That's a horrible way to go BUT. Why would you chase Bank robbers? RIP.

Edit: No, I'm not "victim blaming" here. It's just that there are situations in life that can be avoided. Life Choices. This being an example.

Trying to be a hero, while forgetting being a hero is a business few live to grow old in

[removed]

[removed]

Not even a bank robbery—a car break-in near a bank

Ok, I didn't get that correct. Thanks for clarifying.

I believe they attacked her in her own car and took her cash from the business. Probably was just thinking about saving her store and her livelihood. So sad. I hope they catch the person.

> she is not a person who would support the policing and imprisonment of the people who harmed her

Justice isn't just about the victim or their families, it is also about protecting society.

[removed]

Oakland is shreds. The fabric is just torn to shreds. Living there I felt like I wanted a big safety vest that said 'civilian'

Just working a job and living in the city was traumatic. Ended up homeless. Punched off my bike, held up whole closing a cafe, watched people die of bullet wounds, and generally just felt threatened and hopeless at all times. Sucks because I remember the city being much better in the early 2000's. Maybe that was just my nativity.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It’s not “woke fucks” is pro police “back the blue no matter who” fucks who think cops don’t deserve to be punished and should be able to do whatever they want.

[removed]

I was interviewed for a job at a clothing store years ago and when asked what would I do if someone stole something I said Id chase them. He was like no! You never do that! I was shocked but now I understand. Weird question to ask a 20 year old though

[removed]

For those who are actually wondering what "restorative justice" means, don't take the word of an anonymous person on the internet.

There are plenty of experts and credible resources which explain what it actually is.

Except that it doesn't, really, no.

[removed]

[removed]

Oh fuck right off dumbass

> "She has this lemon cake that has this lemon curd in it, with a raspberry on top. It is by far my favorite," Emily Harris said.

Article starting with the important stuff first

>I understand their stupid ass positions and the faulty logic used to get there.

I don't believe that.

>I don’t believe or support it and will not excuse murder, robbery or any other violent crime for any reason.

You're not being asked to. Again, I don't think you actually understand what the other side is arguing.

>They deserve prison and should be removed from society.

Many people on the other side of the issue would agree with you. However, is prison going to be a punitive experience? Or is it going to be rehabilitative so that when they leave, they have the skills to rejoin society? And as a society, do we have the systems to reintegrate them?

Currently, most of our prisons don't prepare prisoners for success. Moreover, our social safety nets, housing laws, and hiring practices basically ensure these people have no real chance at starting a new life. Our current system basically guarantees recidivism and an endless cycle of crime.

I don't know about you, but that does not seem like a good or fair system to me. And if you don't care about what is good or fairness, then at least you can probably agree it's a big waste of taxpayer money.

That's also the point of restorative justice, too.

The linked article is exceptionally light on detail as to how it would apply here, but it does briefly mention that the victim saw crimes like the robbery that led to her death as "a symptom of poverty". I'm admittedly inventing the following example out of wholecloth, but it's only intended as an example:

If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area), locking up her assailant for years (if not life) does nothing to address the larger problem (and might exacerbate it, if the perpetrator had dependents, etc); having the perpetrator—if they accept responsibility and actually want to try to make amends (which is a necessary first step in restorative justice methods)—spend that time giving back to the community instead of just sitting in a cell, it might at least contribute to improving the conditions that led to the crime in the first place.

Obviously, just one person doing this isn't going to fix everything—it might not even "fix" anything—but considering how many people are imprisoned in the US (both by number and rate), a larger systemic shift would be an entirely different story.

To be clear: I'm not necessarily advocating it for this case; I'm just giving one (admittedly vague) example of how and why the theory could be applied.

Feels > Reals

>If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area)

As a proof by contradiction, if robbery and burglary are not consequences of poverty, then I'd assume just as many rich teens would be robbing stores and breaking into cars as poor teens.

Last time I checked, rich teens are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens for burglary and robbery.

Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I'm not blind to how environments influence people and communities. I want to see the right balance struck.

