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

124»

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I suppose we could always fragment society into manageable subcultures where a rejection from one stimulates a move to another.

    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.
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Or we could recognice that "crime" is a completely useless definition on deciding how to treat people.
    And "Criminal" is an utterly pointless classification.
    When a "serial child rapist" and a "guy who smoked a joint, once" find themselves under a same category, that category is useless in determining how to deal with them.

    AngelHedgieFANTOMASPhillishereAnon the FelonAridholHefflingdiscriderFencingsaxHacksaw
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I suppose we could always fragment society into manageable subcultures where a rejection from one stimulates a move to another.

    That sounds like a dystopian nightmare and has been the subject of sci-fi cautionary tales since film existed, please dont.

    sanstodo
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited September 2019
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I suppose we could always fragment society into manageable subcultures where a rejection from one stimulates a move to another.

    That sounds like a dystopian nightmare and has been the subject of sci-fi cautionary tales since film existed, please dont.

    but they'll keep making interesting art for people in the mainstream to consume. It won't be a big change.


    edit: Paladin is not purposing much other than a maybe more formalized description of what sort of exists already, except they're not mentioning the racial and economic factors that force people into subclasses or that the prosecutors, prison and parole/probation corporations have a financial stake in ensuring people are forced into the system and stay there.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Yeah, I can't snap my fingers and make this happen, not would I want to or even need to, because it seems like this is happening organically. If you don't recycle people into your society or imprison / kill them, they have to go somewhere.

    The internet was supposed to bring us together into One Society with a monopoly of social power. I think what is instead happening is that our national borders have instead become ideological. Not big news, but I wonder how extreme this is going to get. Maybe our zeitgeist will be the destruction of the zeitgeist.

    Or maybe a criticality event will never happen, and the One Society will become a reality whether or not we take special steps to curb its rejection.

    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.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I suppose we could always fragment society into manageable subcultures where a rejection from one stimulates a move to another.

    That sounds like a dystopian nightmare and has been the subject of sci-fi cautionary tales since film existed, please dont.

    Also that's just high school.

    jungleroomxMrVyngaard
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Adam Johnson from the Citations Needed podcast reminds us that social punishment has come a long, long, LONG way:


    "His mother was in Auschwitz". “He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar”. Enough said.

    TryCatcher on
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Roman Polanski's crime was committed in 1977, and maybe not the most relevant for this conversation.

    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?
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Roman Polanski's crime was committed in 1977, and maybe not the most relevant for this conversation.

    He was expelled from the Academy in 2018, that bit is relevant. Though I don’t think that it in any way has a meaningful impact on his life considering the whole raping a 13 year old.

    My take on societal punishment is that there are basically two types of people. Like the George Carlin routine. There’s the Polanskis, Weinsteins, and Epsteins. Those rich and powerful enough to either avoid or not be inconvenienced by the slings and arrows that society might fling at them, and everyone else. Who ends up living in a van down by the river. As long as that van is anywhere between 500 and 500,000 feet away from anything like civilization, depending on your state and municipality.

    Relying on society as a band-aid for our justice system will not work because our justice system is an extension of that society.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    Monwyn
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Right but the assumption is that someone is entitled to the associations they would have if they had not conducted criminal behavior.

    So say I have a choice between hiring two people, or taking on a roommate or being hired by someone for a job or even voting for someone for an office as low as dog catcher or high as President. It simply isn't irrational to hold a criminal conviction as a possible predictor of future behavior. Putting aside concepts of "punishment" it simply would be a factor. Hell, people who leave the workforce for a few years to take care of children or family or whatever are going to be penalized and often times those are actually a demonstration of character.

    An argument can be made that socially we should be more redemptive in our outlook, but the ability to judge a potential employee/employer/roommate/whatever is already very limited. While it's better for the previously convicted individual to be able to get a job, and it's arguably better for society, it is worse for the person or entity choosing to associate with the individual and arguably worse for the people who were not convicted of a crime who lose that competitive advantage.

    The composition of factors that results in recidivism rates substantially higher than the general population's rate of criminality includes the difficulty in rejoining society due to stigma. However, its almost certainly not the lion's share as the factors that created criminality in the first place are likely still present and incarceration rarely does a great job of increasing social skills and/or mental health. In most cases I simply do not want to hire someone who is more likely to act in a criminal way either directly to me/the entity I represent or more generally in a way that might make me or my employer look back and require us begin the hiring process again.

