The biggest mistakes the British left made....

[ericjarvis]

I think the deterrent element of the death penalty is neither here not there tbh. I don't think it makes much difference to the levels of violent crime. I do think a lot of the liberal case against harsh punishments for violent crimes smacks a bit of elitism over the "the plebs with their kneejerk calls for vengeance!"

IMO, justice is not just a neutral social tool for deterring criminals, preventing recidivism and rehabilitating people, it's also about making everyone else feel safe AND that appropriate punishment has been give (justice done). The latter's a legitimate demand, regardless of worries about reoffending.

I have no problem with that attitude. I can fully understand a desire for retributive justice so long as it is honestly expressed, I don't share it, but it makes logical sense. What I have a problem with is the claim that the reason for wanting retribution is that it will reduce crime, because there's no evidence that it's the case, and it strikes me as it's often used as an argument by people who don't feel able to justify retributive justice on moral grounds but want to be able to demand it anyway.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Geeze is this tr er windup thread still going?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes-but how sharp was the rise before and after abolition?

Not steep before. The sharpest rise was between the late 1940s and mid 1950s, after which there was (relatively) a plateau until the mid 1970s. After the mid 1970s the rate climbed steadily for 30 years, but has stabilised and has actually gone down slightly.

There are so many external influences on murder rate that even leaving out the fact that murder is as often hot-blooded as cold-blooded, I'm not convinced that deterrence was ever an effect of a functioning death penalty.

 

[Lo Siento.]

I have no problem with that attitude. I can fully understand a desire for retributive justice so long as it is honestly expressed, I don't share it, but it makes logical sense. What I have a problem with is the claim that the reason for wanting retribution is that it will reduce crime, because there's no evidence that it's the case, and it strikes me as it's often used as an argument by people who don't feel able to justify retributive justice on moral grounds but want to be able to demand it anyway.

I don't share Lletsa idea that the evidence supports harsher sentencing as a tool in crime reduction, I've certainly not seen evidence that convinces me of that, and I personally think that the majority of criminals don't anticipate being caught anyway. I think punishment can have an element of retribution. To take an extreme example I think it's right that Italian partisans shot Mussolini, and if Gaddaffi is toppled by the revolution there he too should be executed. Those, for me, are moral acts.

A trial has just started in Argentina against various generals involved in the ruling junta during The Dirty War. They're accused of kidnapping, murder, torture, of stealing people's babies to redistribute among supporters of the regime. Now, I don't think they present any risk whatsoever of re-offending, nor do I think punishing them will deter future coup plotters. However, punishing them is justice. They deserve punishment.

 

[Blagsta]

It is, but it wasn't made inevitable by it.
We also do still have quite a lot of manufacturing in this country-just not as much as before

But what we don't have is big industry, where hundreds of people live in the same areas, go to the same workplace and socialise in the same places.

 

[Blagsta]

To the changes in employment patterns, both physical and organisationally. Smaller companies, more agency/contract work, less 'big site' locations etc.

Difficult though, as left politics is often borne out of shared experience in struggle.

 

[past caring]

A trial has just started in Argentina against various generals involved in the ruling junta during The Dirty War. They're accused of kidnapping, murder, torture, of stealing people's babies to redistribute among supporters of the regime. Now, I don't think they present any risk whatsoever of re-offending, nor do I think punishing them will deter future coup plotters. However, punishing them is justice. They deserve punishment.

The Hannah Arendt argument, basically.

 

[Red Cat]

don't disagree with any of that-But i'd say leftist politicians TU leaders etc,made real howlers on top of that

They have a relationship with the membership of the Labour party/the trade union they represent. It doesn't make sense to talk of the mistakes of the left in isolation from these contexts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I agree that polls are of limited value. To maximise their value, the best thing to do is to add them all together and see what you get.

A minimally-valid meta-analysis.

 

[Streathamite]

But what we don't have is big industry, where hundreds of people live in the same areas, go to the same workplace and socialise in the same places.

nowhere near as much of that,no
(excepting some steelworks, shipworks, defence plant, major construction projects)

 

[Streathamite]

They have a relationship with the membership of the Labour party/the trade union they represent. It doesn't make sense to talk of the mistakes of the left in isolation from these contexts.

agreed

 

[LLETSA]

I don't share Lletsa idea that the evidence supports harsher sentencing as a tool in crime reduction

That isn't what I said.

 

[IMR]

Surely deterrence must work to some extent, on the grounds that most people can make plans guided by rational self-interest.

Have read that the threat of punishment has little or no effect on sociopaths though.

 

[Lo Siento.]

That isn't what I said.

Sorry, must have a misunderstood.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Surely deterrence must work to some extent, on the grounds that most people can make plans guided by rational self-interest.

Have read that the threat of punishment has little or no effect on sociopaths though.

The potential to be punished undoubtedly affects decision making - but I don't think the harshness of the punishment affects it, at least not beyond a certain point. I mean once the consequence of getting caught doing an action passes beyond mildly inconvenient and reaches highly undesirable, then I'd guess the thought pattern becomes not "even if I get caught, the punishment won't be that bad" to simply "will I get caught if I do this or not" - at which point the harshness of the punishment be it 10 years prison or 50, isn't factoring into their reasoning.

 

[Blagsta]

Surely deterrence must work to some extent, on the grounds that most people can make plans guided by rational self-interest.

Have read that the threat of punishment has little or no effect on sociopaths though.

Have you been reading Ayn Rand?

 

[Blagsta]

The potential to be punished undoubtedly affects decision making - but I don't think the harshness of the punishment affects it, at least not beyond a certain point. I mean once the consequence of getting caught doing an action passes beyond mildly inconvenient and reaches highly undesirable, then I'd guess the thought pattern becomes not "even if I get caught, the punishment won't be that bad" to simply "will I get caught if I do this or not" - at which point the harshness of the punishment be it 10 years prison or 50, isn't factoring into their reasoning.

Also depends what the crime is. Someone in a drunken rage isn't exactly rational.

 

[IMR]

The potential to be punished undoubtedly affects decision making - but I don't think the harshness of the punishment affects it, at least not beyond a certain point. I mean once the consequence of getting caught doing an action passes beyond mildly inconvenient and reaches highly undesirable, then I'd guess the thought pattern becomes not "even if I get caught, the punishment won't be that bad" to simply "will I get caught if I do this or not" - at which point the harshness of the punishment be it 10 years prison or 50, isn't factoring into their reasoning.

That is surely true. I guess what strikes fear into one person might not do so for another. The thought of going to prison has certainly constrained my behaviour on a small number of occasions in the distant past.

As an aside, but related to what you've written, the readiness of the criminal justice system a couple of hundred years ago to hang people even for stealing things might have increased the overall murder rate. After all, if you're going to be hanged anyway, you might as well try and kill any witness while you're about it.

Blagsta: I don't see what's wrong with assuming that most people can deploy rational self-interest if they're presented with reliable information. What's the alternative, that they're like little children? I've no interest in Ayn Rand, life's too short.

 

[kyser_soze]

Have you been reading Ayn Rand?

That's irrational self-interest. Rational self-interest is anarchism - I help you, you help me, we help everyone else.

 

[Blagsta]

Blagsta: I don't see what's wrong with assuming that most people can deploy rational self-interest if they're presented with reliable information. Ayn Rand is irrelevant.

The term "rational self-interest" is straight outta Rand, that's why I queried it.

Secondly, it ignores our emotional drives. As neuroscientist Antonio Damasio points out, our rational decision making minds are built from our more primitive emotional brains. Emotions are a necessary part of human behaviour and not always rational. We don't always make entirely rational decisions - when you're angry for example, do you think as clearly as when you're calm?

 

[Blagsta]

That's irrational self-interest. Rational self-interest is anarchism - I help you, you help me, we help everyone else.

See my post above.

 

[kyser_soze]

I'd guess the thought pattern becomes not "even if I get caught, the punishment won't be that bad" to simply "will I get caught if I do this or not" - at which point the harshness of the punishment be it 10 years prison or 50, isn't factoring into their reasoning.

It's the same process you go through as a teenager staying out late. You're already 2 hrs late, know your parents are going to have a go whatever, and they can't have a go more if you rock up 4 hrs late or 6.

 

[IMR]

Secondly, it ignores our emotional drives. As neuroscientist Antonio Damasio points out, our rational decision making minds are built from our more primitive emotional brains. Emotions are a necessary part of human behaviour and not always rational. We don't always make entirely rational decisions - when you're angry for example, do you think as clearly as when you're calm?

iirc part of Damasio's point was that emotions can actually enable rational behaviour, eg it's wise to be afraid of certain things. There are cases of people who've suffered brain damage of some kind and have no sense of fear, and you can imagine the kind of the trouble they often end up in.

Point taken re. anger versus calmness.

 

[Blagsta]

iirc part of Damasio's point was that emotions can actually enable rational behaviour, eg it's wise to be afraid of certain things. There are cases of people who've suffered brain damage of some kind and have no sense of fear, and you can imagine the kind of the trouble they often end up in.

This is true.

Point taken re. anger versus calmness.

Given the high incidence of personality disorders in prison population, I'd say that a substantial minority of offenders are acting out of anger etc.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, Damasio's contention is that we never make entirely rational decisions. It is our emotions that enable us to make decisions in the first place.

 

[Blagsta]

Actually, Damasio's contention is that we never make entirely rational decisions. It is our emotions that enable us to make decisions in the first place.

It's been a while since I read Descarte's Error tbh. Fascinating book though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yep. He presents a powerful argument, supplying a wealth of evidence.

 

[likesfish]

some of the tactics used by "militant" and its friends were dodgy when you get kicked out of an unemployed centre by your natural supporters you've got to consider who exactly are you standing for when even the poor can't stand you

 

[Proper Tidy]

What are you wibbering on about?

 

[ericjarvis]

Surely deterrence must work to some extent, on the grounds that most people can make plans guided by rational self-interest.

Have read that the threat of punishment has little or no effect on sociopaths though.

My view is that attempting to judge the effect of different forms of punishment cannot be worked out solely by extrapolating from ones own experience. Unless you are a criminal there is something in your circumstances or thought processes that makes you different from the people who need to be deterred from crime. So there is no reason at all to assume that you provide a useful datapoint, let alone a starting point that everything can be extrapolated from.

So the only way to go is to look at the statistics to see what effect different punishments have had. It's either that or insist that only criminals are capable of setting policy when it come to criminal justice, not something I see many people being keen on.