfin posted:If I have a big block in my post where I talk about why I think people shouldn't use the word "criminal" and your response uses the phrase "like common criminals" as a throwaway line it really suggests you didn't engage with it. I'm going to ask you, directly, to please not use the word "criminal" to refer to a human being again. It's a thought-terminating word. I still think you didn't understand what you read and just threw in a moral high ground to cover your lack of understanding. Somfin posted:
Again, you don't understand, I specifically cited numerous systems where the law itself provides for exemptions and how to utilise them within the rules as specifically written down or precedented, not the system of blind eye policing/ friendly judge, neighbor not dobbing in a mate or whatever. Somfin posted:
I did not argue for stronger sentences than what are already there, my example was specifically that an inconsequential (for the millionaires) fine is sufficient to prevent them from running red lights for the most part (with ramping to help those rich people/companies that done calculus and are happy to pay the fine each time not profit from deliberate rule breaking - say such as Ford with the Pinto). And I am specifically arguing that society is better off with effective police because there is not a just world. How we achieve effective police for me is the challenge. Somfin posted:
Tools such as front facing crises management (panicking police is probably the biggest killer of police in the US, let alone innocent bystanders), effective cultural and diversity training (to elliminate us and them), effective support programs for handoff of non-police appropriate problems (drugs, poverty, mental illness which police get called to all of these), advanced de-escalation techniques (that is not simply escalate to de-escalate), data driven police policy creation (for instance QLD police banned vehicle pursuit altogether to nearly unmitigated success) the list goes on. What tools did you think I was talking about? Cpt_Obvious posted:You do realize that being homeless is actually illegal, right? It’s called loitering, or trespassing, or whatever. The act of sleeping in a place you do not own is punished by the justice system if not by actual prison time, then by police harassment and a night or two in jail. Please explain why, if the justice system is actually lenient on the desperate, the actual state of desperation is illegal. Sleeping rough/in the street is not a crime in Aus (although variations on a theme will make it so a cop can hassle people anyway). Ideally the police will be given the tools to help sort out the issue with a fellow sleeping rough. For now the police point new in the area rough sleepers in the direction of the Salvation Army/women's refuge which is a bit of a government dodge but hopefully we can work towards something better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Sleeping rough/in the street is not a crime in Aus (although variations on a theme will make it so a cop can hassle people anyway). Ideally the police will be given the tools to help sort out the issue with a fellow sleeping rough. For now the police point new in the area rough sleepers in the direction of the Salvation Army/women's refuge which is a bit of a government dodge but hopefully we can work towards something better. Don’t dodge the question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Actually being homeless is so illegal that they tried to make it illegal to give a starving homeless man a sandwich in a number of cities: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/27/federal-court-first-amendment-protects-sharing-food-with-homeless-people/#38a4e0b48842 Anyway, I'm going to drill into this example of being unwilling to examine the underlying presumption of criminality and punitive justice going on in the above post, because it relates to traffic management and I love traffic management. Electric Wrigglies posted:
Let's also hold aside that any fine that does not scale up with income or net worth is going to mean less and less to increasingly rich people. And let's hold aside the fact that cops are much more likely to let off white and wealthy-looking offenders with a warning whereas Black people are more likely to be shot in traffic stops. And let's hold aside the fact that millionaires are such loving assholes about traffic laws that in California Steve Jobs was known for buying a new car every six months so that he'd never have to put a plate on his car expressly for the purpose of avoiding fines from red light cameras and the like: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laz-rear-license-plates-20141203-story.html Let's pretend our punitive system works perfectly and metes out punishment in a completely objective way, which it never will (and can't by design). But let's just pretend. Is that the best way to achieve the actual objective here? That objective isn't punishing people for running red lights or 'educating' people by penalty to follow an arbitrary set of traffic rules. It's theoretically to improve traffic safety for all road users. The existence of the red light itself is an indication of a design failure in the street that has put what is intuitively correct behavior for drivers at odds with safety, which we are now attempting to patch over by punishing people and by disproportionately punishing poor people and Black people. Solving the underlying problems with our traffic management system eliminate the need for a bunch of artificial crimes and the criminalization of people trying to move about the city. To wit: quote:Cumulatively, these three differences represent a disciplined approach to street design that the Dutch call "self explaining streets." This means that the design of the roadway itself offered motorists a clear sense of how to drive safely. Any American transportation professional would instantly agree that one of the biggest sources of crashes in the United States is roads where drivers do not know what to expect and how to drive appropriately. That is the problem that self-explaining streets are designed to solve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:I still think you didn't understand what you read and just threw in a moral high ground to cover your lack of understanding. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you believe that you've "cited" things when you haven't cited a single drat thing. I'm sorry for focusing on the use of the word "criminal" when I should have pointed out that the whole paragraph was a painful have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too reach about reality disconnects and terrorism that happened to also use a word I specifically called out as being harmful. I'm sorry for assuming that you knew what "just world" actually means in the case of logical argument (do some reading here). I'm sorry that you believe that police don't have access to all of those things already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'm sorry. They're referring to their mention of force majeure or self defense, which are legal doctrines that acknowledge that someone did something that would normally be a crime but are not based on the circumstances. In the US at least that's not really a convincing argument because economic need has specifically been found not to be a compelling emergency situation that can be raised as a defense. It's double not convincing because direct 'crimes of desperation' are actually a small fraction of overall crime. Significant amounts of crime certainly fall under 'indirect' crimes of desperation (a life from childhood onwards of facing arbitrary amounts of punishment for things out of your control and racial bias cuts off opportunities for you and crime becomes one of the few ways to make a living). But like someone who runs a phone scam or steals credit card isn't going to be covered by force majeure or any necessity defense. Personally I'm conflicted, I think police and prisons are poo poo and torture respectively. At the same time, I think it's appropriate for any hypothetical justice system for a system be put in place to a. Determine the truth of what happened in a scenario where people have been harmed and b. Enforce punishment or rehabilitation on the the wrongdoer. Because even a rehabilitation focused system will necessarily abrogate some peoples' rights and require enforcement on unwilling people. When I asked my original question about inquisitorial or adversarial legal systems it was mostly a question about how you percieve 'a' working in an anarchial system. I'm still interested in the answer to that, but it looks like the conversation right now is about the necessity of police. They're not necessary. The only truly socially valuable aspect of the police is investigatory powers, the rest is just squeezing the poor for money and terrorizing people to keep them in a kind of passivity. Niether are necessary in a healthy society where wealth is more equitably distributed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
If you want to classify an anarchist idea of justice with your system of classification you need to find out how you would classify the system of justice used in "among us". Pretty much all of utopian anarchism deal with trying to scale up decision structures without introducing additional downsides, generally concluding that using the same system at all problem sizes is a mistake. Though most anarchist theory is anti-utopian for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:If you want to classify an anarchist idea of justice with your system of classification you need to find out how you would classify the system of justice used in "among us". Pretty much all of utopian anarchism deal with trying to scale up decision structures without introducing additional downsides, generally concluding that using the same system at all problem sizes is a mistake. Though most anarchist theory is anti-utopian for various reasons. In the case of intergalactic space sabotage, anarchism is mysteriously silent. Really makes you think. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
I know that I was assigned the role upon my creation of killing as many people as possible so that I win life, while others were assigned the role of stopping me. (this is what some people actually believe lol)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I know that I was assigned the role upon my creation of killing as many people as possible so that I win life, while others were assigned the role of stopping me. Look, If you aren't go to take this seriously then we'll never figure out the heating element to the Volcano of Justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
In that case you just see who can fit into the vents and throw those people into space. Utopia!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I know that I was assigned the role upon my creation of killing as many people as possible so that I win life, while others were assigned the role of stopping me. Spin is sus
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:If you want to classify an anarchist idea of justice with your system of classification you need to find out how you would classify the system of justice used in "among us". Pretty much all of utopian anarchism deal with trying to scale up decision structures without introducing additional downsides, generally concluding that using the same system at all problem sizes is a mistake. Though most anarchist theory is anti-utopian for various reasons. reductio ad absurdum. You are using a game where there is a win/loss state whereas life is not a game and there is no win/loss state other than that which we dictate for ourselves. You might as well say that since we play checkers and if a piece reaches the opposite side of the board, becoming a 'king' whenever we play checkers we are becoming stalwart monarchists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Look all we have to do is accelerate the production of traitor testers, the fact that some maps don't have traitor testers and some of them don't work is artificial scarcity created by the whims of the capitalist map designing class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:reductio ad absurdum. You are using a game where there is a win/loss state whereas life is not a game and there is no win/loss state other than that which we dictate for ourselves. You might as well say that since we play checkers and if a piece reaches the opposite side of the board, becoming a 'king' whenever we play checkers we are becoming stalwart monarchists. What game turns you into a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Monopoly. A game where victory is primarily decided by luck but which instils in the victor a sense of achievement for their accumulation of capital and also makes everyone else not want to talk to you. Also a game that originally had a much more left wing message but due to the machinations of capital had that bit removed and now is inexplicably popular despite being garbage in no small part due to heavy marketing. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Badactura posted:What game turns you into a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
Hey what's that term for libertarians where they reject actual evidence as being inferior to pro-libertarian hypotheses?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey what's that term for libertarians where they reject actual evidence as being inferior to pro-libertarian hypotheses? Praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:reductio ad absurdum. You are using a game where there is a win/loss state whereas life is not a game and there is no win/loss state other than that which we dictate for ourselves. You might as well say that since we play checkers and if a piece reaches the opposite side of the board, becoming a 'king' whenever we play checkers we are becoming stalwart monarchists. Games can easily be examples of organisations and they can represent structures that exist outside of the game. Do you seriously consider that fact questioned by your exaggeration that any depiction must always strongly brainwash people into agreeing with them? I use among us as an example because everybody can participate or at least observe the decision making process. It is a process compatible with most branches of anarchism. I could have gone for an example of minimal scale democracy in small anarchist organisations. But the anti-anarchist arguments state very clearly that the players need to agree on a hierarchical justice system in order to achieve anything at all. So in that weak sense, the game is arguing for anarchism. Compare that for example with ss13, where you do have a pre-established command structure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hey what's that term for libertarians where they reject actual evidence as being inferior to pro-libertarian hypotheses? libertarian