    Figuring out how to balance that is not trivial, but viewing it as simply "punishment" is unfair. If one is unattractive, society is not punishing them when people don't want to have sex with them. If someone is unqualified fora job they are not being punished for their lack of qualifications if they don't get the job. Both are rationally based and so is a wariness about people who have been convicted. There is an argument that "banning the box" allows an applicant to overcome unthinking rejection of a former convict in an interview is a good idea, but even that campaign doesn't think it should be impermissible to identify people who have been convicted.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Right but the assumption is that someone is entitled to the associations they would have if they had not conducted criminal behavior.

    So say I have a choice between hiring two people, or taking on a roommate or being hired by someone for a job or even voting for someone for an office as low as dog catcher or high as President. It simply isn't irrational to hold a criminal conviction as a possible predictor of future behavior. Putting aside concepts of "punishment" it simply would be a factor. Hell, people who leave the workforce for a few years to take care of children or family or whatever are going to be penalized and often times those are actually a demonstration of character.

    An argument can be made that socially we should be more redemptive in our outlook, but the ability to judge a potential employee/employer/roommate/whatever is already very limited. While it's better for the previously convicted individual to be able to get a job, and it's arguably better for society, it is worse for the person or entity choosing to associate with the individual and arguably worse for the people who were not convicted of a crime who lose that competitive advantage.

    The composition of factors that results in recidivism rates substantially higher than the general population's rate of criminality includes the difficulty in rejoining society due to stigma. However, its almost certainly not the lion's share as the factors that created criminality in the first place are likely still present and incarceration rarely does a great job of increasing social skills and/or mental health. In most cases I simply do not want to hire someone who is more likely to act in a criminal way either directly to me/the entity I represent or more generally in a way that might make me or my employer look back and require us begin the hiring process again.

    Figuring out how to balance that is not trivial, but viewing it as simply "punishment" is unfair. If one is unattractive, society is not punishing them when people don't want to have sex with them. If someone is unqualified fora job they are not being punished for their lack of qualifications if they don't get the job. Both are rationally based and so is a wariness about people who have been convicted. There is an argument that "banning the box" allows an applicant to overcome unthinking rejection of a former convict in an interview is a good idea, but even that campaign doesn't think it should be impermissible to identify people who have been convicted.

    This is all just a very roundabout way of saying you aren't actually interested in letting people who've served their time actually do anything even after they are released. No real productive life, no real re-entry into society, no real rehabilitation. You wanna sweep recidivism under the rug but your entire attitude here is a huge part of it.

    Like, you literally compare it to the stigma of taking paternity leave without even a hint of acknowledging that discrimination against people who do that is a huge problem and not a desired outcome.

    Anon the FelonElvenshaeNobodyJebus314HefflingjungleroomxFencingsaxQuidHappylilElfStyrofoam SammichcaligynefobsanstodoNovember FifthAistan
  • Anon the FelonAnon the Felon In bat country.Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Yeah that entire essay is about how you think people should have to carry the weight of a single event for their entire lives, and you provide no room for discussion or objectivity.

    I wonder how your words might change if the shoe were on the other foot. Not a whole lot of empathy in this thread, but a fair bit of judgement.

    People do change, bud. Especially people who have made poor choices and had to confront the reality of those decisions. In fact, according to statistics, 57% of those convicted, never commit another crime. So over half the time, you'd be profiling against people who are actively trying to do get back on track. Feels like a coin flip isn't maybe the best way to judge people? Especially when your judgement has an impact on their life.

    Anon the Felon on
    Jebus314HefflingSleepQuidDisruptedCapitalistHappylilElfStyrofoam SammichcaligynefobElvenshaesanstodoAistan
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    If I was an employer, I'd think twice about hiring someone with a criminal record or who was otherwise socially compromised, but not for regular reasons.

    When a person is denied chances in life, they can become fiercely loyal to the people that finally believe in them. I know this personally. I am okay being excessively loyal to the people who give me a chance, but I don't know if I'd be a good boss to people I'd hire who have nowhere else to go. I don't feel like I have that particular leadership quality in me, and I am afraid of putting myself in a situation where it would be easy to take advantage of this. It would also be very tough for me, emotionally, to have my trust betrayed.