[removed]

Similarly, most poor teenagers don’t commit crimes, therefore poverty is not a sufficient cause of crime.

What money?

[removed]

Your counter assumes that counterfactually they would be arrested at the same rates if they were doing the same actions. If they are not in fact arrested at the same rates even if they are doing the same actions, the counter doesn't go through.Using arrest rates only works if we ignore differential application of the law itself (and as my philosophy of law, and logic, classes get to learn, empirical evidence fully shows that the law is not applied equally across demographics 🤷🏼‍♂️)

I am a bay area local

SFDA Chesa Boudin ran on a campaign of restorative justice

There are segments of the progressive wing that do actually believe that criminals are the victims

It makes sense to emphasize that to a young person just entering the workforce, though: They might not yet have developed the reflexive indifference that years of soul-crushing retail work imparts. (I got the same lecture myself when I was like 19 and attempted to prevent a shoplifting at the bookstore I was working at.)

Yes that’s true.

I respect people like Angel and their communities, but life in prison is more like it to me. Anything less than twenty years is a slap on the wrist.

[removed]

Specific, happy details of a victim's life are a quick way to humanize the article's subject and draw the readers in with a sense of personal connection.

It's also a cheap and efficient way to heighten the drama—particularly when it's immediately followed by this:

> Harris spent the past week at the ICU to be with her friend, Angel.

The contrast in that narrative transition is a tidy bit of sensationalism and helps pads out the wordcount.

(Or maybe I'm just being too cynical.)

[removed]

That doesn't track. It's not like a light switch where there's just the two "crime" or "not crime" states. It's a matter of likelihood that someone will commit a crime, not a guarantee.

If the crime rate increases as economic standing decreases, that establishes a link between poverty and crime, there's no need for most of the group to be exhibiting the behavior.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>Last time I checked, rich teens poor people are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens rich people for burglary and robbery white collar crime.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's rich person's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

OR

>Last time I checked, rich teens women are not being arrested at the same rate as poor teens men for burglary and robbery sexual assault.

>Therefore, these environmental factors outside of a teen's man's control definitely influence whether or not a crime occurs.

Does your proof hold when the criminal is somebody who is a member of a group that you may not sympathize with?

It's not indifference. It's that your life and safety are worth more than anything anyone's stealing. If the store cares enough about theft, they'd hire trained security guards.

1. Retail workers aren't law enforcement and shouldn't be deputized into stopping property crime: Their physical safety is more important than the company's profit margin.

2. Atlanta is a TV show, and that shouldn't be treated as empirical data to support any argument other than "Atlanta is some good TV".

Oh, I agree with you 100%; I was more just making a broader, more snide joke about how terrible working retail can be.

As a man, I sympathize with men 🥺

[removed]

There are segments of the right wing who believe JFK Jr is going to show up any day now and declare Trump president.

Point being, there are crazy segments in every political movement whose beliefs are out of step with the majority.

Feel like there are some weird "noble savage" vibes in this view of crime. Yes, we need to address the conditions that increase the likelihood that someone will commit a crime. But after someone has made the decision to drag a human to their death over some money, I think the view that they simply just need lessons in how to be a civilized human is fucking stupid. Lock them up.

Ya honestly looking back at it i actually really appreciate how adamant he was that you NEVER chase someone. I thought I was being conscientious with my answer but he shut that down quickly. So I see now that place saw employees as more important than merchandise which is nice.

Do restorative justice advocates believe in addressing factors that lead to criminality across the board, or only in certain instances and with certain classes of criminals?

It's a statistical fact that men commit far, far more sexual assault than women do. So there appears to be sex/gender component to the crime of sexual assault - whether that be biological or psycho-social.

Would restorative justice advocates call for not jailing criminals convicted of sexual assault, but instead having them engage in some sort of psychiatric treatment to address the larger (biological, psychological, social) factors contributing to their sexual crimes?

Personally, I believe in the not-so-controversial view that there's a pressing need, for the protection of the public, to jail rapists. And while I agree that addressing "big picture" factors is important, that need is secondary to this more immediate need of protecting society.

