If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
I have highlighted the part of that that ensures you wont end up being homeless
the rest is barely important, certainly less so than you being a white guy
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
Ok, let's just be clear again - NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT NOT PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES.
That's a strawman that keeps getting built.
People are saying that exile and life imprisionment - effectively destroying lives and creating hardened criminals are overly harsh and counterproductive for the harm those minor crimes cause society.
The assumption is that the person responsible for the crimes are caught - what is the proper way to punish them, and what should the goals of that punishment be. Rehabilitation? Revenge? Deterrence? If so, what methods best achieve those goals?
I am not advocating exile for minor crimes though. My proposed solution (which you agreed with) is to have minor crimes dealt with in a special court that has authority at law and at equity and can craft an overall solution based on the circumstances.
Where I think you and I disagree is that I feel like eventually a repeat offender needs to be taken away from society (i.e., jailed) because eventually punishment stops being about the offender and starts being about protecting society from the offender. This is similiar to the discussion of out of school suspension from earlier in the thread. OOSS is not used as a punishment. It is used to give the teachers a break from dealing with a trouble maker.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Aren't most of the people screwed by 3 strikes on minor crimes or things like drug crimes?
Of course.
Also they are overwhelmingly lower class.
And we pretend that says things about them and nothing about us.
What should it say?
That the systemic inequality in the country has gotten really bad. Explain to me how continuously falling real wages of 99% of people while most of the wealth is consolidated in that other 1% is good for society and leads to everyone being happy and following the law.
why should the poor be any less capable of following the law than the rich?
The less and less you have the less invested you are in a system that only functions to keep you down and protect people who were born into doing fine.
This line of thinking seems dangerously like a view that the poor are poor because they are inferior in some way, like lacking impulse control or being inherently less moral. I do not subscribe to that view.
It's nothing like that at all.
That sounds like ascribing a moral failing to the poor. That they have less does not mean they are less capable of following the rules.
Are you human? I'm serious.
I would like to know I'm arguing with a person and not taking a Turing test.
Yes, SKFM, I am suggesting there is a direct link between poverty and breaking the law and explaining why.
You're turning that around as "Gasp *monocle pop* are you saying poor people are bad people!?!?! well I never."
Obviously, this means that the current justice system is protecting your overstuffed wallet sufficiently. Because if it weren't, you'd be howling for harsher justice not feigning ignorance at the fact that poverty causes crime.
Having more reasons to commit crimes does not mean that you will commit them. I really disagree very strongly with the idea that being poor means we should expect you to commit crimes. People should be expected to follow the law because it is the law and they are required to do so, and being poor should not change that at all. Everyone has choices. Being poor may limit those choices, but it does not rob you of your agency.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
Really? Because I'm extremely intelligent, have a degree in engineering, experience in a variety of fields, and a pretty solid resume, and when I lost my job it took me three years to find a new one, even though I was applying for literally anything I was qualified to do.
It's almost as if your hypothetical anecdote is not a universal description of immutable fact!
edit: Haha, I just noticed the bit about social contacts. "C'mon guys, all you have to do is know a guy who will hand you a job! Easy-peasy!"
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
I have highlighted the part of that that ensures you wont end up being homeless
the rest is barely important, certainly less so than you being a white guy
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
I'm just playing the odds that you're a white guy
regardless, immediately getting jobs is kind of not exactly common
But what your saying is tantamount to wondering what new yorkers were complaining about during the hurricane when you're in montana, because you look outside and the weather's fine
And frankly it's kind of really insulting to a lot of us with friends and family (or maybe ourselves) had or have trouble finding work
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
Really? Because I'm extremely intelligent, have a degree in engineering, experience in a variety of fields, and a pretty solid resume, and when I lost my job it took me three years to find a new one, even though I was applying for literally anything I was qualified to do.
It's almost as if your hypothetical anecdote is not a universal description of immutable fact!
edit: Haha, I just noticed the bit about social contacts. "C'mon guys, all you have to do is know a guy who will hand you a job! Easy-peasy!"
As I said a couple posts up it's not actually a hypothetical, it's just an anecdote. I got laid off 3 years ago (our office shut down) and found a better paying job (actually got 2 offers) in literally 2 weeks. I knew nobody at either company. I guess I had a good resume and didn't offend anyone in the interview.
I work in technology though. Every time a job is lost in this industry two more apparently take it's place.
Edit: And also it's not just about knowing someone who's gonna hand you a job. I've worked at places where the hiring manager or even anyone on the team didn't know me from anyone else. I just had a reference in the building who made sure my resume got in front of them. I did the rest.
see that "guess I had a good resume and didn't offend anyone in the interview"
Is applying blame to all the unemployed people that they're unemployed, like there's 8 million jobs just waiting to be filled if they'd get their shit together
like, I got my job through one of my old professors, they never even listed the job opening because they would have had too many applicants. The neighboring county has 10% unemployment, I'm sure none of them are qualified
Ok, I think there is quite a bit of talking past each other where I've acknowledged that multiple offenses of minor crimes become a major or serious crime and harsher punishment often becomes warranted.
