It's not the deeds, it's the hate. by Fremdfirma

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Is fear of getting caught the only thing that makes you obey the law?

When I'm speeding. It is not the only thing that slows me down, but it sometimes has an effect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 11:50 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
One of the nice things about America is that you do have space. If you don't like a place you can just pick up sticks and move on, there will always be places you can move on too. There is no real need to deal too much with your neighbors if you don't want to and like Frem says, you have the luxury of not dealing with people you don't want to. My contention is that because you have that option you take it and thus never have to face the angry neighbor or develop the skills for dealing with the ahole. Consequently when challenged you do react violently because

1) you have not really developed the tools needed to not get really insanely angry with this ahole.

2) You haven't developed social structures to try and mitigate the ahole effect

and

3) You've been convinced that your personal liberty ethic not only ALLOWS you to deal with it as you see fit but even expects you to deal with it solo.

I think you're really on to something here. I also thing you're misunderstanding the libertarian impulse in a significant way.

I do think there's lack of social conditioning in the history of the US. The combination of a long period of expansion, and regular waves of culturally disparate immigrants, has caused us to move away from one another rather as often it's pushed us to get along. You can see it profoundly in the average US community where people rarely interact with their neighbors. We are definitely lacking in this area and now that we don't have a perpetually expanding frontier, we're stuck with the consequences of that deficiency.

But you're interpretation of libertarian ethics miss the core spirit of the ideology almost completely.

First of all, to pin the social problems of America today on notions of individual liberty has no connection to reality. The vast majority of Americans don't give a rat's ass for freedom and liberty, regardless of the political propaganda. People like Frem, CTS, and myself are a very small minority. As much it irks me, people just don't see things that way here and haven't for a very long time.

Look at the presidential campaign of Ron Paul. Despite his popularity on the internet, and the cash and grassroots support that it spawned, he struggled to get 10% of the vote in the primaries. I've been fighting for this cause since the early eighties and I can tell without hesitancy, Americans don't want freedom. Most of them don't even know what it is.

Second, you can't seem to shake this image of individual freedom advocates as "pathologically asocial". I know that wasn't your term, but it does capture the spirit of your comments fairly accurately. Libertarians are the exact opposite of intolerant misanthropes. On the contrary, a libertarian is much more likely accept the differences of others. From our point of view, the people so eager to promote (and legislate) conformity are the folks with the tolerance problem.

Perhaps because of the lack of communal spirit you cite, our culture has come to expect that the government will insulate them from the distasteful realities of "getting along". We've bought into the notion that if we just vote for it, the government will make it all go away. We don't want to accept and deal with our real social responsibilities and instead believe we can outsource it to yet another government agency.

You made a lot of good points in your post, and it was far from a smear job on libertarians, but you do seem to be perpetuating the misconception that we liberty advocates are reactionary thugs. Honestly, I've associated with these people all my life and it's exactly the opposite. We're not the ones shooting up the schools and grabbing weapons at the first hint of conflict. In fact, the people who are, are far more likely to be the ones demanding that "there oughta be a law!".

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 11:57 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
What fraction of murderers are convicted? In the US, and in the rest of the West.

I suppose it's impossible to answer your question. If they weren't convicted, how would you establish that they were murderers? We do still have the presumption of innocence in our legal system, though it is under increasing assault.

As a point of fact, our nation has the highest incarceration rate, as a percentage of our population, than ANY other civilized nation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 1:08 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Second, you can't seem to shake this image of individual freedom advocates as "pathologically asocial". I know that wasn't your term, but it does capture the spirit of your comments fairly accurately. Libertarians are the exact opposite of intolerant misanthropes. On the contrary, a libertarian is much more likely accept the differences of others. From our point of view, the people so eager to promote (and legislate) conformity are the folks with the tolerance problem.

I have to say again that these comments are not aimed at Libertarians, trust me you were not being singled out, it's something that I have noticed even among the people that you seem to think have a personal liberty gap. I think I can explain it better but I'll need to make a few brief detours to establish terms and frames of reference.

First of all Liberty is NOT a God given right, if someone gives you a right then they stand up and are willing to back it by force if needed. The moment that thunderbolts start smiting the folks treading on your liberty is the day you really have God given rights. Until that time what rights you have are the ones that your fellow human beings decide you should have and the majority of them are willing to spill blood to preserve.

Now if you and I sat down to compile a list of concepts and rights important enough to spill blood over I suspect we would come to an extremely small list. I doubt we would agree with all the choices but I doubt we would think many things raise to that level.