In short, this discussion is far more open-ended than simply "poverty tends to lead to crime". As science advances in the area of understanding brain chemistry, genetics, and their tremendous impacts on our personalities, how we behave, how we cognize, etc. the questions that arise are ones like: "Is anybody really 'responsible' for anything they do? Does anybody actually have free will?"

But answering those questions does not obviate the need to protect society from violence in the meantime.

[removed]

[removed]

OK, but do others who would ascribe to restorative justice? And what are the implications of that?

In other words, economic condition is only one of many factors that lead people to commit crime. Do we eschew jailing people generally for crimes related to these factors? Or only ones that we happen to sympathize with?

Should we eschew jailing somebody who scams little old grandmas out of their life savings because their parents never taught them empathy or impulse control? Should we, as a society be doing a better job teaching young people about empathy for others, selflessness, and controlling impulses, and therefore, nobody should be jailed for scamming grandmas until we figure out as a society how to do so?

[removed]

True, but why bring it up here? It feels like you're trying to imply that these hypothetical kids are poor because they break into cars.

"Not even." As if any bank robber could get enough for a bank to notice.

Any person's car is more valuable than a bank's money

Radical anarchists like her are not supposed to care about money, certainly not enough to attempt to deprive the victims of an oppressive society the fruits of her labor. She sounds like she was a big fat hypocrite.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

We should address the poverty.

That’s not how statistical analysis of correlation works. If chewing tobacco causes oral cancer rates to soar by a factor of ten, it doesn’t matter if only 35% of chewing tobacco users get oral cancer.

If you could reduce the recidivism of rapists through counseling more than through jail, would you support counseling over jail?

[removed]

If a magic wand existed by which you could tap people on the head and cause them to never rape again, sure, I would prefer that to jail.

But therapy doesn't work that way. It takes time (sometimes an entire lifetime), it doesn't always result in desired objectives, and it requires genuine effort and a desire for change on the part of the person being counseled.

So if you're asking me whether I think jailed rapists should receive counseling? Yes, I agree with that. If you're asking me whether we should substitute jailing for counseling, hell no.

What would you say to a woman who is raped by a person who was recently given a sentence of counseling instead of prison? "Sorry, I guess the counseling didn't go as planned!"

Again, you can't use long-term solutions to address imminent safety requirements.

We’ve been working in the Bay Area for the last 10 years or so, it’s definitely gotten worse. Especially parts of Oakland.

People stealing our tools while guys are up in the air working. Homeless people threatening our workers. Even parts of Berkeley are bad.

The whole "restorative justice" thing often gives noble savage vibes when it's applied to ridiculously heinous crimes. I can see the utility of restorative justice when applied to minors, who exhibit escalating criminal behavior. It can genuinely help petty teenage criminals getting involved with gangs or shoplifting.

But when we're talking about someone who commits felony murder, restorative justice is not going to cut it. The reason we have retributive justice in the justice system is because society at large needs to feel as if the justice system is doling out appropriate punishments for certain crimes. If it doesn't, people begin to lose faith in the justice system. Think about how people would react if a man who violently raped and dismembered a 8-year-old girl got just some restorative justice sessions as a punishment. People would start taking the law into their own hands.

Restorative justice operates on the premise that criminal actions aren't actually your decision. They're the end-result of a life of poverty, racism, etc.

But at a certain point, the justice system needs to ascribe moral agency to an individual. Meaning that, even if you grew up poor and disenfranchised, at the end of the day, you still made a choice, and the justice system punishes that choice.

If we adopt a philosophy where there's no choice ever involved, there's no reason to have a justice system. Because why punish things people didn't choose to do? It's non sensical.

[removed]

>"It definitely had an impact," said Nenna Joiner, owner of Feelmore in Oakland. "As a female body, going to work every day, how is it to own a business in the city of Oakland with some of the difficulties. It won't stop you, but it will make you pause and think about your own mortality."

Emphasis mine.

