As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

crime and (social) punishment

13

Posts

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Never pre-order anything. Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    Okay.

    So this justifies people having lifelong issues getting jobs because of a marijuana felony how exactly?

    To clairfy, I am pushing forward the idea that this needs to be a case-by-case basis, as was said earlier in the thread and clearly pushed back upon.

    jungleroomx on
    "Oh god, you're so tough, with your fucking open nose and throat" - Bill Burr to Joe Rogan, after Joe said masks were for "pussies."
    Styrofoam Sammich
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    For what it's worth, Brock Turner has a job in shipping and receiving at a factory. That's a different life trajectory than he was on before he was caught and convicted as a rapist, but he's still gainfully employed.

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
    Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
    Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
    Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
    Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.

    Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
    Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
    Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
    And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.

    What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.

    So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.

    Crimes that are inherently selfish and victimizing, like murder and sexual assault, really require rehabilitation. Lots of therapy and assistance to change the person's way of thinking, since it is obviously flawed.

    The U.S. federal government has proven incapable of providing such a service, at least one that isn't just a horror story given life, and society seems intent on making those people a source of revenue instead of something broken needing fixing.

    It would require a sea change, and probably a miracle, for a county like the U.S. to help those people. I'm not trying to be nihilistic, I just don't see a bright spot in it. I vaguely remember reading about some county like... Denmark or Norway that was having success with rehabilitation with sex criminals, but their prison populations are low enough to experiment like that (not to mention their culture wildly different at large).

    It amazes me how as a country built on the whole redemption arc of Jesus Christ that we hold grudges so strongly. We should be forgiving criminals and helping them move past their transgressions via training and therapy; not ostracizing them from society.

    And if our criminal punishment system moved to one of rehabilitation, it would have a knock on effect eliminating racist enforcement of the law and deconstructing the for-profit prison system.

    To me, and this is a topic for a separate thread, but one of the biggest moves in modern times towards a rehabilitative system is legalization of marijuana. Because the war on drugs was specifically launched to keep minorities in check.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    One, the US isn't built upon the redemption arc of Jesus Christ. We're built upon the philosophies of the Puritans who hated everyone else so much that they literally went on a one-way death charge across the ocean.

    Considering the backlash of rape and murder as holding a grudge is also a pretty hot take, right there.

    jungleroomxshrykeNyysjanAngelHedgieiTunesIsEvilFencingsaxkimeFANTOMASMegaMekdispatch.oHacksawMonwyn
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

    If your objection is that "Brock Turner didn't serve enough time for his crime" then that's a problem with the justice system and the obvious answer is to fix the justice system.

    jungleroomxTryCatcherJebus314FencingsaxFlying CouchMonwyn
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
    Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
    Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
    Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
    Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.

    Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
    Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
    Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
    And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.

    What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.

    So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.

    Crimes that are inherently selfish and victimizing, like murder and sexual assault, really require rehabilitation. Lots of therapy and assistance to change the person's way of thinking, since it is obviously flawed.

    The U.S. federal government has proven incapable of providing such a service, at least one that isn't just a horror story given life, and society seems intent on making those people a source of revenue instead of something broken needing fixing.

    It would require a sea change, and probably a miracle, for a county like the U.S. to help those people. I'm not trying to be nihilistic, I just don't see a bright spot in it. I vaguely remember reading about some county like... Denmark or Norway that was having success with rehabilitation with sex criminals, but their prison populations are low enough to experiment like that (not to mention their culture wildly different at large).

    It amazes me how as a country built on the whole redemption arc of Jesus Christ that we hold grudges so strongly. We should be forgiving criminals and helping them move past their transgressions via training and therapy; not ostracizing them from society.

    And if our criminal punishment system moved to one of rehabilitation, it would have a knock on effect eliminating racist enforcement of the law and deconstructing the for-profit prison system.

    To me, and this is a topic for a separate thread, but one of the biggest moves in modern times towards a rehabilitative system is legalization of marijuana. Because the war on drugs was specifically launched to keep minorities in check.
    Wat? That's, such a weird take that the mind boggles.

    The main problem with this conversation is that "criminal" is such a broad category.
    Because the answe to when should we forgive "a criminal", can go from.
    Never because there is nothing worth forgiving.
    to
    Never because holy fuck how can you even ask that.

    jungleroomxFencingsax
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    That you can cite that, and think it supports your pro social punishment position is fucking baffling to me.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    That you can cite that, and think it supports your pro social punishment position is fucking baffling to me.

    It's irrelevant to the thread. The judge didn't lose his position because of legal barriers due to a criminal conviction.

    He lost it because it was a private position that required that parents trust him with their children, and neither the employer, the parents, or children were willing to extend that trust anymore because of his willingness to shield a sexual predator from the consequences of their actions. You wanna pass laws that force these people to put their children in his care?

    AngelHedgieFencingsaxMegaMekHacksaw
  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Actually the US justice system was designed with an intent of rehabilitation and reforming criminals, rather than punishment either to exact vengeance or deter crime through the punishment's severity. The Founding Fathers were all students of the Enlightenment, where this view on justice emerged, and Benjamin Franklin in particular wrote a great deal on the subject. When the US was founded they actually did drastically reduce the severity of penalties, from an abundance of capital punishment for even minor crimes (e.g. death penalty for stealing horses) or other physical punishment (e.g. whipping) to largely incarceration based where the idea is that the criminal reflects on his crimes and learns to be a better man.

    Oh, and one other thing they wrote strongly against and was banned in the US: public shaming as a punishment. Things like being locked in a stockade, literally pilloried in the town square to be displayed in public and your reputation destroyed.

    Frankly the state of both official, where homosexual rape is considered part of the punishment and laughed at as a joke, where men are released from prison but their lives effectively ruined anyway, and unofficial, where even those merely accused of a crime are pilloried and God help those convicted, systems of criminal justice today would leave the Founding Fathers aghast, IMO. These are absolutely not the principles the nation's justice system was built upon.

    Lanlaorn on
    Fencingsax
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Actually the US justice system was designed with an intent of rehabilitation and reforming criminals, rather than punishment either to exact vengeance or deter crime through the punishment's severity. The Founding Fathers were all students of the Enlightenment, where this view on justice emerged, and Benjamin Franklin in particular wrote a great deal on the subject. When the US was founded they actually did drastically reduce the severity of penalties, from an abundance of capital punishment for even minor crimes (e.g. death penalty for stealing horses) or other physical punishment (e.g. whipping) to largely incarceration based where the idea is that the criminal reflects on his crimes and learns to be a better man.

    Oh, and one other thing they wrote strongly against and was banned in the US: public shaming as a punishment. Things like being locked in a stockade, literally pilloried in the town square to be displayed in public and your reputation destroyed.

    Frankly the state of both official, where homosexual rape is considered part of the punishment and laughed at as a joke, where men are released from prison but their lives effectively ruined anyway, and unofficial, where even those merely accused of a crime are pilloried and God help those convicted, systems criminal justice today would leave the Founding Fathers aghast, IMO. These are absolutely not the principals the nation's justice system was built upon.