    In short, I understand that it's simpler and easier to bet on never having to interface with the tough moral situations of dealing with people with past offenses. Society has chosen to avoid the issue and there are no obvious good role models or guides. My own experiences can't be extrapolated that much. So it seems easier to me to take the route of the coward.

    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.
  • Anon the FelonAnon the Felon In bat country.Registered User regular
    edited September 2019
    Here's a hot take: Remove the box entirely.

    It's now the interviewing party's responsibility to ask about convictions in the interview. This gives the interviewee a chance to explain themselves fully and in depth, and the interviewer a chance to actually learn about the misdeed instead of just making an assumption and tossing the applicant like so much garbage. Often times the convicted applicant doesn't even get a chance to plead their case, and there's usually 4" of line to explain what, why, and when.

    Edit: Anecdote I remembered, I was applying to be a furniture installer for an office furniture company. I was handed an application on site, and told to go find a desk in the back and fill it out, if I did, I could have an interview right then and there. I got to the box, checked it (this was probably 3-4 years after my sentencing date), and had 6" of line space, across two lines (if memory serves, I got out a tape measure to eyeball the distance again) to write out: What the conviction was, when, date of sentencing, sentence, and outcome to date.

    I remember doing my best, but all I got was to was part of "sentencing" (Intent to Distribute is a long series of letters when you're writing it). After handing off the application, I patiently waited while they flipped through it. We got the box, they made a face. I got a fake "we'll put you on the pile, but I have an appointment so we'll have to call you for an interview!" I never got a call.

    Anon the Felon on
    TryCatcherHefflingDarkPrimusQuidHappylilElfPhillisheresanstodoForarAistan
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Roman Polanski's crime was committed in 1977, and maybe not the most relevant for this conversation.

    Polanski is a very good filmmaker who raped someone. Agreed his story is fairly old news but part of the issue with Polanski is that he got away with it. There is something bigger though. Most people can see that non famous criminals should be able to continue to contribute to society but the thing about great artists is that when they contribute to society they gain acclaim. A rapist gaining acclaim offends our moral intuitions. A regular person getting a paycheck not so much.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Roman Polanski's crime was committed in 1977, and maybe not the most relevant for this conversation.

    Polanski is a very good filmmaker who raped someone. Agreed his story is fairly old news but part of the issue with Polanski is that he got away with it. There is something bigger though. Most people can see that non famous criminals should be able to continue to contribute to society but the thing about great artists is that when they contribute to society they gain acclaim. A rapist gaining acclaim offends our moral intuitions. A regular person getting a paycheck not so much.

    presumably this regular person has served their time, rather than having fled the country to avoid prosecution.

    This machine kills threads.
    shrykeDarkPrimusJebus314Incenjucar
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Yeah Polanski has never faced the legal consequences for his actions.

    Being in exile to avoid legal consequences is a consequence of avoiding legal consequences, not a sentence assigned to him by the courts for committing rape. And avoiding extradition has not hampered his ability to make films with big name stars and big budgets until only very recently - and he's still making films, just that now the films aren't in English any more because the stigma is finally too much for American/British actors to associate with.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    FencingsaxAngelHedgie
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist screaming Registered User regular
    Sounds like he's really suffering. /sarcasm

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    While I think examples like Polanski are always useful, you also have to remember that no system will be perfect. There will always be outcomes at the extreme that are either way to soft or way to harsh. That doesn’t necessarily mean the system is a failure, as what’s more important is the average outcome, and the number of extreme failures.

    Which is not me saying the status quo is fine. I definitely think changes should be made. But I think it’s easy to get the wrong impression by focusing just on the most extreme cases.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    While I think examples like Polanski are always useful, you also have to remember that no system will be perfect. There will always be outcomes at the extreme that are either way to soft or way to harsh. That doesn’t necessarily mean the system is a failure, as what’s more important is the average outcome, and the number of extreme failures.

    Which is not me saying the status quo is fine. I definitely think changes should be made. But I think it’s easy to get the wrong impression by focusing just on the most extreme cases.

    Aaron Persky was not just removed for the Turner sentence, but because of evidence of a pattern of giving defendants accused of sexual assault leeway, such as allowing a slut-shaming defense in a rape trial. There was a recent incident where a judge - from the bench - admonished a victim for coming forward, asking her if she considered the defendant's future.

    Polanski doesn't get brought up because he's an outlier, but because he is, in many ways, emblematic of the issues with how we treat sexual assault and rape.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
Sign In or Register to comment.