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Praxeology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:I literally don't get which part of my statement you are even disagreeing with? Actually, Reducio ad absurdum is not generally considered a fallacy. Are you stating that you are exaggerating my statement into absurdity? I think you are turning it into a fallacy here. Cpt_Obvious has voted. VictualSquid
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Praxeology. That's the one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:I literally don't get which part of my statement you are even disagreeing with? Actually, Reducio ad absurdum is not generally considered a fallacy. Are you stating that you are exaggerating my statement into absurdity? I think you are turning it into a fallacy here. I mean its still a bad example because the guilty parties in among us regularly deceive and murder the rest of the participants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
https://mises.org/wire/myth-wakanda-how-hollywood-distorts-legacy-colonialism posted:According to the storyline of Black Panther, Wakanda is an isolated nation whose wealth is due to an extremely powerful metal known as vibranium. To protect its resources from foreign invasions, Wakanda established a cloaking technology to hide the nation from the outside world. But Wakanda is an anomaly as described by Mariama Soy and Amadou Sy in a recent piece: “Because of its self-isolation, Wakanda appears to have an economic model where it does not trade its natural resource with the rest of the world: It lives in autarky and invests heavily in technology.” In real life, Wakanda would be Liberia, not Singapore, because isolated nations are often poor and backward. Isn't the main plot of their bible that some ubermenschen build a cloaking device/shield around their libertarian paradise? Is Mises.org saying that Galt's Gulch would be poor and backward? lol of course not, because those people were white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Isn't the main plot of their bible that some ubermenschen build a cloaking device/shield around their libertarian paradise? Is Mises.org saying that Galt's Gulch would be poor and backward? lol of course not, because those people were white. Yeah, Mises appears to not understand that poor nations are poor not due to a lack of trade but because they have been and continue to be deliberately plundered of their wealth by the global north. But then Somfin posted:Mises appears to not understand applies to most things, given the praxeology heresy
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Monopoly isn't that bad as long as you remember to run auctions for un-bought properties. It sucks, but at least it doesn't drag as much. e: unless someone does that thing where you put three houses on everything and refuse to buy hotels and then rules-as-written no one can build more houses when there are no house pieces left. never seen that one in-person though, you'd think people would just agree to use different objects to get past the bottleneck. Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Oct 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Monopoly isn't that bad as long as you remember to run auctions for un-bought properties. It sucks, but at least it doesn't drag as much. The best moment of board gaming in my life was actually nailing someone with a hotel on boardwalk, something I thought was a pure theoretical That and getting the one shot instant kill crit on the White Lion on turn one in Kingdom Death Monster
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The best moment of board gaming in my life was actually nailing someone with a hotel on boardwalk, something I thought was a pure theoretical 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The best moment of board gaming in my life was actually nailing someone with a hotel on boardwalk, something I thought was a pure theoretical I have no idea what you are talking about in the second example, but that is almost impressive given the ridiculous cost of building on blues and greens and the odds of landing on that property. Most I have seen is four houses on one of the green properties - Pacific, I think. The person survived, but they had to sell literally everything and mortgage the rest. That said, I have always "played" monopoly (better to say that it plays you) to remind myself why capitalism sucks. There was a game on Steam that was designed to be like it but having both "capitalist" and "socialist" ways to progress, but I can't remember what it is called. That said, I've always wanted to either try Monopoly either A) by using a d12 rather than 2d6 B) Making properties more or less valuable based on how likely one is to land on them. The reds are the most commonly encountered properties in the game, so they would be more expensive and pay less rent while the most uncommon ones (Dark Blues and Purples, I think), would be cheap and pay very well. While house rules like "fees and taxes go on Free Parking" just drag the game out, I do recommend the "one cannot collect rent while in prison", because it speeds the game up and keeps people from hiding in the clink to avoid playing the bloody game. This is one of the house rules in the Switch version of the game, which I only have because it was literally free. So sue me, I hate Monopoly and capitalism in general, but I love game design theory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Monopoly isn't that bad as long as you remember to run auctions for un-bought properties. It sucks, but at least it doesn't drag as much. I would but my playgroup is pro-ending games of monopoly and into tight concessions
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Somfin posted:Yeah, Mises appears to not understand that poor nations are poor not due to a lack of trade but because they have been and continue to be deliberately plundered of their wealth by the global north. I mean, true isolation would definitely make a nation poor in technology. Trade and regular contact with other peoples is responsible for the circulation of many technologies and diseases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2020 00:09
|
|