Likewise we have that whole arms swinging business complete with bloody noses, what Frem seems to like to call the do no harm strategy. In short freedom has it's limits and those limits usually happen when your freedom and someone elses freedoms come into conflict. I'm going to throw a few out there that seem obvious to me, it's not expected to be an exhaustive list.

You don't have a right to kill someone else, to harm their person, imprison or enslave them. Some of these things may happen in the course of events, but your personal freedom doesnt extend to instigating any of these for your own benefit. Likewise you don't have the right to grief, threaten, coerce or bully others even without actual application of physical force.

You don't have the right to steal, damage or appropriate other peoples stuff, or do things that denies them the use of their property or reduces it's value. I would add to that the concept of pollution since that may effect the use of value of a person's property.

Rights should be balanced by responsibilities because as we've already established you only have those rights in the first place because folk are willing to defend them. I would argue that the responsibility to defend them is inherent in having the right in the first place I think other responsibilities flow from exercise of those rights. It's part of the deal if you like. The linkage of rights and responsibilities should be well understood because they are complementary.

So finally back to the original point. Freedom isn't free, it's a promissory note that may need to be backed by blood. Personal freedom isn't limitless, because you share the world with other people equally free. The price of that freedom is the responsibility to use it responsibly. Implied is the understanding that application of your freedom may have consequences far beyond what you originally intend.

It's my contention that at some point a few things have gone missing from these equations. First, people seem to think that their freedom is God given, immutable and absolute, which is ok until it comes into conflict with someone elses. If you don't believe or choose not to believe that the other guy has equal freedom, or that restriction of your freedom may be to preserve someone elses, then you have a problem.

That "no parking" sign? That means no parking, perhaps because people need to load there or access a hydrant, or because the people that own the property would actually like to park their car there.

That speed limit? May be completely bogus, or it may reflect an area where kids might be likely to cross the road to get to a park.

Not building a 60 ft fence on your side of the property line? may allow your neighbor to enjoy the view your neighbor paid for when he bought his house.

If you don't see that other side, if it just rankles you that your "God given" freedom is being impinged then problems are bound to occur. If you accept that part of the cost of freedom is thinking how you use it then things may be better.

I have more but I'll have to get back to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 1:19 PM

LIGHTBRINGER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
...you can't seem to shake this image of individual freedom advocates as "pathologically asocial". I know that wasn't your term...

That would be my term, Sarge; I hope you understand the irony I was trying to express, namely that the culture of individualism can often develop pathologically into a culture of numb isolationism punctuated by bouts of violence. And I'm just talking about my neighborhood so far. I take your point about the libertarian ethic being responsible and responsive, and I love the idea, but the sad truth is that most of us aren't psychologically or emotionally equipped to live out that philosophy; a huge portion, if not a majority, are barely able to function above the level of children. That is, they live in an egoistic world where external reality is directly dependant on their internal emotional one; they cry when they don't get what they want, and lash out if they feel threatened.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 1:26 PM

LIGHTBRINGER

Oh, and Fletch, nicely done. That was brilliantly comprehensive and well reasoned. Bravo! I would have said it but it wouldn't have made enough peope angry, so thank you.

This may be all a dream, but at least mine was consistently erotic. -LB

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 1:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Bluntly, if Americans are more likely to get away with criminal behaviour, it would hardly be a surprise if they performed more criminal behaviour.

But this is not the case. We not only have the highest crime rate, we also have the highest incarceration rate. In addition, the very high rate of recidivism argues that jail-time (anticipated or actual) does NOT reduce violent crime. It just doesn't. Violent criminals for the most part have something screwy with their brains: they either were abused as children, or they have brain damage/ poor impulse control, or they grew up in extremely dangerous neighborhoods, or they're on drugs, or some combination. Jail? The only thing jail stops is premeditated crime.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 5:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Fletch, truth be told, there's precious little training or experience in conflict resolution other than violence *anywhere* in our society, and I do believe that lack is a serious problem, yes.

One I wouldn't mind rectifying, but just...HOW?

I mean, how do you heal an entire culture ?

The best I can do is get to the branches of youth before they get all twisted, but that's one person at a time, it's just not enough.

SIGNYM

Quote:
ETA: WHich goes back to Frem's title: It's not the deeds, it's the hate. We're a hate-filled culture. We hate ourselves for being at the bottom of the pile. We hate everyone else for having to fight with them for the scraps. And the anwser to that is more hate!