Exile or long term imprisonment or god striking dead is still harsher than I think necessary or effective, but not...not as absurd for a person who isn't a chronic offender.
Ok, I think there is quite a bit of talking past each other where I've acknowledged that multiple offenses of minor crimes become a major or serious crime and harsher punishment often becomes warranted.
Exile or long term imprisonment or god striking dead is still harsher than I think necessary or effective, but not...not as absurd for a person who isn't a chronic offender.
to me execution is never warranted and life in prison is warranted maybe 10% of the time its actually used
edit: forgot a zero
override367 on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
Really? Because I'm extremely intelligent, have a degree in engineering, experience in a variety of fields, and a pretty solid resume, and when I lost my job it took me three years to find a new one, even though I was applying for literally anything I was qualified to do.
It's almost as if your hypothetical anecdote is not a universal description of immutable fact!
edit: Haha, I just noticed the bit about social contacts. "C'mon guys, all you have to do is know a guy who will hand you a job! Easy-peasy!"
Well yeah but that's because the situation is completely terrible now. Though even if it wasn't shit wouldn't be that easy.
Also, age, race and a number of other things factor in as well. Also, social contacts would also have to include friends and family that can support and help you for a while. Even if you are relatively quick at finding a job it is unlikely you'll find one before you have to make at least several payments like rent and such.
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
I have highlighted the part of that that ensures you wont end up being homeless
the rest is barely important, certainly less so than you being a white guy
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
I'm just playing the odds that you're a white guy
regardless, immediately getting jobs is kind of not exactly common
But what your saying is tantamount to wondering what new yorkers were complaining about during the hurricane when you're in montana, because you look outside and the weather's fine
And frankly it's kind of really insulting to a lot of us with friends and family (or maybe ourselves) had or have trouble finding work
I don't see how sharing my experience is insulting. If you're insulted I think that's a personal problem. I realize my experience isn't everyone else's experience. I just am fortunate to work in an industry (and have an expertise) where jobs are all over the place. Note it wasn't always that way for me. I originally graduated school with an English degree and was working at the fucking mall.
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
I have highlighted the part of that that ensures you wont end up being homeless
the rest is barely important, certainly less so than you being a white guy
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
I'm just playing the odds that you're a white guy
regardless, immediately getting jobs is kind of not exactly common
But what your saying is tantamount to wondering what new yorkers were complaining about during the hurricane when you're in montana, because you look outside and the weather's fine
And frankly it's kind of really insulting to a lot of us with friends and family (or maybe ourselves) had or have trouble finding work
I don't see how sharing my experience is insulting. If you're insulted I think that's a personal problem. I realize my experience isn't everyone else's experience. I just am fortunate to work in an industry (and have an expertise) where jobs are all over the place. Note it wasn't always that way for me. I originally graduated school with an English degree and was working at the fucking mall.
You indicated that people who can't find work must have slang or tattoos or fuck up their resume or make a bad impression on the interview or something, by pointing those out as things you didn't do
well lots of people do those things right too and still have a really hard time, even in a better economy than this one
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Ok, I think there is quite a bit of talking past each other where I've acknowledged that multiple offenses of minor crimes become a major or serious crime and harsher punishment often becomes warranted.
Exile or long term imprisonment or god striking dead is still harsher than I think necessary or effective, but not...not as absurd for a person who isn't a chronic offender.
In the real world, not talking ideals, I think that our prison sentences tend to be much longer than they should be. I think that realistically, three strikes rules should only apply to crimes that result in jail time. If we jail you and let you out twice and you still commit a crime that will land you in jail again, I think its time to recognize that we are not rehabilitating you, and whether you spend life in jail or in some sort of group home or in a mental hospital (whatever is appropriate) you shouldn't be let back out again, because the risk of recidivism is just too high now.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I get called with job offers multiple times a week. Doesn't mean that there are nearly enough jobs out there. It just means that I work in a niche market where there is a labor shortage, while tons of other lawyers cannot find jobs, let alone people in other fields. Even I get that.
If you stripped me of all my belongings and emptied my bank account and fired me from my job I'm positive I could go get a decent job relatively quickly and work my way back up the food chain.
Why? Because I have an education and don't speak in slang and don't have tatoos all over my face and have social contacts that can assist me in being professionally successful.
If we're talking about "poverty" as an all encompassing definition like zagdrob did then it's a different story. I was discussing the notion if you just took away people's money and assets. If you're talking about brain wiping them entirely that's a different story.
I have highlighted the part of that that ensures you wont end up being homeless
the rest is barely important, certainly less so than you being a white guy
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
I'm just playing the odds that you're a white guy
regardless, immediately getting jobs is kind of not exactly common
But what your saying is tantamount to wondering what new yorkers were complaining about during the hurricane when you're in montana, because you look outside and the weather's fine
And frankly it's kind of really insulting to a lot of us with friends and family (or maybe ourselves) had or have trouble finding work
I don't see how sharing my experience is insulting. If you're insulted I think that's a personal problem. I realize my experience isn't everyone else's experience. I just am fortunate to work in an industry (and have an expertise) where jobs are all over the place. Note it wasn't always that way for me. I originally graduated school with an English degree and was working at the fucking mall.