I don't understand this thing of referring to people as bodies. It's not uncommon to see activists use the phrase "black and brown bodies," or something similar, but this is the first time I've seen someone refer to themselves as a "female body."

It sounds dehumanizing: You're not a black person, or a brown person, or a female person, you're a body.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

There’s basically three different motivations in criminal justice. The first is isolation - removing a dangerous member of society from an environment where they can do harm. That doesn’t mean the incarceration needs to be brutal, or even uncomfortable. You can encase them in carbonite or lock them in a room at the Ritz, because the goal of preventing additional harm is effected.

The second is restoration and reformation. Again, this runs the gamut from counseling to Clockwork Orange. This approach both prevents additional harm and restores an individual as a functioning member of society.

The third is punishment. Punishment itself has a few different motivations. The first is reformation, as in the above, but it does it’s job less efficiently than other, less ham-fisted methods. The second is disincentivizing other people from commuting a crime, either through fear of punishment or (in an economic sense) decreasing the net benefit of committing a crime such that a rational actor will decide not to do it. That one is a mixed bag in terms of effectiveness. The evidence does not support the proposal that harsher penalties reduce crime. The third is just balancing the karmic books - the idea that society must avenge itself violently against someone who caused crime, just because “they deserve it.” I’m pretty sure that last one lacks support from either a pragmatic or an ethical standpoint, but it does seem to be a major motivating factor in the American justice system.

It's why many retail stores have policies prohibiting employees from chasing, or stopping, a robbery. Always have to de-escalation tactics, or let them go if they run/get aggressive/etc.

Still a tragedy

[removed]

[removed]

How about we don't let somebody who deliberately dragged another person to death back on the streets? Also, it seems kind of disingenuous for people to say this is what she would have wanted. She's dead, but Im fairly certain her opinions regarding this individual would have dramatically shifted had she lived.

>I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

Do you have any sources on the success of reformative justice in the reduction of sex crimes, specifically? I'd been under the impression that crimes of that sort were more resistant to reformation efforts but my knowledge of the research is limited and dated.

> If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area)

Would be kind of insulting to the vast majority of poor people who don't commit these kinds of crimes. Maybe it's fairer to say that shitty people like this exist among the rich and poor, but being rich just masks it (i.e. they are the type of people who would rob/burglarize if they were poor).

[removed]

It feels to me like you'd in effect be making it the rule that everyone gets at least 1 free rape or murder as long as you successfully refrain from doing it again. You just claim afterwards that you're "reformed" and don't repeat it - voila, you've been cured by counseling. I think there are a significant number of people who would treat it that way, keeping it in their back pocket.

And I say "at least 1" because I imagine people would be making excuses for the ones who "slipped" and re-offended. "He didn't rape anyone for 20 years, he was trying so hard and just had a minor lapse! He just needs to be topped up with a little more counseling".

Please expand on what you believe the approach to someone who has committed a rape should be, and why.

We can dig through the efficacy of treatment programs, but just to get a feel for the kind of question we are trying to answer, how would you feel if we were to hand a book of moral philosophy to a rapist and were able to with perfect foresight tell that they would never rape again?

Would your first impression be that they got away with something, or that they were successfully reformed and do not require further punishment? I’m coming from a theory of justice angle here just for kicking things off.

About the same as it is now. Punishment, deterrent, and a timeout period that prevents reoffense. And yes, prison does serve as a major deterrent for most people. It's merely that among the people it does not deter, it's not a question of scale - i.e. making it harsher does not succeed in deterring the undeterred.

In the future it may be possible to offer some alternative form of punishment like an implant that delivers some sort of medication to reduce aggression/sex drive, or at least something that allows police to not only track them but visually check in on them periodically, or perhaps have an audio receiver that a victim can yell for help from.

What we have now is an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. But going easier on them is probably going to hurt more than it helps. It can be hard enough to catch and convict criminals the first time (particularly for rape). Giving them 1 or more freebies just makes it so much harder.

Rape is terrorizing, the victim is traumatized for the rest of their life. It's not like getting your car window broken, it scars your soul. My mom worked in the ER where a BABY came in that had been raped.

So what should happen to someone who does that? Why are we even asking the question? Society must be protected from people who prey on others for their own sexual gratification. The risk to society is too high to prioritize a child rapist, or any rapist over the rest of society simply because they've promised to be on their best behavior.

Most rapists already get at least one freebie. Rape is very rarely successfully prosecuted and receiving jail time is even rarer. 25 out of 1000 rapists will be incarcerated.

Perhaps a different approach would get the justice system to do ANYTHING about it.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

If your position is that the raison d’etre of addressing an exhibited criminal activity is to prevent re-offense, then we’re in full agreement. If your major concern is that re-offense may still occur because of our imperfect knowledge, that’s where we can research which approaches are statistically more likely to result in reducing recidivism, and I can agree with that.

For any class of offenses, we should take the approach that most probably reduces both the rate of reoffence by the individual and reduces the incidence of that offense socially. I would agree to that.

Then we're talking about freebies upon freebies. Even if it's particularly heinous and you're caught dead to rights, we're going to let you off with a warning and some counseling.

[removed]

I’m saying that if one of the purposes of system of justice is to reduce the impact of unjust behaviors (or crime) on society, then should we take the path with the highest payoff? Just theoretically, if we were to hand a stack of books by Rawls and Sandel and Parfitt to a rapist, and we were able to know with perfect knowledge that the person became a pure altruist and would never harm again, would they have “gotten away with it” (assuming no punishment occurred)?

I think your approach rests on the assumption that rapes happen almost by accident. That they don't really know better. Everyone is inherently good or wants to be good, and some just stray from the path. If they were confronted with their victim's pain and you explained why it was wrong, they'll have an epiphany and refrain from doing it again. I think by and large they already know how wrong it is and they just don't care. Some perfunctory counseling isn't going to change their disposition, any more than "a better education system" is going to teach conspiracy theorists "critical thinking" skills that disabuse them of their beliefs. Something inside them is just fundamentally broken and it's probably beyond our abilities to fix right now.

Now, if you want to argue for some kind of early intervention system I think that'd be a great idea. Trying to predict and treat these kinds of behaviors in schoolkids before they crystallize could be worthwhile.

You’re basically saying the same thing.

Neither my comment nor any of the links that I provided about restorative justice suggests that poverty inherently turns people into criminals, and suggesting otherwise just badly misses the point.

As you said, not all poor people commit burglaries; that’s obvious. At the same time, even fewer rich people do.

Of course, in no way am I suggesting that poverty is the only source of these sorts of crimes. However, unless you choose to believe the (completely unsupported) notion that criminals are simply born criminals, that means that there are many environmental factors at play. The entire point of restorative justice is to attempt to mitigate those factors and reduce crime overall.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I'd feel immense relief. Mostly for any potential future victims and, to a lesser but very real degree, for the rapist himself. I'm not religious at all but I grew up in a deeply Christian household and that concept of redemption still influences me a great deal.

[removed]

[removed]

> Neither my comment nor any of the links that I provided about restorative justice suggests that poverty inherently turns people into criminals, and suggesting otherwise just badly misses the point.

You linked a landing page to one site about restorative justice and I'm not about to read an entire website to figure out what you want me to take from it. The portion of your comment I quoted supposed that we accept the idea that robbery/burglary are consequences of poverty and/or lack of opportunity. If it's a consequence of poverty that means poverty causes it. But clearly it doesn't since 99% of poor people don't do it.

> However, unless you choose to believe the (completely unsupported) notion that criminals are simply born criminals, that means that there are many environmental factors at play.

That is what I'm saying, so we must not really be saying the same thing. There are many people who grow up desperately poor, or in abusive families, or suffer various traumas, etc, and they don't end up as violent criminals. In particular women are vastly less likely to end up that way. So clearly it must be something in their genetics, though it might only manifest itself in certain circumstances, e.g. if you're not rich. But it's just masked in the rich person. There's no need to steal if you can just buy, no need to rape if you can just pay call girls or woo a woman into marriage with cash. Little upside to criming, but a lot of downside.

I don't see how you mitigate that without making the poor person rich, which is equivalent to making everyone rich (because who wouldn't resort to burglary if one attempt was enough to cause society to make you rich?). Making them perform community service in lieu of prison is not going to change who they are. The only way to treat it is to in effect give them everything they want, or lock them away.

I think we are very much on the same page, and I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me about it.

> The portion of your comment I quoted supposed that we accept the idea that robbery/burglary are consequences of poverty and/or lack of opportunity. If it’s a consequence of poverty that means poverty causes it.

No…that’s not at all how causality works. I’m not really sure how to help you through that one.

> So clearly it must be something in their genetics

Yikes.

OK, you have a good one.

I was going to reply to you upthread in the specific comment thread we were having, but instead will reply here.

I agree with much of what you've been saying throughout this comment thread. I think that we're probably about 75% in agreement about the goals of and preferred approaches to criminal justice.

Two areas where I suspect we differ slightly:

1. I do see some utility in retribution besides simple restoration of "karmic" or "cosmic" balance.

Whereas I agree with you that on a personal scale, I don't find much utility in punishing so as to "balance scales" or what have you, I also understand that you and I are in a distinct minority. Particularly among the Abrahamic religions (which comprise an overwhelming majority of both the global and U.S. populations), retribution is integral to the concept of criminal justice in those belief systems. Therefore, not only is it inevitable that a criminal justice system - a political creation - will reflect the beliefs of a majority of a given population's members, it should do so. For failure to do so leads to the pervasive sense that the justice system doesn't work which leads to both a) more criminality; and b) all manner of vigilantism and lawlessness.

In other words, it's important that we change people's beliefs about criminal justice first, THEN we change criminal justice.

2. An area which, IMHO, you are overlooking is the fourth goal of criminal justice. You referred to three upthread (a great comment, BTW), but in my criminal justice studies I was always taught four - with the fourth being general deterrence: the notion that it's important for a society to signal at-large that crime will be punished, and specific crimes will be punished in a specific way.

So while you've been talking a lot about recidivism, or preventing specific criminals from re-offending, there is a view that the justice system should seek to avoid offending in the first place by sending such clear signals.

I'll concede that the justice system shouldn't be the primary method through which we seek to prevent crime from happening in the first place. We should focus on root causes of crime: economic inequalities and deprivations, substance abuse, child abuse, mental health problems, etc., even beyond - into the newer scientific frontiers of understanding the human brain and genetic predispositions to various biological traits that might correlate with criminality.

However, that doesn't mean that we should exclude from the criminal justice system the objective of preventing crime in the first place. It can and should be part of a multi-faceted approach that includes the aforementioned societal changes. Because while the empirical evidence shows that severity of punishment does not reduce criminality, the prospect that criminality will be apprehended and punished does appear effective at reducing it.

In other words, giving people "Get out of jail free" cards, by which we completely forego privation of liberty in lieu of therapeutic methods could, and likely would result in increased criminality. It simply wouldn't be seen as a real punishment.

> No…that’s not at all how causality works. I’m not really sure how to help you through that one.

Definition of consequence: "a result or effect of an action or condition."

So to restate what you said: "If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are the result or effect of poverty..."

> Yikes.

> OK, you have a good one.

Yeah, if you're not even going to admit the existence and influence of genetics on how a person behaves, we're done here. Though I am kind of morbidly curious to hear you explain why women around the world are considerably less likely to engage in robbery/burglary, no matter how poor.

[removed]

I’m sure the next person who gets robbed by this guy will appreciate Angel’s compassion

[removed]

I don't know if assumptions on psychology or philosophy are particularly important here. What that other poster mentioned, and I agree with them, is studies that show stats on recidivism and whether they support that approach or not.

[removed]

You should look into what restorative justice actually involves. It's not probation or a suspended sentence. It's nothing like what you're describing. First of all - victim involvement and discretion is a key part of the process.

[removed]

And your lack of compassion 💩 great comment 🍑 wipe

The approach that most probably reduces recidivism and reoffence rate is elimination. It’s the most hardline and brutal approach, but also the most effective. It likely wouldn’t be accepted or legalized in most modern legal systems, but I also doubt that American society in general is prepared to enact change based on the best available research, at least not in the current generations.

You guys ever heard of scared straight. Punishment should be harsher and prison should be tough. Growing up I heard too many people saying they love prison. Look at lots of these videos of inmates enjoying themselves. Why work hard to support myself when I can just rob someone and if I get caught I get 2 hots and a cot. That’s the mentality. Go ahead and get mad but I have a good understanding of the street life mentality.

You’re the peach wipe, bro

What do you think the overall cultural effect of that would be? Has capital punishment been broadly applied historically, and what was the environment like at the time?

Exactly. Victims don't choose the criminal's punishment. That's already in place.

[removed]

[removed]

Capital punishment and what we call murder today have, in certain contexts, been norms in many past societies and cultures. There’s so much complexity in how these traditions and systems developed that hypotheticals, though intriguing, often produce results that don’t really make sense in the real world. The cultural effect of the sudden introduction of hardline capital punishment here in the US would obviously be incredibly disruptive, riots in the streets and perhaps more. I can’t personally envision a society reliant on elimination that doesn’t eventually look like North Korea. But there’s always the possibility that future research indicates permanent removal or destruction (either via death or transformation to the point that a person is so far-removed from their original self that the destruction of said person has essentially occurred) is the best option in certain cases, if not many. I like restorative justice as a concept and it’s encouraging to see places try out new systems, but I’m not sure there will ever be a time when long-term incarceration won’t be a part of it.

Someone got murdered here. Have some compassion. Would suck to have your callousness

[removed]

Ah, well the good news then is that victims can already do that in many cases either by not reporting the crime, not pressing charges, or declining to testify, and they could hold that over the perpetrator's head to get them to meet and talk things out. And if they need government force to get the perpetrator to sit down with them then I dunno why you'd think they were being sincere in their contrition in that case. But I'd wager the vast, vast majority of victims want nothing to do with it and so it's all moot.

What a cynical and ignorant thing to say about a person you know nothing about.

Fascinatingly, it was later revealed that Scared Straight was a total failure.

Their methodology was totally flawed, "success" rates incorrectly calculated, and it turns out that participants underperformed wider society.

There was a whole section dedicated to this in the (also generally excellent) book "Black Box Thinking".

[removed]

[removed]

Obviously we should take the path with the highest payoff, and I agree that not every criminal is worthy of “punishment” or is beyond saving. But we must ALSO contend with the very real fact that some people not only CAN’T change their antisocial behavior, but actively resist treatment. There is no functional form of treatment capable of making anybody a perfect altruist, and some people just need to be separated from society. While psychologists have begun to begin considering new methods of treating adult “sociopaths,” they also admit that it is incredibly difficult because their habits are deeply engrained, and that they fight against attempts to “fix” them.

I’m not saying these people need spend their lives naked and chained to a wall, but what makes people nervous about some of the rhetoric around restorative justice is that, many times, it’s proponents side step answering the question of what to do with people who can’t or don’t want to be fixed?

I mean. Let's say Kid A is poor, but spends their day inside playing video games, has a basic understanding of technology, still smokes some weed from time to time, like's to read and get's books and games to play from the library.

Now there is Kid B who is poor, but likes to spend his nights with a group of young men who like to break into places, steel cars, do drugs, get's arrested multiple times, etc.

Now say they both get a job at a fast food place. Kid A and their interests don't interfere too much with showing up on time and job duties.

Kid B misses days because they are dodging the cops, got injured from the hijinks, maybe spent the night in jail and was a no call no show for work.

Who do you think is going to do better in life and their career after 18 years old? Who do you want as your neighbor? Who is going to pay rent? Afford a kid and to help raise it properly?

If your hobby is "hood rat shit"/"meth head shit" with "hood rat friends"/"meth head friends" you will be poor.

In practice, it’s mostly about in-group signalling.

But the idea was to emphasise the physical aspects of power/discrimination. It’s not a pure synonym for person. It should be used when you are talking about something where the actual body is particularly relevant. That’s mostly when you want to emphasise physical assault.

It works here, because she feels at risk not because she’s female in her head, but because she’s likely smaller/weaker or perhaps “looks” like a target. She’s a person wandering around in a female body, and is therefore has different risks than a person wandering around in a male body. (Actually debatable which one is at higher risk overall, depends on circumstances.)

I wasn’t talking about the show, I’ve never seen it. Just that fear is man’s greatest enemy.

Seems like a pretty heavy moral hazard here.

I think it's important to remember that "moral hazard" is an economic theory, not a sociological one.

Nevertheless, both the Canadian government and the US Department of Justice have found it to be more effective than tradtional, strictly-punitive measures.

[removed]

I do think that people who cannot be fixed (although I do think that’s a bit of a loaded word) should be removed from a context where they can do harm, and I’m including other people in correctional facilities in that.

That being said, I don’t think that prisons should be places of torture. American prisons are pretty bad, in large part because making them into places of suffering and violence feels right to people because the people subjected to those conditions deserve it due to their actions.

If teaching someone job skills while having them study ethics with Chidi in the evenings helps make someone less likely to reoffend, then I think that’s clearly the path we should take, because punishment for punishment’s sake isn’t ethical.

[removed]

We are really trying to orient towards her brilliant life, and that actually, she is not a person who would support the policing and imprisonment of the people who harmed her," Harris said

Having not met her I feel confident the above statement is not true.

I find that really difficult to believe, but if true for the sake of argument, how else would you explain that? It seems like you think this is some kind of "gotcha" argument, but the other guy's argument was that crime was a result of poverty/environment. Your alleged facts foreclose both of those. So what else could it be? You also said "commit more crimes", implying that we're talking about being actually guilty, and not just being convicted/arrested more (otherwise law enforcement misconduct or racism could be at work). But we are arguing about actual criminals here and what makes them that way.

Both of the things she wouldn't support have been a detriment to society so

Restorative? Are they gonna bring her back from the dead?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Clown world. As if their opinion should matter since arresting them would primarily be so they don’t rob and kill other people lol

Right? Need a job, place to stay and some money? Just find some rube to kill then say you’re sorry.

the writer of this article should be detained

I've been reading through some of these thoughts and you raise some interesting questions. I feel if we gave out say books on moral philosophy that based on this thought experiment could reform someone completely, then we should require it in schools. Or even required therapy. Or both. Why even wait for a crime happen? (Not sure if you've answered this in another reply.)

Sexual crimes are a touchy subject for me because it hits close to home. So forgive me if I disappear from this discussion.

I am not going to be injured or killed for products that the company I am working for has insurance on.

I wouldn't even stop stone from stealing money from a place Inworked in college. If they want money in the till, have at it, i.will help pack the bag for you. Again, they have insurance to replace what is stolen.

Just the other day at Dollar General:

Cashier: "Oop- That guy just walked out without paying!"

Manager: "Well you best get after him!"

Cashier: "Yeah we're not supposed to do that"

Was kind of funny but also pissed me off that she tried to make the guy run after the shoplifter

[removed]

Real question here.

How restorative justice work?

Do you pay restitution? How(if you don't have any money). Indentured servitude?

Community service? How does that "restore" the individual harmed?

Edit: I'm very skeptical, but willing to be convinced.

If your output variable is “#cancer in large population”, yes, an increase in tobacco use rate causes it to go up. I don’t think that’s true of crime, though. Not every recession causes a jump in crimes rates.

But I was talking about the output variable “Does person X commit a crime?” For that, most of the time poverty will not cause crime. There must be many other factors involved such as community relationships, opportunity, values, likelihood of going to prison, etc.

The point is that there must be many other factors that tend to increase or decrease the likelihood someone will commit a crime, because their wealth is not a very good predictor of crime at all at the individual level.