Ding, ding, ding - hand Sig the kewpie doll.

That is exactly the reason for the title, that I never manage to effectively articulate though not for lack of trying.

I will note that on a certain level, yes, individualists do tend to try to solve something themself, but when the problem is bigger than them, or more than they can handle, the general policy, at least of the ones I know, is to link up with other people of like mind and convince them to act mutually on the situation.

Our city council is not at ALL pleased with me for reasons I can't go into, because of exactly that, and a petition forcing a vote instead of allowing them to once again write themselves a blank check....

FLETCH

Quote:
First of all Liberty is NOT a God given right, if someone gives you a right then they stand up and are willing to back it by force if needed. The moment that thunderbolts start smiting the folks treading on your liberty is the day you really have God given rights. Until that time what rights you have are the ones that your fellow human beings decide you should have and the majority of them are willing to spill blood to preserve.

Around here we used to call them thunderbolts musketballs, today we calls em 7.62x39mm

What rights you have, are the rights you are willing to violently and savagely defend, and in most folks case these days, that means just about none.

That bein one reason I am so all fired hot to protect the *means*, precious little deterrent that it is, at least it's something.

As for the consideration of others, in theory, that is what most of those rules and laws are supposed to be there to protect and encourage, and initially some of them do - but it never stays that way in an authoritarian society, alas.

But such consideration happens outside of law, too - by mutual consensus, even though the speed limit is actually higher, most folk around here cut back to 20-25mph for at least an hour or two after school lets out, just because there's likely to be children wandering about who might not be so careful in crossing streets.

You do have the grasp of the rights-responsibility thing as I try to express it, and from a moral/common view without regard to legal, which is why I mean, at least a decent perspective on Kropotkinist views there.

Simple respect of others and decent conflict resolution skills would go a long way toward making that view and policy a lot more common than it is.

Also, required admission here, cause I am the exception to Sarges libertarians, a little bit - to some degree, it comes and goes with me, I can indeed be "pathologically asocial", I just wanna be left alone, sure...

But it ain't a violent thing, it's just a very consuming desire to not share the social envelope with other people, I don't mind them being PRESENT, just don't wish to interact with them, and will politely decline, if pressed, stiffly decline, and then if pressed more, simply leave the vicinity.

But that's a really rare behavior amongst most libertarian types, they seem to be social by nature cause a lot of em DO have, in my experience, just from knowing a bunch, better conflict resolution skills, on average, than most folk.

Sorry for not bein as clear as usual, but it's been a long day on top of a couple longer ones, best I can do at the moment.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 4, 2008 5:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Fletch, truth be told, there's precious little training or experience in conflict resolution other than violence *anywhere* in our society, and I do believe that lack is a serious problem, yes."

But what is the function of conflict resolution if your entire culture says 'I like it, I want it,
I'll take it off your hands, And you'll be sorry you crossed me, You better understand that you're alone ...'

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
What fraction of murderers are convicted? In the US, and in the rest of the West.

I suppose it's impossible to answer your question. If they weren't convicted, how would you establish that they were murderers? We do still have the presumption of innocence in our legal system, though it is under increasing assault.

You don’t need to identify any individual murderer. All you need to do is compare the number of murders with the number of murder convictions and the average punishment for murder.

I’m told that if you do this for the UK, it turns out that the punishment you can expect for a crime there is lower than in anywhere in the rest of the EU. And the crime rate in the UK is higher than in the rest of the EU.

Quote:

As a point of fact, our nation has the highest incarceration rate, as a percentage of our population, than ANY other civilized nation.

SergeantX

You should expect that, if the crime rate is so much higher in the US. For example, if there are ten times as many murders in the US as in Germany, and there are less than ten times as many people in jail for murder, that means that Americans are less heavily punished for murder than Germans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Bluntly, if Americans are more likely to get away with criminal behaviour, it would hardly be a surprise if they performed more criminal behaviour.
But this is not the case. We not only have the highest crime rate, we also have the highest incarceration rate.
.

See my post above. .

Quote:

In addition, the very high rate of recidivism argues that jail-time (anticipated or actual) does NOT reduce violent crime. It just doesn't.

You have not considered the rate of recidivism among criminals who escape punishment for their crimes. And if fear of jail discourages people from committing a crime, and they discover from personal experience that jail is not as bad as they thought, that discovery should make them more likely to risk jail in future.Do you really want to argue that escaping punishment for a crime makes people less likely to commit a crime. .

Quote:

Violent criminals for the most part have something screwy with their brains: they either were abused as children, or they have brain damage/ poor impulse control, or they grew up in extremely dangerous neighborhoods, or they're on drugs, or some combination. Jail? The only thing jail stops is premeditated crime.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

If they are really incapable of responsibility for their actions, they should not be jailed until the end of their sentences. They should be in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The ONLY choices you can think of are jail or a permanent institutionalization ?

I guess we can get rid of special-ed then - they're obviously way to screwed up to help ! Forget therapy - it obviously never works ! Forget job training - whatever would they use it for ? And we should forget about changing drug laws (which account for 50% of inmates, many of whom are 'self-medicating') - because jail and permanent institutionalization would work so much better ! Let alone change our society to be more humane to reduce violence to levels found elsewhere.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
We chose our friends and our mates and that's about it, you don't even get to chose your family.

But you do that, from a pool of people you never chose to meet.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
I’m told that if you do this for the UK, it turns out that the punishment you can expect for a crime there is lower than in anywhere in the rest of the EU. And the crime rate in the UK is higher than in the rest of the EU.

This is nonsense. The UK has the highest imprisionment rate in the EU.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 3:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Let alone change our society to be more humane to reduce violence to levels found elsewhere.

Exactly - but HOW ?

I agree treating drug use and addiction as a purely medical, rather than legal, problem would damned sure be a step in the right direction, however.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It would take a major revolution of thought or a collapse of the current system to even have a hope of starting.

I don't see a major revolution of thought on the horizon, do you ? First of all, most USers think that this is the best of all possible worlds.

It's hard to change when you don't see a problem. And even if there was mass enlightenment, given the demonstrably miserable human capacity for pro-active problem solving, even if it means survival, I'd put my money on a collapse happening first. Though a collapse would more likely generate a Somalia failed-state scenario than major positive change.

But no, I don't think the answer lies in teaching children to play nice and cooperate. B/c unfortunately in the grown-up world, by design, that gets you taken advantage of.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 5:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

While looking for information on Ann Sullivan (Macy), Helen Keller's teacher, I came across this, which belongs best here.

The "Helen Keller story" that is stamped in our collective consciousness freezes her in childhood; we remember her most vividly at age seven when her teacher, Annie Sullivan, connected her to language through a magical moment at the water pump. We learned little of her life beyond her teen years, except that she worked on behalf of the handicapped.

But there is much more to Helen Keller's history than a brilliant deaf and blind woman who surmounted incredible obstacles. Helen Keller was a socialist who believed she was able to overcome many of the difficulties in her life because of her class privilege - a privilege not shared by most of her blind or deaf contemporaries. "I owed my success partly to the advantages of my birth and environment," she said. " I have learned that the power to rise is not within the reach of everyone." More than an icon of American "can-do," Helen Keller was a tireless advocate of the poor and disenfranchised.

COVERT CENSORSHIP: PROMOTING THE INDIVIDUAL
"The world is moved not only by the mighty stories of heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker."

Helen Keller

***************************************************************
Maybe Helen Keller has something to teach us about acting in concert to make society humane for everyone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 5, 2008 9:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA

She was also a radical socialist, and thus a strong member of the four-pole alliance, supportive of Eugene Debs, passionately anti-war, a partial founder of the ACLU...

And an IWW member.
(Whom, I might add, were all for breaking the barriers of class, race and gender long before anyone else had the guts.)

Of course, THESE things you won't find in your public school system history textbook.

It shames me that we've so effectively purged the four-pole alliance and it's noteable folk from our history, when they had such a tremendous impact upon it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
I’m told that if you do this for the UK, it turns out that the punishment you can expect for a crime there is lower than in anywhere in the rest of the EU. And the crime rate in the UK is higher than in the rest of the EU.
This is nonsense. The UK has the highest imprisionment rate in the EU.

It has the highest imprisonment rate per head of population.

I am told it has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime.

For these two statements to be true it must also have the highest crime rate per head of population.

So I wonder if the same is true of the US.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 4:04 AM

I said: If they are really incapable of responsibility for their actions, they should not be jailed until the end of their sentences. They should be in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The ONLY choices you can think of are jail or a permanent institutionalization ?

I guess we can get rid of special-ed then - they're obviously way to screwed up to help ! Forget therapy - it obviously never works ! Forget job training - whatever would they use it for ? And we should forget about changing drug laws (which account for 50% of inmates, many of whom are 'self-medicating') - because jail and permanent institutionalization would work so much better ! Let alone change our society to be more humane to reduce violence to levels found elsewhere.

If someone cannot be responsible for their own actions, there are two options:

a) Make someone else responsible for their actions. This means that this someone must be able to control their action, or else the someone could not be help responsible for them.
b) Change the way their mind works until you like the way it works. (As was tried unsuccessfully on Miranda…)

In neither case can you be said to be treating the person as a free citizen, or even as an ordinary prisoner.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 6, 2008 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
It has the highest imprisonment rate per head of population.

I am told it has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime.

For these two statements to be true it must also have the highest crime rate per head of population.

Which indicates prison isn't a good deterrent, unless you accept that British people are more likely to commit crimes than a person from elsewhere in the EU, which I don't. A high crime rate and a high prison population indicates imprisoning people isn't working, having fewer inmates per crime could as easily indicate the system is swamped by the high crime rate.

The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality, I see nothing to support that.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 7:28 AM

If Britain has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime, people in Britain must do less jail time per crime than people in the rest of the EU.

A person in Britain who commits a crime can therefore expect to do less jail time than a person who commits an identical crime elsewhere in the EU.

If prison time acts as a deterrent, this deterrent will be weaker in Britain than in the rest of the EU.

If people in Britain are assumed to be no more or less “prone to criminality” then this weaker deterrent means that fewer of them will be deterred from committing a crime.

Therefore, you would expect to see a higher crime rate in Britain.

Which was the effect I mentioned.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
If Britain has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime, people in Britain must do less jail time per crime than people in the rest of the EU.

A person in Britain who commits a crime can therefore expect to do less jail time than a person who commits an identical crime elsewhere in the EU.

If prison time acts as a deterrent, this deterrent will be weaker in Britain than in the rest of the EU.

If people in Britain are assumed to be no more or less “prone to criminality” then this weaker deterrent means that fewer of them will be deterred from committing a crime.

Therefore, you would expect to see a higher crime rate in Britain.

Which was the effect I mentioned.

But only includes half the data, and assumes, rather than proves, a particular stream of cause and effect.

EDIT:
What I mean is, the explanation that prison is a poor deterrent, which means you get a high crime rate, which leads to the law enforcement and judiciary systems becoming swamped explains the data equally well.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 11:29 AM

So why did the crime rate go up in the UK and not in the EU?

That is the difference we are trying to explain.

Do you think that prison was a better deterrent in the EU, or that its people are naturally less criminal? Or do you wish to introduce an additional factor?

I did not say that the data given proved anything. I said that I said that it was consistent with the claim that prison was a deterrent.

It was you who claimed that “The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality.”

I have merely provided an argument to show that that claim is untrue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
So why did the crime rate go up in the UK and not in the EU?

Well that's a claim I've yet to see substantiated.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cavalier:
Do you think that prison was a better deterrent in the EU, or that its people are naturally less criminal? Or do you wish to introduce an additional factor?

I think a lower crime rate in Europe has very little to do with prison. I think by focusing only on prisons, and nothing else as an explanation for crime rates, we're attempting to oversimplify a complex social dynamic. I rather doubt anyone has committed a crime because of little threat of punishment, or at the least been dissuaded from crime because of the threat of punishment. I think people who commit crime tend to do it because they have no choice, or at least feel they have no choice, I suspect that possible punishments have little bearing in the decision.

I would suspect that social conditions, such as the gap between rich and poor and social mobility. In Social Mobility the UK is the worst in Europe, and the US has a rather worse showing than that.

I further suspect that prison sentences grow laxer as the crime rate rises, an effect of crime rate, rather than a cause.

Quote:
I did not say that the data given proved anything. I said that I said that it was consistent with the claim that prison was a deterrent.

I thought the claim was inherent in the argument.

Quote:
It was you who claimed that “The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality.”

Uh, yeah, but uh, I never said it was a claim

Quote:
I have merely provided an argument to show that that claim is untrue.

Which is inherently making a claim of your own. At the very basic level being that prison is a deterrent, no?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 4:28 PM

FLETCH2

Also if you look at crimes in general crimes against property are far more common than crimes against the person. In the UK investigation of crimes against people have far higher priority. If a police service commits 300 officers to search for a missing child, that's probably 300 petty theft cases on the back burner for a while.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 8:47 AM