    Given that the Founders included chattel slave holders and, you know, rapists whose inaction set the stage for the bloodiest war this nation has ever fought, looking to them for moral authority is a rather questionable position.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PhillishereTicaldfjamFencingsaxDarkPrimusMegaMekHacksaw
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    Actually the US justice system was designed with an intent of rehabilitation and reforming criminals, rather than punishment either to exact vengeance or deter crime through the punishment's severity. The Founding Fathers were all students of the Enlightenment, where this view on justice emerged, and Benjamin Franklin in particular wrote a great deal on the subject. When the US was founded they actually did drastically reduce the severity of penalties, from an abundance of capital punishment for even minor crimes (e.g. death penalty for stealing horses) or other physical punishment (e.g. whipping) to largely incarceration based where the idea is that the criminal reflects on his crimes and learns to be a better man.

    Oh, and one other thing they wrote strongly against and was banned in the US: public shaming as a punishment. Things like being locked in a stockade, literally pilloried in the town square to be displayed in public and your reputation destroyed.

    Frankly the state of both official, where homosexual rape is considered part of the punishment and laughed at as a joke, where men are released from prison but their lives effectively ruined anyway, and unofficial, where even those merely accused of a crime are pilloried and God help those convicted, systems criminal justice today would leave the Founding Fathers aghast, IMO. These are absolutely not the principals the nation's justice system was built upon.

    Given that the Founders included chattel slave holders and, you know, rapists whose inaction set the stage for the bloodiest war this nation has ever fought, looking to them for moral authority is a rather questionable position.

    Helping a slave escape was a capital offense in much of the South until after the Civil War. State governments were running execution factories until 20th century reforms.

    And that’s not even getting into the Native American genocides.

    TicaldfjamFencingsaxMegaMekHacksaw
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    One, the US isn't built upon the redemption arc of Jesus Christ. We're built upon the philosophies of the Puritans who hated everyone else so much that they literally went on a one-way death charge across the ocean.

    Considering the backlash of rape and murder as holding a grudge is also a pretty hot take, right there.

    When I said holding a grudge I meant in as far as felony marijuana possession results in ostracism from society.

    Not every crime is rape or murder.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    I think it’s important to approach this subject with nuance rather than painting in broad strokes.

    Two things that are true: American society generally inflicts disproportionately harsh de jure and social punishment on marginalized defendants. Also, American society generally inflicts disproportionately light de jure and social punishment on privileged defendants.

    It’s perfectly reasonable to worry about both problems while recognizing the difficulty in crafting a system to solve one problem without exacerbating the other.

    For example, mandatory minimums could theoretically ameliorate the second, by eliminating judicial discretion in sentencing to ensure privileged defendants receive appropriate de jure punishments. However, mandatory minimums in practice disproportionately impact marginalized defendants due to prosecutorial discretion/bias in charging and differences in the quality of representation for poor and rich defendants.

    I’ve worked on both sides of these issues (life without parole, capital cases, and drug law) along with research on implicit bias (applying cognitive linguistics to explain the underlying unconscious cognitive metaphors leading to biased prosecutorial and judicial decision making, even using the Brock Turner case as a case study).

    The unifying issue, imho, is the lack of meaningful diversity in decision making positions. For example, 79% of elected prosecutors are white men, and 95% are white. 1% are women of color.

    Disparities in charging decisions flows obviously from such massive inequities in power. This in turn affects the landscape in which we all create our models of the world. If more black men are incarcerated, it’s not a huge mental leap to unconsciously believing black men as generally more culpable and criminal than others, worthy of less social value, despite evidence that the rates of crime committed are relatively comparable across racial groups (controlling for other factors).

    Or in other words, entrenched differences in formal power lead to mirrored outcomes in social power.

    To synthesize the points above, the question about the proper amount of social punishment is difficult to answer simply because the consequences for different groups will vary markedly. The higher penalties for increased social punishment will likely fall disproportionately on the marginalized. The benefits of less social punishment will likely accrue disproportionately for the privileged.

    Any proposed changes need to be cognizant of such dynamics and capable of disrupting the systems of power reinforcing these inequities. I have my own ideas but am more interested in hearing from others than debating the particulars of my own (admittedly radical) plans.

    HefflingjungleroomxTryCatcherJebus314shrykeFencingsaxDarkPrimusKipling217Elvenshaedispatch.oFlying Couch
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.

    Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.

    So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?

    That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.

    Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)

    That you can cite that, and think it supports your pro social punishment position is fucking baffling to me.

    It's irrelevant to the thread. The judge didn't lose his position because of legal barriers due to a criminal conviction.

    He lost it because it was a private position that required that parents trust him with their children, and neither the employer, the parents, or children were willing to extend that trust anymore because of his willingness to shield a sexual predator from the consequences of their actions. You wanna pass laws that force these people to put their children in his care?

    Maybe we could just distinguish between crimes. Which isn't even hard because don't get convicted of "Crime", they get convicted of specific things. We can legally allow different levels of "forgetting" for people's past deeds depending on the position in question.

    Like, in Canada employers will usually run a criminal background check. And there are two different levels available depending on the position. Working with vulnerable groups (children, the elderly, the disabled, special needs, etc) usually entails a more thorough check that can turn up stuff that isn't allowed to appear in normal checks.

    So maybe someone who gets to look after or interact with children gets held to a more strict standard and maybe certain kind of previous criminal convictions matter there and maybe in a job that's got nothing to do with children those same criminal convictions don't matter.

    FencingsaxNyysjanElvenshae
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    We used to rely on the courts to at least perform better regarding these biases than the general public, but even with a lot of legal reform, I don't think the courts will earn the public trust. I'm interested to know if that's possible at all.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Never pre-order anything. Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    We used to rely on the courts to at least perform better regarding these biases than the general public, but even with a lot of legal reform, I don't think the courts will earn the public trust. I'm interested to know if that's possible at all.

    If we ever start to see similar punishments for the same crimes by completely different social groups of people then you might end up with some trust. Actual application of the 14th Amendment, which is imho the single most important one.

    But as long as white rich guy can kill 4 people and get a slap on the wrist but a black guy gets 10 years for selling loose cigarettes is an actual thing, then the courts will continue to lose trust.

    "Oh god, you're so tough, with your fucking open nose and throat" - Bill Burr to Joe Rogan, after Joe said masks were for "pussies."
    Fencingsax
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    We used to rely on the courts to at least perform better regarding these biases than the general public, but even with a lot of legal reform, I don't think the courts will earn the public trust. I'm interested to know if that's possible at all.

    If we ever start to see similar punishments for the same crimes by completely different social groups of people then you might end up with some trust. Actual application of the 14th Amendment, which is imho the single most important one.

    But as long as white rich guy can kill 4 people and get a slap on the wrist but a black guy gets 10 years for selling loose cigarettes is an actual thing, then the courts will continue to lose trust.

    This is a problem, because the public gauges reality by high profile cases and not incremental, sustainable change. This suggests that the public will continue to lose trust in the courts until even the outliers* are brought into the fold. If public trust is a factor in the court's power, there needs to be a major offset factor to change despite this continued decline. I have no idea what it might be.

    *Note: you may interpret this to mean that I consider your example an outlier. That is not my intent. I am thinking towards a brighter far future where this may indeed be an outlier, but social pressure and public trust will remain similar to the levels of today due to how social mass media works and how people's brains work.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Fencingsax
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    For actually considering this discussion in a useful way, the people we should be talking about are not high profile rapists, but instead those accused of pedophilia.

    While rapists frequently face far less punishment for their crimes (socially or legally) than we would expect, those accused of pedophilia face vastly more. To the point where it is effectively a death sentence to be accused of even the most minor crime which can be judged to be pedophilia.

    Pedophiles have to sign a register throughout their whole lives, and cannot live within enormous distances of schools or parks forever. This applies both to those who raped children, and to a drunken 19 year old idiot who exposed himself to a group of 15 year olds.

    Rapists and pedophiles are the sad pair of sides to our social justice coin, where neither is being punished appropriately for their crimes. Honestly I think that if you aren't in jail, then you should be free, and that social punishment and shunning has no place because it is informal. Formal implementations of shunning may have some place, but will almost always be too severe for minor offenders and not severe enough for major ones.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    NyysjanHeffling
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
    Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
    Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
    Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
    Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.

    Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
    Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
    Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
    And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.

    Societal forgiveness also does not mean that people should be comfortable around you on a professional and personal level. The need to earn a living complicates everything, but forcing women to work with sexual predators while pretending there is nothing wrong is also not justice.

    How about justice which pleases both sides so those who are able to redeem themselves are allowed to be productive members of society, that those women feel safe and that what they did was acknowledged to be wrong? I think this applies across the board for various criminals. There needs to be more options than only one side getting what they want, as well as addressing the variety in severity of the crimes committed. Not every criminal is a Charles Manson or Harvey Weinstein.

    Society forgiveness is also more unstable as an authority for dealing out justice than the justice system, since there are no general standards or accountability for those who go too far in addressing wrongs. Or a guidebook criminals can turn to which lets them know how to truly achieve that forgiveness so they won't be danger to society any longer.

    Anon the Felon
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Never pre-order anything. Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I feel like this is far too dismissive on what felony drug charges, DUI's, or minor offenses actually do to peoples prospects. It's a big problem and one of the reasons people just turn to illegal means, and a reason our recidivism rates are so high in this country. Also, checking that box saying "Have you committed any felonies" is a social issue, not one mandated by law, and can cause major issues as people try to recover from a mistake. Some don't recover at all and simply go further down the rabbit hole.

    So the societal issues cause a feedback loop with our corrupted justice system, and people who are generally good get sucked into what I would call the underbelly of society and can't ever get out, because we in the US have decided we're "tough on crime." But not the crime with actual victims, because that would be hard, but the simple shit like dude is selling pirated DVD's out of the back of his trunk.

    Plus it kind of feels like we already have a thread dedicated to the social treatment of sexual offenders, so why do we need to double up?

    jungleroomx on
    "Oh god, you're so tough, with your fucking open nose and throat" - Bill Burr to Joe Rogan, after Joe said masks were for "pussies."
    FANTOMASHefflingMrMisterForarFencingsax
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I feel like this is far too dismissive on what felony drug charges, DUI's, or minor offenses actually do to peoples prospects. It's a big problem and one of the reasons people just turn to illegal means, and a reason our recidivism rates are so high in this country. Also, checking that box saying "Have you committed any felonies" is a social issue, not one mandated by law, and can cause major issues as people try to recover from a mistake. Some don't recover at all and simply go further down the rabbit hole.

    So the societal issues cause a feedback loop with our corrupted justice system, and people who are generally good get sucked into what I would call the underbelly of society and can't ever get out, because we in the US have decided we're "tough on crime." But not the crime with actual victims, because that would be hard, but the simple shit like dude is selling pirated DVD's out of the back of his trunk.

    Plus it kind of feels like we already have a thread dedicated to the social treatment of sexual offenders, so why do we need to double up?

    Thats what I meant by "shows up on paper", it certainly is a problem to have that stain in ones record, when it comes to official business, but no one is starting a twitter campaign to denounce you because you smoked a joint 15 years ago, presidents get away with that.
    The onus is more on the judicial system than in vigilantism (for that specific case of joint smoking/dvd selling), and I thought, because of where this thread splintered from, that it was mainly about the twitter pitchfork mob and people passing judgement outisde the justice system.

    Dont get me wrong, having a stain for smoking pot is ridiculous, and selling DvDs should get you a fine, and it shouldnt show up anywhere, but those are not things that we can manage as individuals. I belive society has already forgiven pot smokers, its the justice system that hasnt.

  • Anon the FelonAnon the Felon In bat country.Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I feel like this is far too dismissive on what felony drug charges, DUI's, or minor offenses actually do to peoples prospects. It's a big problem and one of the reasons people just turn to illegal means, and a reason our recidivism rates are so high in this country. Also, checking that box saying "Have you committed any felonies" is a social issue, not one mandated by law, and can cause major issues as people try to recover from a mistake. Some don't recover at all and simply go further down the rabbit hole.

    So the societal issues cause a feedback loop with our corrupted justice system, and people who are generally good get sucked into what I would call the underbelly of society and can't ever get out, because we in the US have decided we're "tough on crime." But not the crime with actual victims, because that would be hard, but the simple shit like dude is selling pirated DVD's out of the back of his trunk.

    Plus it kind of feels like we already have a thread dedicated to the social treatment of sexual offenders, so why do we need to double up?

    You're really taking him out of context there. You bolded just a part of the sentence and attacked it, when he had prefaced the entire point you're disecting with "pot convictions", which can pretty universally be understood to be basic mis. possession or some such. I mean, that's how I read it from the context of the rest of the post.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I feel like this is far too dismissive on what felony drug charges, DUI's, or minor offenses actually do to peoples prospects. It's a big problem and one of the reasons people just turn to illegal means, and a reason our recidivism rates are so high in this country. Also, checking that box saying "Have you committed any felonies" is a social issue, not one mandated by law, and can cause major issues as people try to recover from a mistake. Some don't recover at all and simply go further down the rabbit hole.

    So the societal issues cause a feedback loop with our corrupted justice system, and people who are generally good get sucked into what I would call the underbelly of society and can't ever get out, because we in the US have decided we're "tough on crime." But not the crime with actual victims, because that would be hard, but the simple shit like dude is selling pirated DVD's out of the back of his trunk.

    Plus it kind of feels like we already have a thread dedicated to the social treatment of sexual offenders, so why do we need to double up?

    Thats what I meant by "shows up on paper", it certainly is a problem to have that stain in ones record, when it comes to official business, but no one is starting a twitter campaign to denounce you because you smoked a joint 15 years ago, presidents get away with that.
    The onus is more on the judicial system than in vigilantism (for that specific case of joint smoking/dvd selling), and I thought, because of where this thread splintered from, that it was mainly about the twitter pitchfork mob and people passing judgement outisde the justice system.

    Dont get me wrong, having a stain for smoking pot is ridiculous, and selling DvDs should get you a fine, and it shouldnt show up anywhere, but those are not things that we can manage as individuals. I belive society has already forgiven pot smokers, its the justice system that hasnt.

    You're actually pretty wrong on this. Go try and get a job as like, the principal of a high school with a pot conviction. Or a job with the CIA, or at a national lab, or as police commissioner.

    The only reason you think these minor convictions just go away is that most people who have them self select out of opportunities which would lead to them having such a campaign formed against them. They are just fortunate enough to have a conviction where there are jobs they can still get.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    Anon the FelonElvenshaeSleepshrykeNobodydispatch.oFlying CouchQuid
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Okay, people who tried pot 15 years ago and convicted sexual predators are treated the same way in society, happy now?

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx Never pre-order anything. Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I feel like this is far too dismissive on what felony drug charges, DUI's, or minor offenses actually do to peoples prospects. It's a big problem and one of the reasons people just turn to illegal means, and a reason our recidivism rates are so high in this country. Also, checking that box saying "Have you committed any felonies" is a social issue, not one mandated by law, and can cause major issues as people try to recover from a mistake. Some don't recover at all and simply go further down the rabbit hole.

    So the societal issues cause a feedback loop with our corrupted justice system, and people who are generally good get sucked into what I would call the underbelly of society and can't ever get out, because we in the US have decided we're "tough on crime." But not the crime with actual victims, because that would be hard, but the simple shit like dude is selling pirated DVD's out of the back of his trunk.

    Plus it kind of feels like we already have a thread dedicated to the social treatment of sexual offenders, so why do we need to double up?

    You're really taking him out of context there. You bolded just a part of the sentence and attacked it, when he had prefaced the entire point you're disecting with "pot convictions", which can pretty universally be understood to be basic mis. possession or some such. I mean, that's how I read it from the context of the rest of the post.

    It wasn't my intention to attack, just demonstrate that while the general populace probably doesn't give a shit about pot smokers anymore, it still can be a significant bar to entry into the job market. And that bar is in place due to societal pressure. Hell, you can't even do a ton of jobs in the military if you've got a pot conviction, but you can still do a ton of jobs if it's something like assault or arson.

    When we talk about the "social punishment" aspect, it's not just simply callouts on social media.
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Okay, people who tried pot 15 years ago and convicted sexual predators are treated the same way in society, happy now?

    I don't think anyone here actually is saying this. I apologize if that's how I was coming off.

    jungleroomx on
    "Oh god, you're so tough, with your fucking open nose and throat" - Bill Burr to Joe Rogan, after Joe said masks were for "pussies."
    Anon the FelonMrMisterdispatch.o
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I'm a bit confused what the conflict here is.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Jebus314
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    There are convictions which some people believe should come with a large amount of non governmental punishment (ie, cant get a job in field x, cant do this, cant go there because of social shaming etc) and those which people believe should be completely cleansed from your history after serving your government approved punishment.

    Some people believe many crimes fall under the former, and we dont go far enough. Others believe no crime should be subject to non governmental punishment. Others believe that we punish some crimes too much and others not enough this aay. And there is also no agreement on which crimes should be punished and what is too much punishment.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
    dispatch.o
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I don't think it is two separate discussions. Because part of the discussion is the idea that we shouldn't treat all these issues the same. But also, at least imo, the idea that they aren't entirely different either and that the question of reintegration applies to everyone who is convicted, regardless of their crime. Because unless you are gonna keep them in prison forever, at some point they have to go back and live a normal(ish) life out in the real world.

    Like, we should talk about how this affects people who've committed sexual assault but we should also talk about how it effects people who've done completely different crimes too.

    Jebus314
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I don't think it is two separate discussions. Because part of the discussion is the idea that we shouldn't treat all these issues the same. But also, at least imo, the idea that they aren't entirely different either and that the question of reintegration applies to everyone who is convicted, regardless of their crime. Because unless you are gonna keep them in prison forever, at some point they have to go back and live a normal(ish) life out in the real world.

    Like, we should talk about how this affects people who've committed sexual assault but we should also talk about how it effects people who've done completely different crimes too.

    Well, it's like:
    If someone committed fraud, you don't want to hire them in a position of trust.
    If someone has committed theft, you don't want to have them unsupervised around your products or cash.
    If someone has committed sexual assault, ehh... it might be hard to find a job where they don't have access to employees or customers who are women.

    This machine kills threads.
    PhillisherePantsB
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    redx wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I don't think it is two separate discussions. Because part of the discussion is the idea that we shouldn't treat all these issues the same. But also, at least imo, the idea that they aren't entirely different either and that the question of reintegration applies to everyone who is convicted, regardless of their crime. Because unless you are gonna keep them in prison forever, at some point they have to go back and live a normal(ish) life out in the real world.

    Like, we should talk about how this affects people who've committed sexual assault but we should also talk about how it effects people who've done completely different crimes too.

    Well, it's like:
    If someone committed fraud, you don't want to hire them in a position of trust.
    If someone has committed theft, you don't want to have them unsupervised around your products or cash.
    If someone has committed sexual assault, ehh... it might be hard to find a job where they don't have access to employees or customers who are women.

    That's not really different approaches though. You just have a global policy of lowering trust in the person that committed a crime. And to be honest, I don't think it would even be as targeted as you're making it out to be. If someone committed theft you obviously wouldn't put them in a position with unsupervised cash, but you probably also wouldn't put them in any position that required a lot of trust, even if it had nothing to do with unsupervised cash or goods. Like say not hiring them to as an HR person with access to sensitive documents.

    Part of my interest in this topic is that it often gets approached on a case by case basis, but by it's very nature that isn't possible. If you make it possible for someone to blacklist a sexual abuser, someone else can use that ability to blacklist a pot smoker. Creating a set of norms that you personally find to be acceptable isn't enough, you have to either get enough consensus to use those norms across all of society (borderline impossible), or you have to consider whether the benefits are worth the costs of other people using a different set of norms that you vehemently disagree with.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    shrykeredxElvenshae
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I don't think it is two separate discussions. Because part of the discussion is the idea that we shouldn't treat all these issues the same. But also, at least imo, the idea that they aren't entirely different either and that the question of reintegration applies to everyone who is convicted, regardless of their crime. Because unless you are gonna keep them in prison forever, at some point they have to go back and live a normal(ish) life out in the real world.

    Like, we should talk about how this affects people who've committed sexual assault but we should also talk about how it effects people who've done completely different crimes too.

    Well, it's like:
    If someone committed fraud, you don't want to hire them in a position of trust.
    If someone has committed theft, you don't want to have them unsupervised around your products or cash.
    If someone has committed sexual assault, ehh... it might be hard to find a job where they don't have access to employees or customers who are women.

    That's not really different approaches though. You just have a global policy of lowering trust in the person that committed a crime. And to be honest, I don't think it would even be as targeted as you're making it out to be. If someone committed theft you obviously wouldn't put them in a position with unsupervised cash, but you probably also wouldn't put them in any position that required a lot of trust, even if it had nothing to do with unsupervised cash or goods. Like say not hiring them to as an HR person with access to sensitive documents.

    Part of my interest in this topic is that it often gets approached on a case by case basis, but by it's very nature that isn't possible. If you make it possible for someone to blacklist a sexual abuser, someone else can use that ability to blacklist a pot smoker. Creating a set of norms that you personally find to be acceptable isn't enough, you have to either get enough consensus to use those norms across all of society (borderline impossible), or you have to consider whether the benefits are worth the costs of other people using a different set of norms that you vehemently disagree with.

    I like the distinction that was made earlier, about victimless crimes, because they are not all the same.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I feel like we’ve been over the broad strokes of this across several threads now.

    The legal system has and continues to fail victims, particularly those who have been assaulted in particular ways.

    The legal system (especially in America) is set up to disproportionally impact the poor and minorities. This is, of course, Working As Intended from the perspective of many. Doubly so in regards to the wealthy and powerful ducking consequences.

    With the inadequacy of the outcomes for victims, the power of social media has been found to fill in some of the gaps. It is an imperfect approach, and one need not be a monster to be concerned about an extrajudicial punishment system.

    But without this movement, many would continue to go unpunished and preying on the innocent.

    It’s not an easy situation to balance, and I find it a bit frustrating as there are some forumers I do agree with, for the most part, but the stance continues to be boiled down in a combative manner for failing to adhere to their exacting view of the matter.

    I believe victims. I wanted enforcement and the judicial system to do better. I am not entirely comfortable with a social punishment system that is applied inconsistently, subjectively (by laypeople, and no don’t bother with the hot takes, I’m aware judges are imperfect as well, but I’ll take all but the worst professionals over ‘Twitter and YouTube comments are now part of society’s crime and punishment system), and in a way that may or may not be easily revocable.

    Yes, I get that an emphasis is being made for serial rapists and others easily and cleanly declared despicable human beings. But reality is that life often isn’t that cut and dry. Especially since leaving it to he public at large doesn’t guarantee it will be strictly aimed at the worst of the worst.

    Once the court of public opinion has declared an injustice and digitally pilloried a person, what is the appeals process? How long is it applicable for? Once their time of contrition has ended, a good faith attempt to become a better person has taken place over years, who goes about to make sure that’s properly updated?

    “Oh so Forar wants the status quo, goose that mothergooser” I’m sure some are already priming for an agreed farm that’ll take up a full page.

    Incorrect. I believe that the system in use is an unfortunate necessity. I am wary of it being weaponized by bad faith asshats, and I hope that this giant glaring gap can one day be remedied. By improving how law enforcement dealt with victims and accusations. Tweaking punishments, if possible. Even that is a challenge. I imagine many here would balk at mandatory minimums, and surely school me on the ineffectiveness or lengthy prison sentences as a deterrent, which means it’s even bigger. It’s societal, it’s a declaration that parents must do better, that people must be better, that we strive to reduce the need for it overall.

    And based on decreasing crime stats (overall, at least by my understanding) and using recognition of at risk groups (potential offenders and victims) to try to head things off from the start.

    I don’t think this is a controversial take. It’s not innately ‘fence sitting for both sides’ to say this is a very complicated situation. It’s a massive condemnation of the existing justice system, and hopefully in time we see the law update, society overall continue to improve, and maybe it becomes less necessary to go outside of it to find some semblance of justice.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    discriderJebus314Nobody
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Forar wrote: »
    I feel like we’ve been over the broad strokes of this across several threads now.

    The legal system has and continues to fail victims, particularly those who have been assaulted in particular ways.

    The legal system (especially in America) is set up to disproportionally impact the poor and minorities. This is, of course, Working As Intended from the perspective of many. Doubly so in regards to the wealthy and powerful ducking consequences.

    With the inadequacy of the outcomes for victims, the power of social media has been found to fill in some of the gaps. It is an imperfect approach, and one need not be a monster to be concerned about an extrajudicial punishment system.

    But without this movement, many would continue to go unpunished and preying on the innocent.

    It’s not an easy situation to balance, and I find it a bit frustrating as there are some forumers I do agree with, for the most part, but the stance continues to be boiled down in a combative manner for failing to adhere to their exacting view of the matter.

    I believe victims. I wanted enforcement and the judicial system to do better. I am not entirely comfortable with a social punishment system that is applied inconsistently, subjectively (by laypeople, and no don’t bother with the hot takes, I’m aware judges are imperfect as well, but I’ll take all but the worst professionals over ‘Twitter and YouTube comments are now part of society’s crime and punishment system), and in a way that may or may not be easily revocable.

    Yes, I get that an emphasis is being made for serial rapists and others easily and cleanly declared despicable human beings. But reality is that life often isn’t that cut and dry. Especially since leaving it to he public at large doesn’t guarantee it will be strictly aimed at the worst of the worst.

    Once the court of public opinion has declared an injustice and digitally pilloried a person, what is the appeals process? How long is it applicable for? Once their time of contrition has ended, a good faith attempt to become a better person has taken place over years, who goes about to make sure that’s properly updated?

    “Oh so Forar wants the status quo, goose that mothergooser” I’m sure some are already priming for an agreed farm that’ll take up a full page.

    Incorrect. I believe that the system in use is an unfortunate necessity. I am wary of it being weaponized by bad faith asshats, and I hope that this giant glaring gap can one day be remedied. By improving how law enforcement dealt with victims and accusations. Tweaking punishments, if possible. Even that is a challenge. I imagine many here would balk at mandatory minimums, and surely school me on the ineffectiveness or lengthy prison sentences as a deterrent, which means it’s even bigger. It’s societal, it’s a declaration that parents must do better, that people must be better, that we strive to reduce the need for it overall.

    And based on decreasing crime stats (overall, at least by my understanding) and using recognition of at risk groups (potential offenders and victims) to try to head things off from the start.

    I don’t think this is a controversial take. It’s not innately ‘fence sitting for both sides’ to say this is a very complicated situation. It’s a massive condemnation of the existing justice system, and hopefully in time we see the law update, society overall continue to improve, and maybe it becomes less necessary to go outside of it to find some semblance of justice.

    Part of the conversation is definitely the idea of gap filling the inadequacies of the judicial system. And given the current interest in metoo like topics this gets a lot of traction.

    But I also want to talk about reasonable ongoing social punishments. So in situations where someone has already served judicial punishments (served time in jail), or has already had a severe social punishment (degraded online, fired from job, etc). So some kind of punishment is already served, but now the individual is trying to move on.

    Should there be limitations in the types of jobs they can get in the future?

    If kavanaugh had been convicted and served time back in college, but still ended up selected to be a SCOTUS judge (after years of not offending and trying to be better), should it be allowed?

    Is it fair to push all criminals into low paying, low skill jobs? Fair for the criminal who paid some kind of price already, but also fair for the other people who have to work in those jobs?

    Is it fair to allow a convicted rapist (who served time) to work alongside women who have been abused, or should they be able to say no (even if they aren't in charge)?

    Personally I think there should be severe restrictions on denying employment based on previous criminal records or social "criminal" records (twitter history, etc). Only when there is a severe, provable risk to the company or other individuals, should it be allowed.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Forar
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    double post.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    I think the OP should focus the conversation on specific cases, because people are talking about completely different crimes, and the effects in completely different aspects of life.

    Jungle is talking about pot convictions, and those show up on paper, and can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care, in 2019 the only stigma of being caught smoking pot, is being caught. I bet if you had to go door to door when you move to a new place, and infroming your neighbours of your past pot smoking habits, you would make friends.

    On the other side of the conversation, sexual assault and murder with Angel and maybe others saying something like "people may never forgive or forget a crime", wich I agree with. But we cant have both cases on the same conversation, because no answer will service both conversations.

    I don't think it is two separate discussions. Because part of the discussion is the idea that we shouldn't treat all these issues the same. But also, at least imo, the idea that they aren't entirely different either and that the question of reintegration applies to everyone who is convicted, regardless of their crime. Because unless you are gonna keep them in prison forever, at some point they have to go back and live a normal(ish) life out in the real world.

    Like, we should talk about how this affects people who've committed sexual assault but we should also talk about how it effects people who've done completely different crimes too.

    Well, it's like:
    If someone committed fraud, you don't want to hire them in a position of trust.
    If someone has committed theft, you don't want to have them unsupervised around your products or cash.
    If someone has committed sexual assault, ehh... it might be hard to find a job where they don't have access to employees or customers who are women.

    That's not really different approaches though. You just have a global policy of lowering trust in the person that committed a crime. And to be honest, I don't think it would even be as targeted as you're making it out to be. If someone committed theft you obviously wouldn't put them in a position with unsupervised cash, but you probably also wouldn't put them in any position that required a lot of trust, even if it had nothing to do with unsupervised cash or goods. Like say not hiring them to as an HR person with access to sensitive documents.

    Part of my interest in this topic is that it often gets approached on a case by case basis, but by it's very nature that isn't possible. If you make it possible for someone to blacklist a sexual abuser, someone else can use that ability to blacklist a pot smoker. Creating a set of norms that you personally find to be acceptable isn't enough, you have to either get enough consensus to use those norms across all of society (borderline impossible), or you have to consider whether the benefits are worth the costs of other people using a different set of norms that you vehemently disagree with.

    There is a solution that can be applied to all crimes and at the same time is tailored towards the individual nature of the crime: Rehabilitation. If we stopped focusing both direct criminal punishment via time serviced and indirect criminal punishment via disenfranchisement and instead focused on providing both training and therapy, we could return productive individuals to society.

    It's insane to think that you can take a collection of criminals and put them "out of sight, out of mind" for an extended period of time, and expect at the end of that time to get anything back but criminals.

    Imagine how much good could be done if a sexual predator were given weekly therapy sessions and provided the tools to overcome their disability? Sure, it's not going to work for 100% of cases. But the current system seems to work for 0% of cases, so it would certainly be an improvement.

    P.S. You can't have both "can be damaging in a job interview, but generally people dont care". If it hurts your standing in society, then people do care. And if they don't care, it is something you shouldn't be judged for.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    Jebus314themightypuck
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    I feel like we’ve been over the broad strokes of this across several threads now.

    The legal system has and continues to fail victims, particularly those who have been assaulted in particular ways.

    The legal system (especially in America) is set up to disproportionally impact the poor and minorities. This is, of course, Working As Intended from the perspective of many. Doubly so in regards to the wealthy and powerful ducking consequences.

    With the inadequacy of the outcomes for victims, the power of social media has been found to fill in some of the gaps. It is an imperfect approach, and one need not be a monster to be concerned about an extrajudicial punishment system.

    But without this movement, many would continue to go unpunished and preying on the innocent.

    It’s not an easy situation to balance, and I find it a bit frustrating as there are some forumers I do agree with, for the most part, but the stance continues to be boiled down in a combative manner for failing to adhere to their exacting view of the matter.

    I believe victims. I wanted enforcement and the judicial system to do better. I am not entirely comfortable with a social punishment system that is applied inconsistently, subjectively (by laypeople, and no don’t bother with the hot takes, I’m aware judges are imperfect as well, but I’ll take all but the worst professionals over ‘Twitter and YouTube comments are now part of society’s crime and punishment system), and in a way that may or may not be easily revocable.

    Yes, I get that an emphasis is being made for serial rapists and others easily and cleanly declared despicable human beings. But reality is that life often isn’t that cut and dry. Especially since leaving it to he public at large doesn’t guarantee it will be strictly aimed at the worst of the worst.

    Once the court of public opinion has declared an injustice and digitally pilloried a person, what is the appeals process? How long is it applicable for? Once their time of contrition has ended, a good faith attempt to become a better person has taken place over years, who goes about to make sure that’s properly updated?

    “Oh so Forar wants the status quo, goose that mothergooser” I’m sure some are already priming for an agreed farm that’ll take up a full page.

    Incorrect. I believe that the system in use is an unfortunate necessity. I am wary of it being weaponized by bad faith asshats, and I hope that this giant glaring gap can one day be remedied. By improving how law enforcement dealt with victims and accusations. Tweaking punishments, if possible. Even that is a challenge. I imagine many here would balk at mandatory minimums, and surely school me on the ineffectiveness or lengthy prison sentences as a deterrent, which means it’s even bigger. It’s societal, it’s a declaration that parents must do better, that people must be better, that we strive to reduce the need for it overall.

    And based on decreasing crime stats (overall, at least by my understanding) and using recognition of at risk groups (potential offenders and victims) to try to head things off from the start.

    I don’t think this is a controversial take. It’s not innately ‘fence sitting for both sides’ to say this is a very complicated situation. It’s a massive condemnation of the existing justice system, and hopefully in time we see the law update, society overall continue to improve, and maybe it becomes less necessary to go outside of it to find some semblance of justice.

    Part of the conversation is definitely the idea of gap filling the inadequacies of the judicial system. And given the current interest in metoo like topics this gets a lot of traction.

    But I also want to talk about reasonable ongoing social punishments. So in situations where someone has already served judicial punishments (served time in jail), or has already had a severe social punishment (degraded online, fired from job, etc). So some kind of punishment is already served, but now the individual is trying to move on.

    Should there be limitations in the types of jobs they can get in the future?

    If kavanaugh had been convicted and served time back in college, but still ended up selected to be a SCOTUS judge (after years of not offending and trying to be better), should it be allowed?

    Is it fair to push all criminals into low paying, low skill jobs? Fair for the criminal who paid some kind of price already, but also fair for the other people who have to work in those jobs?

    Is it fair to allow a convicted rapist (who served time) to work alongside women who have been abused, or should they be able to say no (even if they aren't in charge)?

    Personally I think there should be severe restrictions on denying employment based on previous criminal records or social "criminal" records (twitter history, etc). Only when there is a severe, provable risk to the company or other individuals, should it be allowed.

    There's an unstated predicate that comes with this argument, that any limitation on an individual's career constitutes a "punishment" and thus is unfair. And that strikes me as wrongheaded - if someone violates the trust of the public, it's incumbent on them to restore it, and it's possible that they may never be able to do so completely - and that's a consequence of their own actions.

    Now, there are issues with how we treat many crimes both legally and socially because of the past history of discrimination and racism, and they need to be fixed because they do cause harm based on past injustices. But extrapolating the argument beyond those specific circumstances doesn't work, and is how we get the ridiculous argument that holding someone accountable for decades of misogynistic behavior that pushed women out of tech is somehow unfairly "ruining his life".

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FANTOMASPantsB
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    I feel like we’ve been over the broad strokes of this across several threads now.

    The legal system has and continues to fail victims, particularly those who have been assaulted in particular ways.

    The legal system (especially in America) is set up to disproportionally impact the poor and minorities. This is, of course, Working As Intended from the perspective of many. Doubly so in regards to the wealthy and powerful ducking consequences.

    With the inadequacy of the outcomes for victims, the power of social media has been found to fill in some of the gaps. It is an imperfect approach, and one need not be a monster to be concerned about an extrajudicial punishment system.

    But without this movement, many would continue to go unpunished and preying on the innocent.

    It’s not an easy situation to balance, and I find it a bit frustrating as there are some forumers I do agree with, for the most part, but the stance continues to be boiled down in a combative manner for failing to adhere to their exacting view of the matter.

    I believe victims. I wanted enforcement and the judicial system to do better. I am not entirely comfortable with a social punishment system that is applied inconsistently, subjectively (by laypeople, and no don’t bother with the hot takes, I’m aware judges are imperfect as well, but I’ll take all but the worst professionals over ‘Twitter and YouTube comments are now part of society’s crime and punishment system), and in a way that may or may not be easily revocable.

    Yes, I get that an emphasis is being made for serial rapists and others easily and cleanly declared despicable human beings. But reality is that life often isn’t that cut and dry. Especially since leaving it to he public at large doesn’t guarantee it will be strictly aimed at the worst of the worst.

    Once the court of public opinion has declared an injustice and digitally pilloried a person, what is the appeals process? How long is it applicable for? Once their time of contrition has ended, a good faith attempt to become a better person has taken place over years, who goes about to make sure that’s properly updated?

    “Oh so Forar wants the status quo, goose that mothergooser” I’m sure some are already priming for an agreed farm that’ll take up a full page.

    Incorrect. I believe that the system in use is an unfortunate necessity. I am wary of it being weaponized by bad faith asshats, and I hope that this giant glaring gap can one day be remedied. By improving how law enforcement dealt with victims and accusations. Tweaking punishments, if possible. Even that is a challenge. I imagine many here would balk at mandatory minimums, and surely school me on the ineffectiveness or lengthy prison sentences as a deterrent, which means it’s even bigger. It’s societal, it’s a declaration that parents must do better, that people must be better, that we strive to reduce the need for it overall.

    And based on decreasing crime stats (overall, at least by my understanding) and using recognition of at risk groups (potential offenders and victims) to try to head things off from the start.

    I don’t think this is a controversial take. It’s not innately ‘fence sitting for both sides’ to say this is a very complicated situation. It’s a massive condemnation of the existing justice system, and hopefully in time we see the law update, society overall continue to improve, and maybe it becomes less necessary to go outside of it to find some semblance of justice.

    Part of the conversation is definitely the idea of gap filling the inadequacies of the judicial system. And given the current interest in metoo like topics this gets a lot of traction.

    But I also want to talk about reasonable ongoing social punishments. So in situations where someone has already served judicial punishments (served time in jail), or has already had a severe social punishment (degraded online, fired from job, etc). So some kind of punishment is already served, but now the individual is trying to move on.

    Should there be limitations in the types of jobs they can get in the future?

    If kavanaugh had been convicted and served time back in college, but still ended up selected to be a SCOTUS judge (after years of not offending and trying to be better), should it be allowed?

    Is it fair to push all criminals into low paying, low skill jobs? Fair for the criminal who paid some kind of price already, but also fair for the other people who have to work in those jobs?

    Is it fair to allow a convicted rapist (who served time) to work alongside women who have been abused, or should they be able to say no (even if they aren't in charge)?

    Personally I think there should be severe restrictions on denying employment based on previous criminal records or social "criminal" records (twitter history, etc). Only when there is a severe, provable risk to the company or other individuals, should it be allowed.

    There's an unstated predicate that comes with this argument, that any limitation on an individual's career constitutes a "punishment" and thus is unfair. And that strikes me as wrongheaded - if someone violates the trust of the public, it's incumbent on them to restore it, and it's possible that they may never be able to do so completely - and that's a consequence of their own actions.

    Now, there are issues with how we treat many crimes both legally and socially because of the past history of discrimination and racism, and they need to be fixed because they do cause harm based on past injustices. But extrapolating the argument beyond those specific circumstances doesn't work, and is how we get the ridiculous argument that holding someone accountable for decades of misogynistic behavior that pushed women out of tech is somehow unfairly "ruining his life".

    Not really, no. IMO you only think that because you are hyper-focused on very specific instances of criminal behaviour. Maybe it's not just about sexual predators in indie game development or whatever.

    Criminal histories can put severe limitations on people's careers and people's ability to have a career and live their own life is pretty damn important if you are interested in releasing convicted people once they've served their time and having them be independent and productive.

    ElvenshaeFoefallerjungleroomxStyrofoam SammichHefflingHappylilElf
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Forar wrote: »
    I feel like we’ve been over the broad strokes of this across several threads now.

    The legal system has and continues to fail victims, particularly those who have been assaulted in particular ways.

    The legal system (especially in America) is set up to disproportionally impact the poor and minorities. This is, of course, Working As Intended from the perspective of many. Doubly so in regards to the wealthy and powerful ducking consequences.

    With the inadequacy of the outcomes for victims, the power of social media has been found to fill in some of the gaps. It is an imperfect approach, and one need not be a monster to be concerned about an extrajudicial punishment system.

    But without this movement, many would continue to go unpunished and preying on the innocent.

    It’s not an easy situation to balance, and I find it a bit frustrating as there are some forumers I do agree with, for the most part, but the stance continues to be boiled down in a combative manner for failing to adhere to their exacting view of the matter.

    I believe victims. I wanted enforcement and the judicial system to do better. I am not entirely comfortable with a social punishment system that is applied inconsistently, subjectively (by laypeople, and no don’t bother with the hot takes, I’m aware judges are imperfect as well, but I’ll take all but the worst professionals over ‘Twitter and YouTube comments are now part of society’s crime and punishment system), and in a way that may or may not be easily revocable.

    Yes, I get that an emphasis is being made for serial rapists and others easily and cleanly declared despicable human beings. But reality is that life often isn’t that cut and dry. Especially since leaving it to he public at large doesn’t guarantee it will be strictly aimed at the worst of the worst.

    Once the court of public opinion has declared an injustice and digitally pilloried a person, what is the appeals process? How long is it applicable for? Once their time of contrition has ended, a good faith attempt to become a better person has taken place over years, who goes about to make sure that’s properly updated?

    “Oh so Forar wants the status quo, goose that mothergooser” I’m sure some are already priming for an agreed farm that’ll take up a full page.

    Incorrect. I believe that the system in use is an unfortunate necessity. I am wary of it being weaponized by bad faith asshats, and I hope that this giant glaring gap can one day be remedied. By improving how law enforcement dealt with victims and accusations. Tweaking punishments, if possible. Even that is a challenge. I imagine many here would balk at mandatory minimums, and surely school me on the ineffectiveness or lengthy prison sentences as a deterrent, which means it’s even bigger. It’s societal, it’s a declaration that parents must do better, that people must be better, that we strive to reduce the need for it overall.

    And based on decreasing crime stats (overall, at least by my understanding) and using recognition of at risk groups (potential offenders and victims) to try to head things off from the start.

    I don’t think this is a controversial take. It’s not innately ‘fence sitting for both sides’ to say this is a very complicated situation. It’s a massive condemnation of the existing justice system, and hopefully in time we see the law update, society overall continue to improve, and maybe it becomes less necessary to go outside of it to find some semblance of justice.

    Part of the conversation is definitely the idea of gap filling the inadequacies of the judicial system. And given the current interest in metoo like topics this gets a lot of traction.

    But I also want to talk about reasonable ongoing social punishments. So in situations where someone has already served judicial punishments (served time in jail), or has already had a severe social punishment (degraded online, fired from job, etc). So some kind of punishment is already served, but now the individual is trying to move on.

    Should there be limitations in the types of jobs they can get in the future?

    If kavanaugh had been convicted and served time back in college, but still ended up selected to be a SCOTUS judge (after years of not offending and trying to be better), should it be allowed?

    Is it fair to push all criminals into low paying, low skill jobs? Fair for the criminal who paid some kind of price already, but also fair for the other people who have to work in those jobs?

    Is it fair to allow a convicted rapist (who served time) to work alongside women who have been abused, or should they be able to say no (even if they aren't in charge)?

    Personally I think there should be severe restrictions on denying employment based on previous criminal records or social "criminal" records (twitter history, etc). Only when there is a severe, provable risk to the company or other individuals, should it be allowed.

    There's an unstated predicate that comes with this argument, that any limitation on an individual's career constitutes a "punishment" and thus is unfair. And that strikes me as wrongheaded - if someone violates the trust of the public, it's incumbent on them to restore it, and it's possible that they may never be able to do so completely - and that's a consequence of their own actions.

    Now, there are issues with how we treat many crimes both legally and socially because of the past history of discrimination and racism, and they need to be fixed because they do cause harm based on past injustices. But extrapolating the argument beyond those specific circumstances doesn't work, and is how we get the ridiculous argument that holding someone accountable for decades of misogynistic behavior that pushed women out of tech is somehow unfairly "ruining his life".

    I think it is pretty obvious that being denied a job based solely on a criminal history is a punishment.

    What I didn’t say was if this was fair or unfair.

    In some cases I think it is not only fair but should be required. I kept bringing it up, but a SCOTUS judgeship is one place where I have no qualms saying a wide array of crimes should be automatic disqualifications (although maybe not all crimes).

    My personal opinion is that all convictions (criminal or social) should have a calibrated history limitation. So a pot conviction might be public for say 1 year, after which it should be illegal to use that conviction as a factor in hiring decisions.

    On the other side, I think if a police officer is fired for cause or resigns with open complaints filed against them, even if there is no criminal conviction, they should have to disclose the complaints to any future police job they apply to. Forever.

    The above examples are situations that I think we could relatively easily codify into law.

    Obviously there are lots of situations though where it isn’t easy to restrict how people use information.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    jungleroomxElvenshaeStyrofoam Sammich
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    There's an unstated predicate that comes with this argument, that any limitation on an individual's career constitutes a "punishment" and thus is unfair. And that strikes me as wrongheaded - if someone violates the trust of the public, it's incumbent on them to restore it, and it's possible that they may never be able to do so completely - and that's a consequence of their own actions.

    Someone having their career and social prospects affected is a punishment, just an unorthodox one. Punishment is not confined to staying in prison, and due to social barriers in modern society this continues anyway with criminals who have served their sentences by ticking a box on an employment form. That's an automatic disqualification for a job, and no-one is going to listen to a former criminal or social pariah who's redeemed themselves to not be a threat to the public. Only rich and famous people in Hollywood get that privilege and the reputation of their "rehabilitation programs" is six feet underground.

    Restore it how? This is not a simple or easy process anyone can do and prove. Social forgiveness is not governed by a body with strict guidelines to follow or appeal.
    Now, there are issues with how we treat many crimes both legally and socially because of the past history of discrimination and racism, and they need to be fixed because they do cause harm based on past injustices. But extrapolating the argument beyond those specific circumstances doesn't work, and is how we get the ridiculous argument that holding someone accountable for decades of misogynistic behavior that pushed women out of tech is somehow unfairly "ruining his life".

    Do you want criminals to have the chance to be rehabilitated so they can be productive citizens in society? You can hold someone accountable while offering them a path to being a productive citizen, once someone commits a crime they're not evil incarnate beyond salvation, but they will be if the ones who can transfer over don't have the tools to get there. They'll do that just to survive.

    It's unfair that women in those fields were locked out due to that, but that isn't going to get solved by punishing someone else. The two have nothing to do with each other in fixing what went wrong. That requires its now set of initiates to reform the system so they can come back and have a safe profession. Which society had badly needed for true equality in the work place.

    Elvenshae
Sign In or Register to comment.