You indicated that people who can't find work must have slang or tattoos or fuck up their resume or make a bad impression on the interview or something, by pointing those out as things you didn't do
well lots of people do those things right too and still have a really hard time, even in a better economy than this one
Well the first point is true. Don't do those things. And yes I realize there are a lot of people who do all the right things and can't get a job. Not that it's entirely their fault but the reality is they are probably looking for the wrong jobs. Tech is woefully under-staffed right now. I realize it's not as easy as going to school to "learn the computers" but if you're working in an industry where jobs simply don't exist, maybe people should stop doing that and position themselves to look in another one.
I have a friend who graduated from a school you'd all have heard of before with a PHD in a science who has been trying to find a job for nearly a year, but can't be get because they are either overqualified or need to have many years of experience for any position, and there are almost no positions to begin with. They have networked to a point where I wonder if they're edging out a world record. Their references can't even come up with new people to reference them to.
The economy is functionally unavailable for a large portion of the population, including the extremely educated and qualified. Many of these are simply out of corporate self-interest, and others are due to the funding problems caused by the recent breakdown in government. You kind of have to cut people some slack right now to avoid being completely absurd.
I get called with job offers multiple times a week. Doesn't mean that there are nearly enough jobs out there. It just means that I work in a niche market where there is a labor shortage, while tons of other lawyers cannot find jobs, let alone people in other fields. Even I get that.
That's a bit like my situation. I've turned down job interviews recently.
I realize it's not as easy as going to school to "learn the computers" but if you're working in an industry where jobs simply don't exist, maybe people should stop doing that and position themselves to look in another one.
Unfortunately, even entry-level jobs in high-demand fields are often looking for experience, so switching careers is not at all trivial.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
If we jail you and let you out twice and you still commit a crime that will land you in jail again, I think its time to recognize that we are not rehabilitating you, and whether you spend life in jail or in some sort of group home or in a mental hospital (whatever is appropriate) you shouldn't be let back out again, because the risk of recidivism is just too high now.
"Well shit, my car's not running. I kicked the exhaust pipe three times and it's still not fixed. Clearly, this car is unfixable and I need to buy a new one."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Ok, let's just be clear again - NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT NOT PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO COMMIT CRIMES.
That's a strawman that keeps getting built.
People are saying that exile and life imprisionment - effectively destroying lives and creating hardened criminals are overly harsh and counterproductive for the harm those minor crimes cause society.
The assumption is that the person responsible for the crimes are caught - what is the proper way to punish them, and what should the goals of that punishment be. Rehabilitation? Revenge? Deterrence? If so, what methods best achieve those goals?
I am not advocating exile for minor crimes though. My proposed solution (which you agreed with) is to have minor crimes dealt with in a special court that has authority at law and at equity and can craft an overall solution based on the circumstances.
Where I think you and I disagree is that I feel like eventually a repeat offender needs to be taken away from society (i.e., jailed) because eventually punishment stops being about the offender and starts being about protecting society from the offender. This is similiar to the discussion of out of school suspension from earlier in the thread. OOSS is not used as a punishment. It is used to give the teachers a break from dealing with a trouble maker.
Err, I don't know about your school district, but while OSS was generally used in the manner described here, we also had a (straight-A, zero disciplinary problems) girl who got OSS for accidentally bringing a cell phone to school and having it ring. In some circumstances it's absolutely a punishment.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I shudder to think of the economic situation I'd be in if I didn't have the GI Bill and VA disability comp.
College would be absolutely 100% out of the question.
I could imagine myself "slinging" to put the food on the table.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Like, SKFM, you do realize that our prison system fails at rehabilitation because it is not designed to rehabilitate, right? It's not like we're desperately trying to help these folks make better decisions and nothing seems to be working. It's that we are taking them off the street, throwing them in a cage, encouraging others to specifically never let these people back into society, and then wondering why they won't turn their lives around.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I get called with job offers multiple times a week. Doesn't mean that there are nearly enough jobs out there. It just means that I work in a niche market where there is a labor shortage, while tons of other lawyers cannot find jobs, let alone people in other fields. Even I get that.
That's a bit like my situation. I've turned down job interviews recently.
I realize it's not as easy as going to school to "learn the computers" but if you're working in an industry where jobs simply don't exist, maybe people should stop doing that and position themselves to look in another one.
Unfortunately, even entry-level jobs in high-demand fields are often looking for experience, so switching careers is not at all trivial.
At one point last year when I was trying to find work I seriously contemplated suicide because every single "entry-level" position I was finding required 2-3 years experience and I very much expected to be homeless in less than a month.
Right now the job market is pretty much "medicine or engineering or programming or GTFO" if you have a degree. You can't even get a job in fast food because they assume that you're going to leave in two weeks for something better.
+2
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
He already said he feels rehabilitation is a waste of time.
Presumably because if the worm turns on Wall Streets actions in the last decade, there's gonna be an assload of jobs open for him.
Being poor may limit those choices, but it does not rob you of your agency.
How much does agency weigh? Can you measure it by putting a human being on a big scale at the moment of death, when agency leaves the body?
About as much as your sense of self or memories?
People make choices and are responsible for them. Being I poverty does not alter this. Everyone has the exact same capability not to break the law.
Eh, not really.
I mean, agency isn't a binary thing. It's not something you either have or you do not. Human behavior is as much situational as it is individual. See: fundamental attribution bias. Also see: old adages about walking in another man's shoes.
At the most dramatic level, poverty is associated with mental illness, and the legal framework for dealing with mental illness's effects on behavior are pretty rough. (As they have to be, at our current level of understanding.) An individual with, for example, bipolar disorder, does not have same capacity to follow the law... even if that individual passes the blunt legal sanity check that they know right from wrong.
But that's a dramatic example, just to illustrate the point. Mental illness is one extreme end of the scale - in the middle, between illness and health, there is a huge spectrum of both personal and contextual issues that can affect a person's ability to follow rules. Anger issues, impulse control issues, difficulties dealing with authority, etc.
Even a relatively normal person can be driven to extreme behavior by extreme circumstances. If you get into a car wreck, get yelled at by your boss, come home to an abusive spouse - your ability to follow rules like "don't break shit" and "don't hit people" is impaired.
So somebody broke a car window. Obviously, we may imagine an alternative history where this person did not break the car window. But they did, and they did so for reasons. (Whether those reasons are morally defensible or not is another story.) There was a causal chain of events both endogenous and exogenous to that person leading up to that broken window. To blame the behavior on "agency" without acknowledging that 'agency' means different things in different contexts, you might as well be talking about a soul. If you're not at least a little bit determinist when discussing human behavior, you're being simplistic.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Like, SKFM, you do realize that our prison system fails at rehabilitation because it is not designed to rehabilitate, right? It's not like we're desperately trying to help these folks make better decisions and nothing seems to be working. It's that we are taking them off the street, throwing them in a cage, encouraging others to specifically never let these people back into society, and then wondering why they won't turn their lives around.
I know we are not good at rehabilitation. Like I said, eventually it stops being about the criminal and becomes about protecting society from thir behavior, regardless of what motivates it.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Actually right now its about corporate prisons influencing law so they can have more prisoners and make more money.
Even a relatively normal person can be driven to extreme behavior by extreme circumstances. If you get into a car wreck, get yelled at by your boss, come home to an abusive spouse - your ability to follow rules like "don't break shit" and "don't hit people" is impaired.
A guy on another board I used to frequent is a guard in a super-max prison in Michigan. He was fond of saying that everyone is a single really bad day away from ending up a lifer.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Yeah, I got my current job because I have a fairly unique combination of skills that just happened to fit the bill. My wife just got a job because she knows somebody. Between the two of us we have four degrees and a shit-ton of excellent experience and we were unemployed for a collective five years.
It's also a lot harder to get a job if you don't already have a job, because most employers will assume that if you're unemployed, it's probably because you suck.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Being poor may limit those choices, but it does not rob you of your agency.
How much does agency weigh? Can you measure it by putting a human being on a big scale at the moment of death, when agency leaves the body?
About as much as your sense of self or memories?
People make choices and are responsible for them. Being I poverty does not alter this. Everyone has the exact same capability not to break the law.
Eh, not really.
I mean, agency isn't a binary thing. It's not something you either have or you do not. Human behavior is as much situational as it is individual. See: fundamental attribution bias. Also see: old adages about walking in another man's shoes.
At the most dramatic level, poverty is associated with mental illness, and the legal framework for dealing with mental illness's effects on behavior are pretty rough. (As they have to be, at our current level of understanding.) An individual with, for example, bipolar disorder, does not have same capacity to follow the law... even if that individual passes the blunt legal sanity check that they know right from wrong.
But that's a dramatic example, just to illustrate the point. Mental illness is one extreme end of the scale - in the middle, between illness and health, there is a huge spectrum of both personal and contextual issues that can affect a person's ability to follow rules. Anger issues, impulse control issues, difficulties dealing with authority, etc.
Even a relatively normal person can be driven to extreme behavior by extreme circumstances. If you get into a car wreck, get yelled at by your boss, come home to an abusive spouse - your ability to follow rules like "don't break shit" and "don't hit people" is impaired.
So somebody broke a car window. Obviously, we may imagine an alternative history where this person did not break the car window. But they did, and they did so for reasons. (Whether those reasons are morally defensible or not is another story.) There was a causal chain of events both endogenous and exogenous to that person leading up to that broken window. To blame the behavior on "agency" without acknowledging that 'agency' means different things in different contexts, you might as well be talking about a soul. If you're not at least a little bit determinist when discussing human behavior, you're being simplistic.
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but we can't do anything but simplify and hold people blameworthy, because we need to be able to count on people to follow the rules, and the alternative to trusting someone to follow the rules is to lock them up (we used to use asylums) right off the bat, because we can't just have people who are not capable (or not capable enough) of following the rules walking around endangering other people. Put another way, if we don't subscribe to a person having the choice to follow the rules, how can we even give them the chance to do so?
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but we can't do anything but simplify and hold people blameworthy, because we need to be able to count on people to follow the rules, and the alternative to trusting someone to follow the rules is to lock them up (we used to use asylums) right off the bat, because we can't just have people who are not capable (or not capable enough) of following the rules walking around endangering other people. Put another way, if we don't subscribe to a person having the choice to follow the rules, how can we even give them the chance to do so?
"We do the best we can with the knowledge and tools we have*" is a bit different, philosophically, from "If you don't want to get punished, don't break the rules," don't you think?
* We really don't, but that's a matter for another time.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but we can't do anything but simplify and hold people blameworthy, because we need to be able to count on people to follow the rules, and the alternative to trusting someone to follow the rules is to lock them up (we used to use asylums) right off the bat, because we can't just have people who are not capable (or not capable enough) of following the rules walking around endangering other people. Put another way, if we don't subscribe to a person having the choice to follow the rules, how can we even give them the chance to do so?
This is a good argument for use in deciding what is or isn't legal.
It is a poor argument for use in deciding what to do with someone who has committed a crime.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Being poor may limit those choices, but it does not rob you of your agency.
How much does agency weigh? Can you measure it by putting a human being on a big scale at the moment of death, when agency leaves the body?
About as much as your sense of self or memories?
People make choices and are responsible for them. Being I poverty does not alter this. Everyone has the exact same capability not to break the law.
Eh, not really.
I mean, agency isn't a binary thing. It's not something you either have or you do not. Human behavior is as much situational as it is individual. See: fundamental attribution bias. Also see: old adages about walking in another man's shoes.
At the most dramatic level, poverty is associated with mental illness, and the legal framework for dealing with mental illness's effects on behavior are pretty rough. (As they have to be, at our current level of understanding.) An individual with, for example, bipolar disorder, does not have same capacity to follow the law... even if that individual passes the blunt legal sanity check that they know right from wrong.
But that's a dramatic example, just to illustrate the point. Mental illness is one extreme end of the scale - in the middle, between illness and health, there is a huge spectrum of both personal and contextual issues that can affect a person's ability to follow rules. Anger issues, impulse control issues, difficulties dealing with authority, etc.
Even a relatively normal person can be driven to extreme behavior by extreme circumstances. If you get into a car wreck, get yelled at by your boss, come home to an abusive spouse - your ability to follow rules like "don't break shit" and "don't hit people" is impaired.
So somebody broke a car window. Obviously, we may imagine an alternative history where this person did not break the car window. But they did, and they did so for reasons. (Whether those reasons are morally defensible or not is another story.) There was a causal chain of events both endogenous and exogenous to that person leading up to that broken window. To blame the behavior on "agency" without acknowledging that 'agency' means different things in different contexts, you might as well be talking about a soul. If you're not at least a little bit determinist when discussing human behavior, you're being simplistic.
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but we can't do anything but simplify and hold people blameworthy, because we need to be able to count on people to follow the rules, and the alternative to trusting someone to follow the rules is to lock them up (we used to use asylums) right off the bat, because we can't just have people who are not capable (or not capable enough) of following the rules walking around endangering other people. Put another way, if we don't subscribe to a person having the choice to follow the rules, how can we even give them the chance to do so?
Question: Do you believe that coercion diminishes mens rea?
You are coming across as saying you do not. That, in the extreme example, someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you do something does not, in any way, restrict your ability to choose. And that is a completely indefensible position.
What should it say? It is possible that we have criminalized the wrong things, but even if we have, why should the poor be any less capable of following the law than the rich?
This sounds to me like a variant of the "If you aren't guilty, you shouldn't have anything to hide!" argument.
You should read Three Felonies A Day. Basically, the rapidly increasing number of crimes of which you can be convicted (particularly with the hideously misplaced War on Drugs) has made criminals out of everyone. I maintain it's basically impossible to not break any laws. There is almost a 100% chance that an IRS agent could find one of your tax returns for the past 10 years to be incorrect, for example, even if you did your best to obey all laws.
The privileged and the rich do not mind this situation so much, as they are not apt to be prosecuted. But it lets authorities target the poor, the disadvantaged, and minorities, extremely ruthlessly. It's not that the poor are less capable of following the law than the rich, it's that we enthusiastically throw the books at poor people for trivial offenses, while ignoring these trivial offenses when they are committed by the rich and famous, while simultaneously ignoring great huge honking big offenses committed by the wealthy and powerful.
As far as the appropriate punishment for minor crimes go, incarceration almost always causes more harm than good, both to society and to the individual. I would argue that things like house arrest and community service cost far more to implement than it would take to just replace whatever the criminal broke, though they may possibly have some rehabilitation value (I doubt it) I have seen studies suggesting that house arrest and community service requirements are routinely flouted.
It also hardly needs pointing out that minor criminals are usually either young or foolish or headstrong or otherwise facing problems in their life: they are most unlikely to be able to pay you $3,000 for your bumper replacement. If someone just slips up once, I do not think it would be in society's benefit to condemn them to a life of servitude by forcing them to take out ruinous loans and repay an amount that is simply not reasonable for them. If you are destroying the life of an individual who would otherwise have shaped up and not committed any additional crimes, that's not a win. It would probably be cheaper, from a tax perspective, for the state to just hand you $3,000 than pay for all the maintenance and oversight and paperwork of trying to squeeze three grand out of the poor sucker. We got rid of Debtor's prison's for a reason.
Restitution is not primarily concerned with punishment. Restitution isn't even always possible, and in many cases will not be able to come from the criminal in any case. I don't think it's useful to think of the criminal being personally responsible for making the victim whole financially.
Rehabilitation is likewise not really concerned with punishment. We hope that beside deterring other criminals, and deterring the criminal from being a repeat offender, the punishment might convince the criminal to change his ways, but it's not really a part of the punishment and in many cases the rehabilitation will be a separate endeavor from the punishment entirely (such as substance abuse issues). If we could devise a foolproof way of determining if a person was going to commit a crime again, and a criminal successfully passed this test, thus proving he was rehabilitated, this would not obviate the need of some punishment. (Unless implementing an 'everyone gets one free strike' rule)
What would work? I would argue that some physically painful and publicly humiliating punishment (such as caning) served out as soon as possible is likely to be the best. It is cheap, it does not ruin the criminal financially for the rest of his life, and as far as I'm concerned, it need not go on his permanent record and deny him getting a good job later on. If he becomes ashamed of his actions and changes his life, he doesn't need to rot in a jail cell, at great expense, for years.
I'm sure some people are going to say this is too brutal and barbaric a practice, but I will just say two things
1) It is entirely possible to administer the caning in a way that leaves no permanent harm whatsoever.
2) I would much rather be caned than spend a year in jail. Probably I'd choose caning over even spending a month there.
So it's not so much that caning can't possibly be considered barbaric, I just think that if you consider the soul, life, family, and society destroying punishments we mete out currently, you'll see caning is in fact less barbaric than what we are doing now.
It's also possible there are no good solutions, but I find it hard to believe there is not some way to improve on what we have now in America. Due to ridiculous overcharging, we have conviction rates that would make third world dictators blush, and incarceration rates that are an absolute embarrassment. This has not led to a situation where we have noticeably less crime than other similar countries, either.
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
And now I'm trying to figure out if we just got Swift'd.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
TBH I've worked a couple jobs where I've had none as well. I just sent out my resume and got called by a company that nobody I know happened to work at. I did that in 2010 in this recession we are/were apparently having. Sorry for not fitting the narrative.
How do you know I'm a "white guy"?
Edit: and if your point is less about employment and more about just sleeping on people's couches instead of shelters then yes I'll concede that point. Having friends helps.
I am not advocating exile for minor crimes though. My proposed solution (which you agreed with) is to have minor crimes dealt with in a special court that has authority at law and at equity and can craft an overall solution based on the circumstances.
Where I think you and I disagree is that I feel like eventually a repeat offender needs to be taken away from society (i.e., jailed) because eventually punishment stops being about the offender and starts being about protecting society from the offender. This is similiar to the discussion of out of school suspension from earlier in the thread. OOSS is not used as a punishment. It is used to give the teachers a break from dealing with a trouble maker.
Having more reasons to commit crimes does not mean that you will commit them. I really disagree very strongly with the idea that being poor means we should expect you to commit crimes. People should be expected to follow the law because it is the law and they are required to do so, and being poor should not change that at all. Everyone has choices. Being poor may limit those choices, but it does not rob you of your agency.
Really? Because I'm extremely intelligent, have a degree in engineering, experience in a variety of fields, and a pretty solid resume, and when I lost my job it took me three years to find a new one, even though I was applying for literally anything I was qualified to do.
It's almost as if your hypothetical anecdote is not a universal description of immutable fact!
edit: Haha, I just noticed the bit about social contacts. "C'mon guys, all you have to do is know a guy who will hand you a job! Easy-peasy!"
How much does agency weigh? Can you measure it by putting a human being on a big scale at the moment of death, when agency leaves the body?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm just playing the odds that you're a white guy
regardless, immediately getting jobs is kind of not exactly common
But what your saying is tantamount to wondering what new yorkers were complaining about during the hurricane when you're in montana, because you look outside and the weather's fine
And frankly it's kind of really insulting to a lot of us with friends and family (or maybe ourselves) had or have trouble finding work
As I said a couple posts up it's not actually a hypothetical, it's just an anecdote. I got laid off 3 years ago (our office shut down) and found a better paying job (actually got 2 offers) in literally 2 weeks. I knew nobody at either company. I guess I had a good resume and didn't offend anyone in the interview.
I work in technology though. Every time a job is lost in this industry two more apparently take it's place.
Edit: And also it's not just about knowing someone who's gonna hand you a job. I've worked at places where the hiring manager or even anyone on the team didn't know me from anyone else. I just had a reference in the building who made sure my resume got in front of them. I did the rest.
Is applying blame to all the unemployed people that they're unemployed, like there's 8 million jobs just waiting to be filled if they'd get their shit together
like, I got my job through one of my old professors, they never even listed the job opening because they would have had too many applicants. The neighboring county has 10% unemployment, I'm sure none of them are qualified
Exile or long term imprisonment or god striking dead is still harsher than I think necessary or effective, but not...not as absurd for a person who isn't a chronic offender.
to me execution is never warranted and life in prison is warranted maybe 10% of the time its actually used
edit: forgot a zero
Well yeah but that's because the situation is completely terrible now. Though even if it wasn't shit wouldn't be that easy.
Also, age, race and a number of other things factor in as well. Also, social contacts would also have to include friends and family that can support and help you for a while. Even if you are relatively quick at finding a job it is unlikely you'll find one before you have to make at least several payments like rent and such.
I don't see how sharing my experience is insulting. If you're insulted I think that's a personal problem. I realize my experience isn't everyone else's experience. I just am fortunate to work in an industry (and have an expertise) where jobs are all over the place. Note it wasn't always that way for me. I originally graduated school with an English degree and was working at the fucking mall.
You indicated that people who can't find work must have slang or tattoos or fuck up their resume or make a bad impression on the interview or something, by pointing those out as things you didn't do
well lots of people do those things right too and still have a really hard time, even in a better economy than this one
In the real world, not talking ideals, I think that our prison sentences tend to be much longer than they should be. I think that realistically, three strikes rules should only apply to crimes that result in jail time. If we jail you and let you out twice and you still commit a crime that will land you in jail again, I think its time to recognize that we are not rehabilitating you, and whether you spend life in jail or in some sort of group home or in a mental hospital (whatever is appropriate) you shouldn't be let back out again, because the risk of recidivism is just too high now.
Well the first point is true. Don't do those things. And yes I realize there are a lot of people who do all the right things and can't get a job. Not that it's entirely their fault but the reality is they are probably looking for the wrong jobs. Tech is woefully under-staffed right now. I realize it's not as easy as going to school to "learn the computers" but if you're working in an industry where jobs simply don't exist, maybe people should stop doing that and position themselves to look in another one.
The economy is functionally unavailable for a large portion of the population, including the extremely educated and qualified. Many of these are simply out of corporate self-interest, and others are due to the funding problems caused by the recent breakdown in government. You kind of have to cut people some slack right now to avoid being completely absurd.
That's a bit like my situation. I've turned down job interviews recently.
Unfortunately, even entry-level jobs in high-demand fields are often looking for experience, so switching careers is not at all trivial.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
We're talking triple digit prices on required text books about "keyboarding." For a community college class.
About as much as your sense of self or memories?
People make choices and are responsible for them. Being I poverty does not alter this. Everyone has the exact same capability not to break the law.
"Well shit, my car's not running. I kicked the exhaust pipe three times and it's still not fixed. Clearly, this car is unfixable and I need to buy a new one."
I did statistics instead of economics because the economics "book package" was north of $250. Statistics was $60.
Well, that, and because I realized my job is probably going to be analytical and statistics based.
Err, I don't know about your school district, but while OSS was generally used in the manner described here, we also had a (straight-A, zero disciplinary problems) girl who got OSS for accidentally bringing a cell phone to school and having it ring. In some circumstances it's absolutely a punishment.
College would be absolutely 100% out of the question.
I could imagine myself "slinging" to put the food on the table.
At one point last year when I was trying to find work I seriously contemplated suicide because every single "entry-level" position I was finding required 2-3 years experience and I very much expected to be homeless in less than a month.
Right now the job market is pretty much "medicine or engineering or programming or GTFO" if you have a degree. You can't even get a job in fast food because they assume that you're going to leave in two weeks for something better.
Presumably because if the worm turns on Wall Streets actions in the last decade, there's gonna be an assload of jobs open for him.
Eh, not really.
I mean, agency isn't a binary thing. It's not something you either have or you do not. Human behavior is as much situational as it is individual. See: fundamental attribution bias. Also see: old adages about walking in another man's shoes.
At the most dramatic level, poverty is associated with mental illness, and the legal framework for dealing with mental illness's effects on behavior are pretty rough. (As they have to be, at our current level of understanding.) An individual with, for example, bipolar disorder, does not have same capacity to follow the law... even if that individual passes the blunt legal sanity check that they know right from wrong.
But that's a dramatic example, just to illustrate the point. Mental illness is one extreme end of the scale - in the middle, between illness and health, there is a huge spectrum of both personal and contextual issues that can affect a person's ability to follow rules. Anger issues, impulse control issues, difficulties dealing with authority, etc.
Even a relatively normal person can be driven to extreme behavior by extreme circumstances. If you get into a car wreck, get yelled at by your boss, come home to an abusive spouse - your ability to follow rules like "don't break shit" and "don't hit people" is impaired.
So somebody broke a car window. Obviously, we may imagine an alternative history where this person did not break the car window. But they did, and they did so for reasons. (Whether those reasons are morally defensible or not is another story.) There was a causal chain of events both endogenous and exogenous to that person leading up to that broken window. To blame the behavior on "agency" without acknowledging that 'agency' means different things in different contexts, you might as well be talking about a soul. If you're not at least a little bit determinist when discussing human behavior, you're being simplistic.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know we are not good at rehabilitation. Like I said, eventually it stops being about the criminal and becomes about protecting society from thir behavior, regardless of what motivates it.
A guy on another board I used to frequent is a guard in a super-max prison in Michigan. He was fond of saying that everyone is a single really bad day away from ending up a lifer.
It's also a lot harder to get a job if you don't already have a job, because most employers will assume that if you're unemployed, it's probably because you suck.
I agree that it is a complicated issue, but we can't do anything but simplify and hold people blameworthy, because we need to be able to count on people to follow the rules, and the alternative to trusting someone to follow the rules is to lock them up (we used to use asylums) right off the bat, because we can't just have people who are not capable (or not capable enough) of following the rules walking around endangering other people. Put another way, if we don't subscribe to a person having the choice to follow the rules, how can we even give them the chance to do so?
"We do the best we can with the knowledge and tools we have*" is a bit different, philosophically, from "If you don't want to get punished, don't break the rules," don't you think?
* We really don't, but that's a matter for another time.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is a good argument for use in deciding what is or isn't legal.
It is a poor argument for use in deciding what to do with someone who has committed a crime.
Question: Do you believe that coercion diminishes mens rea?
You are coming across as saying you do not. That, in the extreme example, someone holding a gun to your head and demanding you do something does not, in any way, restrict your ability to choose. And that is a completely indefensible position.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This sounds to me like a variant of the "If you aren't guilty, you shouldn't have anything to hide!" argument.
You should read Three Felonies A Day. Basically, the rapidly increasing number of crimes of which you can be convicted (particularly with the hideously misplaced War on Drugs) has made criminals out of everyone. I maintain it's basically impossible to not break any laws. There is almost a 100% chance that an IRS agent could find one of your tax returns for the past 10 years to be incorrect, for example, even if you did your best to obey all laws.
The privileged and the rich do not mind this situation so much, as they are not apt to be prosecuted. But it lets authorities target the poor, the disadvantaged, and minorities, extremely ruthlessly. It's not that the poor are less capable of following the law than the rich, it's that we enthusiastically throw the books at poor people for trivial offenses, while ignoring these trivial offenses when they are committed by the rich and famous, while simultaneously ignoring great huge honking big offenses committed by the wealthy and powerful.
As far as the appropriate punishment for minor crimes go, incarceration almost always causes more harm than good, both to society and to the individual. I would argue that things like house arrest and community service cost far more to implement than it would take to just replace whatever the criminal broke, though they may possibly have some rehabilitation value (I doubt it) I have seen studies suggesting that house arrest and community service requirements are routinely flouted.
It also hardly needs pointing out that minor criminals are usually either young or foolish or headstrong or otherwise facing problems in their life: they are most unlikely to be able to pay you $3,000 for your bumper replacement. If someone just slips up once, I do not think it would be in society's benefit to condemn them to a life of servitude by forcing them to take out ruinous loans and repay an amount that is simply not reasonable for them. If you are destroying the life of an individual who would otherwise have shaped up and not committed any additional crimes, that's not a win. It would probably be cheaper, from a tax perspective, for the state to just hand you $3,000 than pay for all the maintenance and oversight and paperwork of trying to squeeze three grand out of the poor sucker. We got rid of Debtor's prison's for a reason.
Restitution is not primarily concerned with punishment. Restitution isn't even always possible, and in many cases will not be able to come from the criminal in any case. I don't think it's useful to think of the criminal being personally responsible for making the victim whole financially.
Rehabilitation is likewise not really concerned with punishment. We hope that beside deterring other criminals, and deterring the criminal from being a repeat offender, the punishment might convince the criminal to change his ways, but it's not really a part of the punishment and in many cases the rehabilitation will be a separate endeavor from the punishment entirely (such as substance abuse issues). If we could devise a foolproof way of determining if a person was going to commit a crime again, and a criminal successfully passed this test, thus proving he was rehabilitated, this would not obviate the need of some punishment. (Unless implementing an 'everyone gets one free strike' rule)
What would work? I would argue that some physically painful and publicly humiliating punishment (such as caning) served out as soon as possible is likely to be the best. It is cheap, it does not ruin the criminal financially for the rest of his life, and as far as I'm concerned, it need not go on his permanent record and deny him getting a good job later on. If he becomes ashamed of his actions and changes his life, he doesn't need to rot in a jail cell, at great expense, for years.
I'm sure some people are going to say this is too brutal and barbaric a practice, but I will just say two things
1) It is entirely possible to administer the caning in a way that leaves no permanent harm whatsoever.
2) I would much rather be caned than spend a year in jail. Probably I'd choose caning over even spending a month there.
So it's not so much that caning can't possibly be considered barbaric, I just think that if you consider the soul, life, family, and society destroying punishments we mete out currently, you'll see caning is in fact less barbaric than what we are doing now.
It's also possible there are no good solutions, but I find it hard to believe there is not some way to improve on what we have now in America. Due to ridiculous overcharging, we have conviction rates that would make third world dictators blush, and incarceration rates that are an absolute embarrassment. This has not led to a situation where we have noticeably less crime than other similar countries, either.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
A lot depends on whether the poster in question is real or an elaborate and long-running Andy Kaufman routine.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion