RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
Your solution is to do everything to prevent rehabilitation. Might as well just have one penalty for everything: life in prison.
Concealing the information is the solution. Want to know is not need to know. Also, it works against discrimination too.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
Your solution is to do everything to prevent rehabilitation. Might as well just have one penalty for everything: life in prison.
Concealing the information is the solution. Want to know is not need to know. Also, it works against discrimination too.
If you're going to come in here and talk to me about my solutions, at least have the decency to appreciate what they actually are first.
My point is that if we're talking about criminal corrections systems in North America, we aren't talking about rehabilitative systems in the first place, and we're not going to change the nature of the system by changing nothing else but the way we publicize (or don't) people's criminal pasts.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
Your solution is to do everything to prevent rehabilitation. Might as well just have one penalty for everything: life in prison.
Concealing the information is the solution. Want to know is not need to know. Also, it works against discrimination too.
If you're going to come in here and talk to me about my solutions, at least have the decency to appreciate what they actually are first.
My point is that if we're talking about criminal corrections systems in North America, we aren't talking about rehabilitative systems in the first place, and we're not going to change the nature of the system by changing nothing else but the way we publicize (or don't) people's criminal pasts.
Your ill defined solutions are pointless if there's not also the part where people's criminal past is at least partly confidential.
That's one of the big holes in the system right now: a previous conviction leads to problems, like the insanity of cutting people from the already barely existing welfare system in the 'States and major employment discrimination.
In Canada, it's supposed to be illegal to discriminate against someone based on previous convictions (excluding the cases where it's relevant.) Guess what happens when it becomes obvious because prison terms leave holes in CV...
Forget getting a decent job, even if it's unrelated to the crime.
RE private citizens being aware of criminal past: I've seen the current side from the perspective of someone who has been affected by it not only in employment (he now has a trade because someone gave him a chance) but also in personal life. Which I think complicates supporting such a thing even further. The group of people I grew up with includes a few who have skirted the line of criminality, sometimes crossing it and sometimes being caught. One such person has a felony conviction but additionally has domestic complaints against him. Knowing him personally I'm aware of the actual course of events but if you do a background check on him with publically available information you'll find that he has a felony conviction and domestic violence, stalking, and burglary complaints but not convictions. What actually happened was a dispute during a breakup and the other person in the relationship wasn't happy with the break up. While he was moving his things out of the apartment they shared she called the police on him and accused him of burglary, stalking, and abuse. Fast forward a year or two and he begins courting the daughter of his boss at the time. She is able to find publically available information about his interaction with law enforcement and immediately ghosts him.
Now in his case what actually happened was different than the facts at face value. However, what if they hadn't been? Would support of blocking these records change had this saved a woman from an actual abusive person?
I mean, the thing is, if someone is convicted of domestic abuse, if we have a rehabilitative system set up, they shouldn't be treated like an abuser still after they come out.
If someone is abusive to their spouse, should they be a pariah for the rest of their life?
Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough. At any rate, even if a person shouldn't be a pariah in perpetuity because of a particular conviction, the public should not be (and will likely refuse to be) compelled to participate in that person's redemption story. The question is, how should a corrections system be set up so that there is a pathway to rehabilitation, not whether people should be treated as rehabilitated if they participate in that process.
I disagree vehemently.
The public SHOULD DEFINITELY participate in someone's social reinsertion if we as a society want reinsertion to, y'know, succeed.
What good is a rehabilitative system if people come out and the public is still actively encouraged to shun them?
What rehabilitative system are you talking about, though?
Also, it seems like you are reading most of what I write but missing some important words. I said "the public should not be ... compelled to participate" which is a far cry from saying that the public should not participate. I agree that the public should participate in rehabilitation. There are plenty of things that should happen but we don't look at the government to compel those things from people. I should get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. I should not be forced to get a certain amount of physical activity in on a regular basis. See the difference?
I mean, I don't know how it is in the US, but where I'm from, kids are actually compelled to have a minimum amount of physical activity every week in school and that's seen as a good thing. In fact, it's pretty much agreed that it's not stringent enough.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
Similarly, when it comes to the legal system, people are compelled to go against their instincts quite a lot. Like with gag orders not revealing the names of victims or underage perpetrators/suspects.
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
The thing is, if nothing is done to prevent people from discriminating against ex convicts, people will do just that instinctively.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
Your solution is to do everything to prevent rehabilitation. Might as well just have one penalty for everything: life in prison.
Concealing the information is the solution. Want to know is not need to know. Also, it works against discrimination too.
If you're going to come in here and talk to me about my solutions, at least have the decency to appreciate what they actually are first.
My point is that if we're talking about criminal corrections systems in North America, we aren't talking about rehabilitative systems in the first place, and we're not going to change the nature of the system by changing nothing else but the way we publicize (or don't) people's criminal pasts.
Your ill defined solutions are pointless if there's not also the part where people's criminal past is at least partly confidential.
That's one of the big holes in the system right now: a previous conviction leads to problems, like the insanity of cutting people from the already barely existing welfare system in the 'States and major employment discrimination.
In Canada, it's supposed to be illegal to discriminate against someone based on previous convictions (excluding the cases where it's relevant.) Guess what happens when it becomes obvious because prison terms leave holes in CV...
Forget getting a decent job, even if it's unrelated to the crime.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
No. It just shuts down the dumb argument that the government should never be allowed to restrict the "rights" of law-abiding adult citizens.
The restriction itself would still need to be justified on its own merits.
I.e. "The government shouldn't be allowed to ban people from putting lead in food! They're law-abiding citizens!"
"Yes, but they're also dumbasses, so...."
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
Yes, which is the point of laws and regulations.
I don't follow. I asked if the argument "treat citizens as irrational, because human beings are irrational" could be used to justify almost any restriction by the government. You say yes, and that that "is the point of laws and regulations". That makes it seem to me like you are saying that the point of laws and regulations is to justify almost any restriction by the government. That can't be what you actually mean; laws and regulations are often restrictions, and the justification for those restrictions may in part be the fact that we can't just rely on people to automatically know to do and how to do the right thing, but that's not the same as saying that laws and regulations justify restrictions by the government.
Did you just mean that most laws and regulations are in practice justified by the fact that human beings are irrational? If so, I think you are painting a very incomplete picture; there should always be more to any particular law's justification than "human beings are irrational".
Sorry for the pedantry, I know it can be boring and annoying, but my experience in this thread suggests that misunderstandings are common (and annoying for the misunderstood party), and I want to do what I can to avoid misunderstanding others.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
No. It just shuts down the dumb argument that the government should never be allowed to restrict the "rights" of law-abiding adult citizens.
The restriction itself would still need to be justified on its own merits.
I.e. "The government shouldn't be allowed to ban people from putting lead in food! They're law-abiding citizens!"
"Yes, but they're also dumbasses, so...."
Suffice it to say, I'm not here to question whether the government can make laws at all.
The point is that laws and regulations exist because people turn out to be really bad at considering the general welfare, and putting it above their own. The whole point of things like the EU's "right to be forgotten" and the aging of debts after a decade is that without these sorts of restrictions, a bad past can wind up being a millstone around the neck of someone who has turned their life around. So the law has to step in to protect these individuals, even if it means diminishing your own freedom an incredibly small amount in doing so. And yes, laws and regulations still need to be worthy on the merits - the point is that the libertarian argument of "but muh personal freedoms!" is a bad one when used against regulation as a whole, and should be rightfully ignored.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
No, he's not. He's pointing out that (again) people in general are pretty shitty at dealing with the common welfare over their own (there's a reason that the Tragedy of the Commons is A Thing), and as such regulations must exist because of that.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
Yes, which is the point of laws and regulations.
So let's take this premise to an uncomfortable conclusion: The citizen body is irrational. In order to prevent irrational reactions to the presence of LGBT individuals (who make up about 3.5% of citizens estimated), the US bans the open expression of LGBT identity through a combination of a ban on gay marriage, a ban on "sodomy" etc.
You can argue that morally, the US should ban negative expression towards LGBT individuals, groups, or LGBT as a concept because people are irrational rather than the scenario outlined above. But in that you're making a moral choice based on your personal politics. And without a benevolent dictator, the government is going to change and what the government considers the correct answer can change, or what the government considers the metric of rational and irrational can shift. And, working from your framing that laws and regulations exist on the premise that all citizens are irrational actors, only a few years ago that would have been the more realistic outcome as the massive public shift towards pro LGBT (or at least not distinctly anti LGBT) is relatively recent.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
No, he's not. He's pointing out that (again) people in general are pretty shitty at dealing with the common welfare over their own (there's a reason that the Tragedy of the Commons is A Thing), and as such regulations must exist because of that.
That is still not predicated on the entire citizenry being irrational actors. A rational actor is more than capable of caring about their own welfare and the welfare of their immediate circle over the common welfare. Doing so may pose moral issues, but they aren't inherently irrational.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
Yes, which is the point of laws and regulations.
So let's take this premise to an uncomfortable conclusion: The citizen body is irrational. In order to prevent irrational reactions to the presence of LGBT individuals (who make up about 3.5% of citizens estimated), the US bans the open expression of LGBT identity through a combination of a ban on gay marriage, a ban on "sodomy" etc.
You can argue that morally, the US should ban negative expression towards LGBT individuals, groups, or LGBT as a concept because people are irrational rather than the scenario outlined above. But in that you're making a moral choice based on your personal politics. And without a benevolent dictator, the government is going to change and what the government considers the correct answer can change, or what the government considers the metric of rational and irrational can shift. And, working from your framing that laws and regulations exist on the premise that all citizens are irrational actors, only a few years ago that would have been the more realistic outcome as the massive public shift towards pro LGBT (or at least not distinctly anti LGBT) is relatively recent.
Lead is bad. No rational individual would want to have lead on their walls. Even now, walls are still full of lead, because people prefer to have lead on their walls.
The same applies for asbestos, all food safety regulations, all workplace safety regulations, and laws about details like murder (rational people don't commit murder, after all).
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
Yes, which is the point of laws and regulations.
So let's take this premise to an uncomfortable conclusion: The citizen body is irrational. In order to prevent irrational reactions to the presence of LGBT individuals (who make up about 3.5% of citizens estimated), the US bans the open expression of LGBT identity through a combination of a ban on gay marriage, a ban on "sodomy" etc.
You can argue that morally, the US should ban negative expression towards LGBT individuals, groups, or LGBT as a concept because people are irrational rather than the scenario outlined above. But in that you're making a moral choice based on your personal politics. And without a benevolent dictator, the government is going to change and what the government considers the correct answer can change, or what the government considers the metric of rational and irrational can shift. And, working from your framing that laws and regulations exist on the premise that all citizens are irrational actors, only a few years ago that would have been the more realistic outcome as the massive public shift towards pro LGBT (or at least not distinctly anti LGBT) is relatively recent.
Lead is bad. No rational individual would want to have lead on their walls. Even now, walls are still full of lead, because people prefer to have lead on their walls.
The same applies for asbestos, all food safety regulations, all workplace safety regulations, and laws about details like murder (rational people don't commit murder, after all).
This seems like a very faulty conclusion. That some places still have lead paint =/= all people are irrational.
Regulations for the manufacturing of consumer goods, like paint, food, insulation etc. is a regulation against companies because the company as a rational actor attempts to maximize profit. Which means a company may cut corners on quality or content. That a company may use substandard ingredients for their product to cut costs doesn't make them irrational actors. Nor does a shift in materials that are considered safe to being known not to be safe imply that those same companies are irrational actors.
RE criminal law: people who commit crimes can still be rational actors. That you think people who commit homicide are automatically irrational doesn't make it true. Someone who commits murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide can still be a rational actor. And I would posit that most who do so are rational actors as not all are mentally ill.
The point is that laws and regulations exist because people turn out to be really bad at considering the general welfare, and putting it above their own. The whole point of things like the EU's "right to be forgotten" and the aging of debts after a decade is that without these sorts of restrictions, a bad past can wind up being a millstone around the neck of someone who has turned their life around. So the law has to step in to protect these individuals, even if it means diminishing your own freedom an incredibly small amount in doing so. And yes, laws and regulations still need to be worthy on the merits - the point is that the libertarian argument of "but muh personal freedoms!" is a bad one when used against regulation as a whole, and should be rightfully ignored.
Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad I asked.
I think everyone here agrees that governments can and should make laws and regulations for the promotion of the general welfare of the population (and to prevent things like the Tragedy of the Commons, like you mentioned). I think everyone also agrees that the government can't make any old laws and regulations and use general welfare as the sole justification, as you said "laws and regulations still need to be worthy on the merits".
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
Nowhere did I type that you are advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that predicating all law on those being governed (and by extension those governing because rule of law) are irrational actors does invite justification for things we may not like or find morally wrong.
We should make the punishment for X crime immediate execution because the citizenry is inherently irrational and no other punishment or rehabilitation will work could potentially be one of those things.
Pointing that out is not the same as accusing you of advocating for anything.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
Actually, that was me doing both of those things (speculating about government mandating exercise, and then talking about government treating people like children).
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
Nowhere did I type that you are advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that predicating all law on those being governed (and by extension those governing because rule of law) are irrational actors does invite justification for things we may not like or find morally wrong.
We should make the punishment for X crime immediate execution because the citizenry is inherently irrational and no other punishment or rehabilitation will work could potentially be one of those things.
Pointing that out is not the same as accusing you of advocating for anything.
Okay, sure, if you're completely ignoring the context that my post was in response to another that heavily implied that being "law-abiding adults" ethically immunized individuals from government action (and the fact that we're in a thread about post-judicial rehabilitation, a process/problem in which public fear is a major problematic factor), then sure. I don't really know why you feel like the point is worth making at all, but sure.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
Nowhere did I type that you are advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that predicating all law on those being governed (and by extension those governing because rule of law) are irrational actors does invite justification for things we may not like or find morally wrong.
We should make the punishment for X crime immediate execution because the citizenry is inherently irrational and no other punishment or rehabilitation will work could potentially be one of those things.
Pointing that out is not the same as accusing you of advocating for anything.
Okay, sure, if you're completely ignoring the context that my post was in response to another that heavily implied that being "law-abiding adults" ethically immunized individuals from government action (and the fact that we're in a thread about post-judicial rehabilitation, a process/problem in which public fear is a major problematic factor), then sure. I don't really know why you feel like the point is worth making at all, but sure.
I am directly addressing your claim that governments need to treat their citizenry as if they are irrational actors. If you don't actually agree with that claim then I don't understand why you would make it.
So you're saying that the government needs to treat its presumably law-abiding, adult citizens like children?
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
Nowhere did I type that you are advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that predicating all law on those being governed (and by extension those governing because rule of law) are irrational actors does invite justification for things we may not like or find morally wrong.
We should make the punishment for X crime immediate execution because the citizenry is inherently irrational and no other punishment or rehabilitation will work could potentially be one of those things.
Pointing that out is not the same as accusing you of advocating for anything.
Okay, sure, if you're completely ignoring the context that my post was in response to another that heavily implied that being "law-abiding adults" ethically immunized individuals from government action (and the fact that we're in a thread about post-judicial rehabilitation, a process/problem in which public fear is a major problematic factor), then sure. I don't really know why you feel like the point is worth making at all, but sure.
I am directly addressing your claim that governments need to treat their citizenry as if they are irrational actors. If you don't actually agree with that claim then I don't understand why you would make it.
So, I guess you are completely ignoring context then.
Regardless, treating individuals as though they're irrational is not a prelude to predicating all laws on citizens being irrational. Even putting aside the fact that you're entirely ignoring the context of that post, you are still engaging in a red herring argument.
To wit: governments need to treat their citizens as though they're organic beings. That does not imply that all laws are to be predicated on the fact that human beings are composed of carbon-chained macromolecules.
As such, I remain absolutely baffled as to why you think your point is relevant to ... well, anything. Nobody is suggesting any policies re. rehabilitation that are predicated solely on the fact that human beings are irrational. Someone is/was/seemed to be suggesting that certain policies are unacceptable because they make "law-abiding adults" do things they don't want to, which is only acceptable to do to children (or something like that), a line of reasoning I reject in general, as it would pretty much torpedo any sort of law or regulation, and especially so in the context of convict rehabilitation, due to irrational fear towards anybody with a criminal/conviction/police record of any sort, both personal and institutional.
(Hell, I'm not even sure I'd be for a mandatory exercise law. Though I admit that society would likely be better off if I were made to go outside and get some regular exercise.)
If we wrote laws from the perspective that all citizens act rationally, then there wouldn't be any restrictions on gun ownership, and heroin would be legal. It's probably unfair to say that laws should be crafted because people are irrational 100% of the time, but rather because people can be irrational... and also bad faith actors or occasionally rational, good faith actors that just need a neutral third party to decide something for them.
I would say that it's accurate in that a legislative or executive branch run wild can result in a dictatorship. The one and only job of any law is to restrict your freedoms under threat of force. That's why a free society has a constitution that guarantees a core set of rights for its citizens and an impartial judicial branch tasked with throwing out laws that encroach too far on those rights.
I really regret making that comment. I expected that people wouldn't take it seriously and it's derailed the conversation over something nobody really disagrees about.
Eh. Laws exist because we figure that people are mostly rational. After all, the consideration "Hey, maybe I shouldn't do this 'cause it's wrong/illegal?" is a rational statement.
Personally this statement pretty much sums up my own views of laws "When you're making a law, consider first what evil it can do when used wrong. Only then can you consider what good it can do when used right".
P.S: In the Homolka case my view is pretty much that people should probably fuck off. It's 25 years ago, she served 12 years prison time (which honestly isn't a cakewalk by any standard) and who has, as far as I can tell, tried to do everything to stay on the right side of the law and be a good citizen since she was released 13 years ago. Yet every few years there is some journalist that tracks her down, writes articles accusing her husband of being mentally insane for raising a family with her and trying to make her life miserable.
Every excerpt from her diary (those parts made available through the trial records), every credible psychology report (from actual psychiatrists who have actually interviewed her) points to the conclusion that Paul Bernardo sought her out because she had low-self esteem, was eager to please and fairly weak-willed and then spent 4-years working her over. We like to see perpetrator and victim as two separate things, but sometimes you can't draw that line. But yeah. Maybe she shouldn't volunteer at a catholic school and work with kids. On the other hand it's not hard to understand why she did it, and that without reaching for sinister explanations.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Eh. Laws exist because we figure that people are mostly rational. After all, the consideration "Hey, maybe I shouldn't do this 'cause it's wrong/illegal?" is a rational statement.
Personally this statement pretty much sums up my own views of laws "When you're making a law, consider first what evil it can do when used wrong. Only then can you consider what good it can do when used right".
P.S: In the Homolka case my view is pretty much that people should probably fuck off. It's 25 years ago, she served 12 years prison time (which honestly isn't a cakewalk by any standard) and who has, as far as I can tell, tried to do everything to stay on the right side of the law and be a good citizen since she was released 13 years ago. Yet every few years there is some journalist that tracks her down, writes articles accusing her husband of being mentally insane for raising a family with her and trying to make her life miserable.
Every excerpt from her diary (those parts made available through the trial records), every credible psychology report (from actual psychiatrists who have actually interviewed her) points to the conclusion that Paul Bernardo sought her out because she had low-self esteem, was eager to please and fairly weak-willed and then spent 4-years working her over. We like to see perpetrator and victim as two separate things, but sometimes you can't draw that line. But yeah. Maybe she shouldn't volunteer at a catholic school and work with kids. On the other hand it's not hard to understand why she did it, and that without reaching for sinister explanations.
I'm not sure how clear this has been in this thread, but said school was the school her children attended. She was volunteering as a parent. It's in the OP, but I'm not sure if everybody knows that/it makes any difference. It seems to me like it's a kind of another step to say that a convict can't even volunteer at their own kid's school, if only because now we're dragging their kid into this mess too.
The flip-side of this, of course, is that schools should probably retain the discretion to choose which parents volunteer there, and not just be forced to take on every parent of every student, for obvious reasons.
From a personal perspective... I'm not sure at all. I mean, she had the confidence of the school board who have a far better ability to judge her influence than backseat driving parents.
As someone working at a school though, working/volunteering at a school is a social minefield. If a significant portion of your country believe that you're the devil incarnate it's not a minefield you can safely navigate. Someone will be blown up, and it's the kids and not the parents who will end up suffering for it.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Another pet peeve of mine with this particular conversation is the assumption of statistics for recidivism vs first time offense. We assume someone who has previously committed an offense is far more likely to commit an offense in the future than someone who has never previously committed one, but I'm not sure that is actually born out by the statistics.
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Another pet peeve of mine with this particular conversation is the assumption of statistics for recidivism vs first time offense. We assume someone who has previously committed an offense is far more likely to commit an offense in the future than someone who has never previously committed one, but I'm not sure that is actually born out by the statistics.
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
I did a peer reviewed thesis on this. The conclusion from peer reviewed articles used to support my stance was yes. Someone who has previously committed a crime was more likely to be apprehended committing another crime than someone who has never committed a crime.
But what my stance was, work release and society reintegration programs greatly reduced recidivism (pretty much cut it in half).
I don't have the paper in front of me and my hard drive is in storage, but if I remember right with no reintegration program recidivism rates were about 12 percent with work release or equivalent, recidivism rates were 5 percent and Joe average was around 2 percent.
Another pet peeve of mine with this particular conversation is the assumption of statistics for recidivism vs first time offense. We assume someone who has previously committed an offense is far more likely to commit an offense in the future than someone who has never previously committed one, but I'm not sure that is actually born out by the statistics.
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
I did a peer reviewed thesis on this. The conclusion from peer reviewed articles used to support my stance was yes. Someone who has previously committed a crime was more likely to be apprehended committing another crime than someone who has never committed a crime.
But what my stance was, work release and society reintegration programs greatly reduced recidivism (pretty much cut it in half).
I don't have the paper in front of me and my hard drive is in storage, but if I remember right with no reintegration program recidivism rates were about 12 percent with work release or equivalent, recidivism rates were 5 percent and Joe average was around 2 percent.
Which is understandable - a lot of people commit crimes because of external factors, and even with perfect reintegration you haven't necessarily fixed those problems, so they'd still be in an elevated risk group. Were you able to find numbers to do comparisons along similar socioeconomic groups (it sounds like your baseline is just population as a whole)?
Another pet peeve of mine with this particular conversation is the assumption of statistics for recidivism vs first time offense. We assume someone who has previously committed an offense is far more likely to commit an offense in the future than someone who has never previously committed one, but I'm not sure that is actually born out by the statistics.
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
I did a peer reviewed thesis on this. The conclusion from peer reviewed articles used to support my stance was yes. Someone who has previously committed a crime was more likely to be apprehended committing another crime than someone who has never committed a crime.
But what my stance was, work release and society reintegration programs greatly reduced recidivism (pretty much cut it in half).
I don't have the paper in front of me and my hard drive is in storage, but if I remember right with no reintegration program recidivism rates were about 12 percent with work release or equivalent, recidivism rates were 5 percent and Joe average was around 2 percent.
Which is understandable - a lot of people commit crimes because of external factors, and even with perfect reintegration you haven't necessarily fixed those problems, so they'd still be in an elevated risk group. Were you able to find numbers to do comparisons along similar socioeconomic groups (it sounds like your baseline is just population as a whole)?
My focus wasn't on socioeconomic groups, there wasn't enough raw data when I wrote the paper to make a sound conclusion, and I controlled for old people and minors.
From a personal perspective... I'm not sure at all. I mean, she had the confidence of the school board who have a far better ability to judge her influence than backseat driving parents.
As someone working at a school though, working/volunteering at a school is a social minefield. If a significant portion of your country believe that you're the devil incarnate it's not a minefield you can safely navigate. Someone will be blown up, and it's the kids and not the parents who will end up suffering for it.
I'm not about to tell you that you can't trust the school's administration, but I have my doubts because it's a religious school, and there are too many instances of religious bodies either looking the other way or actively facilitating abuse.
Another pet peeve of mine with this particular conversation is the assumption of statistics for recidivism vs first time offense. We assume someone who has previously committed an offense is far more likely to commit an offense in the future than someone who has never previously committed one, but I'm not sure that is actually born out by the statistics.
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
I did a peer reviewed thesis on this. The conclusion from peer reviewed articles used to support my stance was yes. Someone who has previously committed a crime was more likely to be apprehended committing another crime than someone who has never committed a crime.
But what my stance was, work release and society reintegration programs greatly reduced recidivism (pretty much cut it in half).
I don't have the paper in front of me and my hard drive is in storage, but if I remember right with no reintegration program recidivism rates were about 12 percent with work release or equivalent, recidivism rates were 5 percent and Joe average was around 2 percent.
Which is understandable - a lot of people commit crimes because of external factors, and even with perfect reintegration you haven't necessarily fixed those problems, so they'd still be in an elevated risk group. Were you able to find numbers to do comparisons along similar socioeconomic groups (it sounds like your baseline is just population as a whole)?
These are important points. Clearly intervention and active reintegration programs are effective. How did the reintegration programs work (in general terms)? Is it possible to have a reintegration program that keeps the information about convictions totally confidential?
Are parole violations considered crimes for the sake of measuring recidivism?
There's an entire set of rules that go along with parole and probation that don't apply to random guy without a record.
I don't think there's a fair way to go about weighing a person's criminal convictions and time served with the way our justice system works. Obviously there are convicted felons who have psychological issues that should probably put them in mental health during/after a prison sentence, as well as felons who aren't able to be rehabilitated.
It's just that with the racism, mandatory minimum sentences and just plain old failures of the court system, it feels really scummy to both not be just in sentencing, but also shit up someone's entire life once they serve what's supposed to be their time in prison.
RE Parole/Probation Violations: They can also be pretty shitty in implementation. In most cases having any contact with police, including calling the police to report a crime, can be construed as violating probation.
RE Parole/Probation Violations: They can also be pretty shitty in implementation. In most cases having any contact with police, including calling the police to report a crime, can be construed as violating probation.
I'd like to see something to back up that bold statement. I've never heard of anyone getting a violation, or even being charged with one, for reporting a crime.
In my state the general condition is "violate no laws."
Are parole violations considered crimes for the sake of measuring recidivism?
There's an entire set of rules that go along with parole and probation that don't apply to random guy without a record.
I don't think there's a fair way to go about weighing a person's criminal convictions and time served with the way our justice system works. Obviously there are convicted felons who have psychological issues that should probably put them in mental health during/after a prison sentence, as well as felons who aren't able to be rehabilitated.
It's just that with the racism, mandatory minimum sentences and just plain old failures of the court system, it feels really scummy to both not be just in sentencing, but also shit up someone's entire life once they serve what's supposed to be their time in prison.
That's why I've been saying the systems need a complete overhaul. When a system has a fundamental commitment to cutting people off from society as punishment, it will inevitably generate people who are not in a good place to recreate the necessary social ties for smooth reintegration. The public knows this, the way a person knows to be cautious around a dog that's been kicked. I think that a system that follows more of a restorative justice model, with a focus on accepting responsibility and community-led efforts to actually compensate for the harm done, would do a much better job of promoting reintegration, without concealing anyone's past or forcing anyone (other than the perpetrator, I suppose) to accept and interact with anyone they're not prepared to.
RE Parole/Probation Violations: They can also be pretty shitty in implementation. In most cases having any contact with police, including calling the police to report a crime, can be construed as violating probation.
I'd like to see something to back up that bold statement. I've never heard of anyone getting a violation, or even being charged with one, for reporting a crime.
In my state the general condition is "violate no laws."
This is only anecdotal experience. I've seen an acquaintance be cuffed and booked for violation of probation for contact with police when he called for a domestic issue. I should have outlined that it was anecdotal experience.
Here's a link explaining a law here in Florida involving arrest for violation of probation. According to this if one is arrested for a new suspected crime they are automatically held until a violation of probation hearing. As it reads to me that means without the ability to post bail before the probation hearing.
So it's likely that he was arrested for the domestic call and was held until the probation hearing.
RE Parole/Probation Violations: They can also be pretty shitty in implementation. In most cases having any contact with police, including calling the police to report a crime, can be construed as violating probation.
I'd like to see something to back up that bold statement. I've never heard of anyone getting a violation, or even being charged with one, for reporting a crime.
In my state the general condition is "violate no laws."
This is only anecdotal experience. I've seen an acquaintance be cuffed and booked for violation of probation for contact with police when he called for a domestic issue. I should have outlined that it was anecdotal experience.
Here's a link explaining a law here in Florida involving arrest for violation of probation. According to this if one is arrested for a new suspected crime they are automatically held until a violation of probation hearing. As it reads to me that means without the ability to post bail before the probation hearing.
So it's likely that he was arrested for the domestic call and was held until the probation hearing.
Holy shit is that law open to abuse.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Posts
Also a bad example, because the general expectation is that those kinds of information can be publicized, and there are exceptions in certain cases/situations.
Right, and your answer (concealing the information that would lead to discrimination) is like trying to solve racial discrimination by making everyone wear a mask.
Concealing the information is the solution. Want to know is not need to know. Also, it works against discrimination too.
If you'd read my previous posts in the thread, you'd know that my solution is "radical reform" of the entire system (see here: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/37729111/#Comment_37729111), which might include "careful and limited community engagement as part of a sentence, so that once a person has done their time, they have a support network within the community that can vouch for them and help keep them on a less troublesome path" (see here: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/37729288/#Comment_37729288).
If you're going to come in here and talk to me about my solutions, at least have the decency to appreciate what they actually are first.
My point is that if we're talking about criminal corrections systems in North America, we aren't talking about rehabilitative systems in the first place, and we're not going to change the nature of the system by changing nothing else but the way we publicize (or don't) people's criminal pasts.
No, governments need to treat their law-abiding adult citizens like they're irrational beings, because that's what human beings are.
Your ill defined solutions are pointless if there's not also the part where people's criminal past is at least partly confidential.
That's one of the big holes in the system right now: a previous conviction leads to problems, like the insanity of cutting people from the already barely existing welfare system in the 'States and major employment discrimination.
In Canada, it's supposed to be illegal to discriminate against someone based on previous convictions (excluding the cases where it's relevant.) Guess what happens when it becomes obvious because prison terms leave holes in CV...
Forget getting a decent job, even if it's unrelated to the crime.
I don't necessarily disagree, but couldn't that line be used to justify almost any restriction by the government?
I don't need to guess, I already made that point!
Yes, which is the point of laws and regulations.
No. It just shuts down the dumb argument that the government should never be allowed to restrict the "rights" of law-abiding adult citizens.
The restriction itself would still need to be justified on its own merits.
I.e. "The government shouldn't be allowed to ban people from putting lead in food! They're law-abiding citizens!"
"Yes, but they're also dumbasses, so...."
I don't follow. I asked if the argument "treat citizens as irrational, because human beings are irrational" could be used to justify almost any restriction by the government. You say yes, and that that "is the point of laws and regulations". That makes it seem to me like you are saying that the point of laws and regulations is to justify almost any restriction by the government. That can't be what you actually mean; laws and regulations are often restrictions, and the justification for those restrictions may in part be the fact that we can't just rely on people to automatically know to do and how to do the right thing, but that's not the same as saying that laws and regulations justify restrictions by the government.
Did you just mean that most laws and regulations are in practice justified by the fact that human beings are irrational? If so, I think you are painting a very incomplete picture; there should always be more to any particular law's justification than "human beings are irrational".
Sorry for the pedantry, I know it can be boring and annoying, but my experience in this thread suggests that misunderstandings are common (and annoying for the misunderstood party), and I want to do what I can to avoid misunderstanding others.
edit:
Suffice it to say, I'm not here to question whether the government can make laws at all.
Law should not be predicated on the citizenry being irrational. You're inviting a lot of potential for totalitarian measures in the name of the "irrationality of the citizen body".
No, he's not. He's pointing out that (again) people in general are pretty shitty at dealing with the common welfare over their own (there's a reason that the Tragedy of the Commons is A Thing), and as such regulations must exist because of that.
So let's take this premise to an uncomfortable conclusion: The citizen body is irrational. In order to prevent irrational reactions to the presence of LGBT individuals (who make up about 3.5% of citizens estimated), the US bans the open expression of LGBT identity through a combination of a ban on gay marriage, a ban on "sodomy" etc.
You can argue that morally, the US should ban negative expression towards LGBT individuals, groups, or LGBT as a concept because people are irrational rather than the scenario outlined above. But in that you're making a moral choice based on your personal politics. And without a benevolent dictator, the government is going to change and what the government considers the correct answer can change, or what the government considers the metric of rational and irrational can shift. And, working from your framing that laws and regulations exist on the premise that all citizens are irrational actors, only a few years ago that would have been the more realistic outcome as the massive public shift towards pro LGBT (or at least not distinctly anti LGBT) is relatively recent.
That is still not predicated on the entire citizenry being irrational actors. A rational actor is more than capable of caring about their own welfare and the welfare of their immediate circle over the common welfare. Doing so may pose moral issues, but they aren't inherently irrational.
I don't know in what rational world, "Humans are irrational. Therefore governments should acknowledge this in their treatment of and interactions with the citizenry," has a corollary of, "Any and all laws anybody can ever dream of are now justified."
I mean, someone idly speculated as to whether governments should be allowed to compel citizens to exercise, and then someone else threw up a bullshit straw man of, "Oh, so governments should be allowed to treat law-abiding adults like children!" And I decided to tackle the straw man at face value: it's not treating law-abiding adults like children; it's treating them like the irrational human beings that they are, and suddenly, now I'm advocating for totalitarianism.
This is some seriously gooseshit libertarian strawmannery here.
The same applies for asbestos, all food safety regulations, all workplace safety regulations, and laws about details like murder (rational people don't commit murder, after all).
This seems like a very faulty conclusion. That some places still have lead paint =/= all people are irrational.
Regulations for the manufacturing of consumer goods, like paint, food, insulation etc. is a regulation against companies because the company as a rational actor attempts to maximize profit. Which means a company may cut corners on quality or content. That a company may use substandard ingredients for their product to cut costs doesn't make them irrational actors. Nor does a shift in materials that are considered safe to being known not to be safe imply that those same companies are irrational actors.
RE criminal law: people who commit crimes can still be rational actors. That you think people who commit homicide are automatically irrational doesn't make it true. Someone who commits murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide can still be a rational actor. And I would posit that most who do so are rational actors as not all are mentally ill.
Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad I asked.
I think everyone here agrees that governments can and should make laws and regulations for the promotion of the general welfare of the population (and to prevent things like the Tragedy of the Commons, like you mentioned). I think everyone also agrees that the government can't make any old laws and regulations and use general welfare as the sole justification, as you said "laws and regulations still need to be worthy on the merits".
Nowhere did I type that you are advocating for anything. I'm pointing out that predicating all law on those being governed (and by extension those governing because rule of law) are irrational actors does invite justification for things we may not like or find morally wrong.
We should make the punishment for X crime immediate execution because the citizenry is inherently irrational and no other punishment or rehabilitation will work could potentially be one of those things.
Pointing that out is not the same as accusing you of advocating for anything.
Actually, that was me doing both of those things (speculating about government mandating exercise, and then talking about government treating people like children).
Okay, sure, if you're completely ignoring the context that my post was in response to another that heavily implied that being "law-abiding adults" ethically immunized individuals from government action (and the fact that we're in a thread about post-judicial rehabilitation, a process/problem in which public fear is a major problematic factor), then sure. I don't really know why you feel like the point is worth making at all, but sure.
I am directly addressing your claim that governments need to treat their citizenry as if they are irrational actors. If you don't actually agree with that claim then I don't understand why you would make it.
So, I guess you are completely ignoring context then.
Regardless, treating individuals as though they're irrational is not a prelude to predicating all laws on citizens being irrational. Even putting aside the fact that you're entirely ignoring the context of that post, you are still engaging in a red herring argument.
To wit: governments need to treat their citizens as though they're organic beings. That does not imply that all laws are to be predicated on the fact that human beings are composed of carbon-chained macromolecules.
As such, I remain absolutely baffled as to why you think your point is relevant to ... well, anything. Nobody is suggesting any policies re. rehabilitation that are predicated solely on the fact that human beings are irrational. Someone is/was/seemed to be suggesting that certain policies are unacceptable because they make "law-abiding adults" do things they don't want to, which is only acceptable to do to children (or something like that), a line of reasoning I reject in general, as it would pretty much torpedo any sort of law or regulation, and especially so in the context of convict rehabilitation, due to irrational fear towards anybody with a criminal/conviction/police record of any sort, both personal and institutional.
(Hell, I'm not even sure I'd be for a mandatory exercise law. Though I admit that society would likely be better off if I were made to go outside and get some regular exercise.)
I would say that it's accurate in that a legislative or executive branch run wild can result in a dictatorship. The one and only job of any law is to restrict your freedoms under threat of force. That's why a free society has a constitution that guarantees a core set of rights for its citizens and an impartial judicial branch tasked with throwing out laws that encroach too far on those rights.
Personally this statement pretty much sums up my own views of laws "When you're making a law, consider first what evil it can do when used wrong. Only then can you consider what good it can do when used right".
P.S: In the Homolka case my view is pretty much that people should probably fuck off. It's 25 years ago, she served 12 years prison time (which honestly isn't a cakewalk by any standard) and who has, as far as I can tell, tried to do everything to stay on the right side of the law and be a good citizen since she was released 13 years ago. Yet every few years there is some journalist that tracks her down, writes articles accusing her husband of being mentally insane for raising a family with her and trying to make her life miserable.
Every excerpt from her diary (those parts made available through the trial records), every credible psychology report (from actual psychiatrists who have actually interviewed her) points to the conclusion that Paul Bernardo sought her out because she had low-self esteem, was eager to please and fairly weak-willed and then spent 4-years working her over. We like to see perpetrator and victim as two separate things, but sometimes you can't draw that line. But yeah. Maybe she shouldn't volunteer at a catholic school and work with kids. On the other hand it's not hard to understand why she did it, and that without reaching for sinister explanations.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I'm not sure how clear this has been in this thread, but said school was the school her children attended. She was volunteering as a parent. It's in the OP, but I'm not sure if everybody knows that/it makes any difference. It seems to me like it's a kind of another step to say that a convict can't even volunteer at their own kid's school, if only because now we're dragging their kid into this mess too.
The flip-side of this, of course, is that schools should probably retain the discretion to choose which parents volunteer there, and not just be forced to take on every parent of every student, for obvious reasons.
As someone working at a school though, working/volunteering at a school is a social minefield. If a significant portion of your country believe that you're the devil incarnate it's not a minefield you can safely navigate. Someone will be blown up, and it's the kids and not the parents who will end up suffering for it.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
If you could account for variables like not having a job, being poor in general, and all the other things that drive people to crime, I wonder what the crime rate would be for ex-cons compared to the general population with the same factors. At any rate I think it's disingenuous to act as though there aren't always risks of crimes being committed by anyone you might live by, work with, hire, ect...
But what my stance was, work release and society reintegration programs greatly reduced recidivism (pretty much cut it in half).
I don't have the paper in front of me and my hard drive is in storage, but if I remember right with no reintegration program recidivism rates were about 12 percent with work release or equivalent, recidivism rates were 5 percent and Joe average was around 2 percent.
Which is understandable - a lot of people commit crimes because of external factors, and even with perfect reintegration you haven't necessarily fixed those problems, so they'd still be in an elevated risk group. Were you able to find numbers to do comparisons along similar socioeconomic groups (it sounds like your baseline is just population as a whole)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'm not about to tell you that you can't trust the school's administration, but I have my doubts because it's a religious school, and there are too many instances of religious bodies either looking the other way or actively facilitating abuse.
These are important points. Clearly intervention and active reintegration programs are effective. How did the reintegration programs work (in general terms)? Is it possible to have a reintegration program that keeps the information about convictions totally confidential?
There's an entire set of rules that go along with parole and probation that don't apply to random guy without a record.
I don't think there's a fair way to go about weighing a person's criminal convictions and time served with the way our justice system works. Obviously there are convicted felons who have psychological issues that should probably put them in mental health during/after a prison sentence, as well as felons who aren't able to be rehabilitated.
It's just that with the racism, mandatory minimum sentences and just plain old failures of the court system, it feels really scummy to both not be just in sentencing, but also shit up someone's entire life once they serve what's supposed to be their time in prison.
I'd like to see something to back up that bold statement. I've never heard of anyone getting a violation, or even being charged with one, for reporting a crime.
In my state the general condition is "violate no laws."
That's why I've been saying the systems need a complete overhaul. When a system has a fundamental commitment to cutting people off from society as punishment, it will inevitably generate people who are not in a good place to recreate the necessary social ties for smooth reintegration. The public knows this, the way a person knows to be cautious around a dog that's been kicked. I think that a system that follows more of a restorative justice model, with a focus on accepting responsibility and community-led efforts to actually compensate for the harm done, would do a much better job of promoting reintegration, without concealing anyone's past or forcing anyone (other than the perpetrator, I suppose) to accept and interact with anyone they're not prepared to.
This is only anecdotal experience. I've seen an acquaintance be cuffed and booked for violation of probation for contact with police when he called for a domestic issue. I should have outlined that it was anecdotal experience.
Here's a link explaining a law here in Florida involving arrest for violation of probation. According to this if one is arrested for a new suspected crime they are automatically held until a violation of probation hearing. As it reads to me that means without the ability to post bail before the probation hearing.
So it's likely that he was arrested for the domestic call and was held until the probation hearing.
Holy shit is that law open to abuse.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden