Do crime statistics justify prejudice in policing? And what is the solution to the discrepancies?

[SMOGZINN]

Is it the job of police to "look at the reason" people commit crimes?

Nope, the court system does. We intentionally built it to do so. That is why we have a jury of your peers instead of a professional jury system or a fiat judicial rule. But that court system has been corrupted, and no longer serves it's original purpose, but that is a whole other conversation.

Your point, while made with good intentions, leads directly and inexorably to the effective outcome that we don't arrest or prosecute some crimes because the folks committing them "have reasons" and to do so despite those reasons means we end up with "too many" of one type of person in jail for it.

It might just mean that we allow some crime to slide, or maybe more importantly we target rehabilitation instead of punishment for a large number of crimes when we detect certain types of extenuating circumstances. It is ultimately a question of goals. All our actions should always be with our goals in mind. What do we really want, to stop crime, or punish those that do them? When those two things become in conflict which do we choose? Punishment might make us feel good about justice, but it does almost nothing to stop the actually crime. Rehabilitation often feels like we are not getting retribution for wrongs committed against us, but ultimately lowers crime much more effectively. So what do we choose? To feel good about punishing the wicked, or redeeming them?

 

[glenn1]

Nope, the court system does. We intentionally built it to do so. That is why we have a jury of your peers instead of a professional jury system or a fiat judicial rule. But that court system has been corrupted, and no longer serves it's original purpose, but that is a whole other conversation.



It might just mean that we allow some crime to slide, or maybe more importantly we target rehabilitation instead of punishment for a large number of crimes when we detect certain types of extenuating circumstances. It is ultimately a question of goals. All our actions should always be with our goals in mind. What do we really want, to stop crime, or punish those that do them? When those two things become in conflict which do we choose? Punishment might make us feel good about justice, but it does almost nothing to stop the actually crime. Rehabilitation often feels like we are not getting retribution for wrongs committed against us, but ultimately lowers crime much more effectively. So what do we choose? To feel good about punishing the wicked, or redeeming them?

Arresting someone is generally a good way of stopping crime since the person is in jail and can't re-offend. If your point is "I feel bad about so many blacks being in jail so I'd rather not arrest so many even if it means they'll continue to commit crime, primarily against other innocent blacks" that's a valid viewpoint but I disagree.

 

[Atreus21]

You just proved that I was right about what you believe below, haha.

The purpose of that hypothetical is not to just show that the two are unequal, but that they are CATEGORICALLY unequal, in that an unlimited amount of embryos are not worth the life of one real baby. Because they are categorically unequal you can't say that the destruction of an embryo is the same as the death of a child as you already admitting they could never be the same.

Great, now that you have admitted that even a billion of one thing is not worth one of the other I assume you will no longer keep pushing this point.

Why did you exclude the rest of my post? I said that I would sacrifice a born human being for embryos depending on the circumstances (for someone dying of cancer, or for a teenager who raped and murdered my wife).

Unless you accuse me of lying, that right there defeats your argument. I will choose a billion embryos over a born human being depending on the circumstances, which is all your hypothetical proves. I might change my mind if you reduce the embros to only ten thousand. Or perhaps if the born human was a murderer, and there were only three embryos all of which were my biological children, I'd probably choose the embryos.

I don't how I can make this any clearer.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Arresting someone is generally a good way of stopping crime since the person is in jail and can't re-offend. If your point is "I feel bad about so many blacks being in jail so I'd rather not arrest so many even if it means they'll continue to commit crime, primarily against other innocent blacks" that's a valid viewpoint but I disagree.

The results do not match your argument. Sending people to jail increases the odds that they will commit more crime, it does not decrees it. Your argument basically boils down to the more black people we have in jail the fewer of them that can commit crime. Your argument creeps frighteningly close to a 'final solution'. I don't think you were intentionally going there, but that line of logic leads there eventually.

 

[glenn1]

The results do not match your argument. Sending people to jail increases the odds that they will commit more crime, it does not decrees it. Your argument basically boils down to the more black people we have in jail the fewer of them that can commit crime. Your argument creeps frighteningly close to a 'final solution'. I don't think you were intentionally going there, but that line of logic leads there eventually.

You’re conflating different things; the before, during, and after incarceration.

Increased policing *should* reduce crime. I’m aware it’s not a 1-to-1 linear correlation and sometimes you hit diminishing returns, but generally the relationship holds. Police should be continually reminded their job is to make the neighborhoods they patrol better, not just serve as dangerous sentinels like Gort the robot from the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and maintain "peace" by constant fear of police violence.

Being in jail prevents crime while you’re there, that’s the point. You can’t re-offend in the community while in jail. I don't think there's really a "fix" for that, leaving criminals in the neighborhood to continue to victimize innocents is a bad policy even if we end up with "too many" of a particular demographic. This can also be addressed in part by re-examining our laws (e.g. calling off the war on drugs) so less stuff is "illegal" that doesn't need to be.

Post incarceration recidivism is driven by plenty of things including laws,hiring practices, and attitudes that often serve to encourage reoffending. Those can be addressed via crafted laws (e.g. limiting employers from routinely asking about criminal past when it’s not directly relevant) to changes in social policy (releasing ex-convicts into different neighborhoods and away from their former criminal associations).

None of the above lends itself to thinking like “well since you’re black this law shouldn’t apply, I won’t arrest you for theft because there’s already too many blacks in jail.”

 

[dank69]

It's amusing to have someone tell you what you believe.



In a competition there can be no equal parties. The whole nature of competition is to determine which party is valued highest, and your hypothetical by definition introduces competition to discover that.



- Choice between saving one baby and a billion embryos: I choose the baby.
- Choice between saving one baby and a billion embryos, several of which are my only possible offspring: ...I'd probably still save the baby, but I could understand if someone opted to preserve their offspring.
- Choice between a person dying of cancer and a billion embryos: I think I'd save the embryos.
- Choice between saving a teenager who raped and murdered my wife and a billion embros: I definitely save the embryos.

Is this becoming clear now? People will sacrifice innocents to save other innocents depending on the circumstances. Would you finally stop telling me what I believe?



As much time as I want? Then why can't I save both parties?



I think in the end this whole hypothetical boils down to a red herring, and also a straw man. Pro-lifers don't say the unborn have all the same rights and protections as others, but rather only the most fundamental right (to live). Moreover, abortion doesn't involve a competition. The value of the unborn's life can be considered in the abstract, because no one has to die.



...and because of this we can also describe it as a loaded question. If the two parties in your hypothetical are my twin children, and I am bound by your conditions to only choose one of them, no matter which I choose I'm a moral monster according to you, even though I had no choice.

Since you seem to have missed it:
Choice between burning a baby, but not killing it, or killing a billion embryos?

 

[SMOGZINN]

You’re conflating different things; the before, during, and after incarceration.

No, I'm not. I'm saying we can't look at any one of them in isolation and expect to get sane results. Any solution has to take them all into account, and any change in one of them changes the entire system.

Increased policing *should* reduce crime. I’m aware it’s not a 1-to-1 linear correlation and sometimes you hit diminishing returns, but generally the relationship holds.

We have long sense hit the point of diminishing returns. Increased policing moves crime, it does not reduce it significantly.

Being in jail prevents crime while you’re there, that’s the point. You can’t re-offend in the community while in jail.

That is only true if you are taking a very narrow view of how an individual commits a crime. On a societal level it does nothing because for every one person we are tossing in we are letting another out. If the ones we let out are even more likely to commit a crime then sending people to prison increases crime as a whole.
It is like you have a leaky roof and put a bucket under the leak and claim that the bucket keeps your floors from getting wet. Then when the bucket overflows you point out that well at least the next drop isn't getting on your carpet!

I don't think there's really a "fix" for that, leaving criminals in the neighborhood to continue to victimize innocents is a bad policy even if we end up with "too many" of a particular demographic.

I've mentioned several fixes for that. You just don't like them.

This can also be addressed in part by re-examining our laws (e.g. calling off the war on drugs) so less stuff is "illegal" that doesn't need to be.

Yes, this is definitely a part of the problem. Unjust, or unjustifiable, laws create crime for no reason. They create a black market that creates more crime. They send people to prison and makes them professional criminals.

None of the above lends itself to thinking like “well since you’re black this law shouldn’t apply, I won’t arrest you for theft because there’s already too many blacks in jail.”

I never said that. You keep going back to the skin color thing. I'm talking about looking at ways to stop crime instead of punish it.

 

[glenn1]

I never said that. You keep going back to the skin color thing. I'm talking about looking at ways to stop crime instead of punish it.

If your ways all involve basically bribing people to behave because without welfare/social programs they'd be compelled to commit crime, then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

Since you seem to have missed it:
Choice between burning a baby, but not killing it, or killing a billion embryos?

I don't think you guys are grasping this, but fine. I'd probably elect to save the embryos, depending on the severity of the burn involved. If my children were among the embryos, I'd almost definitely choose to save them. If the embryos were completely unknown, yet the baby was my son or daughter, I'd probably save the baby unless the burn was 2nd degree or milder, or even 3rd degree if recovery chances were good.

It depends on the circumstances.

 

[dank69]

I don't think you guys are grasping this, but fine. I'd probably elect to save the embryos, depending on the severity of the burn involved. If my children were among the embryos, I'd almost definitely choose to save them. If the embryos were completely unknown, yet the baby was my son or daughter, I'd probably save the baby unless the burn was 2nd degree or milder, or even 3rd degree if recovery chances were good.

It depends on the circumstances.

Okay fair enough just checking psychopathic levels. I mean, I had my suspicions when you said you'd "gladly slap the baby." At first I found such a statement quite surprising but then I remembered how much super religious people tend to really enjoy the corporal punishment process. Feels good to dole out that righteous wrath I guess. But burning babies just because the tray of embryos is your own, that is some hardcore shit right there. I mean, you know you can make as many more of those as you want, right?

More likely you are just talking out your ass and the moment you came face to face with lighting a baby on fire you would come to your senses, but I don't know you from a hole in the wall. Maybe that wouldn't faze you in the slightest.

 

[glenn1]

Okay fair enough just checking psychopathic levels. I mean, I had my suspicions when you said you'd "gladly slap the baby." At first I found such a statement quite surprising but then I remembered how much super religious people tend to really enjoy the corporal punishment process. Feels good to dole out that righteous wrath I guess. But burning babies just because the tray of embryos is your own, that is some hardcore shit right there. I mean, you know you can make as many more of those as you want, right?

More likely you are just talking out your ass and the moment you came face to face with lighting a baby on fire you would come to your senses, but I don't know you from a hole in the wall. Maybe that wouldn't faze you in the slightest.

Makes perfect sense. A Democrat baby whose parents would have gladly aborted if the timing wasn’t convenient and perhaps already aborted a few, versus a tray of embryos whose parents obviously want a baby otherwise they’d not have gone through the trouble of creating a tray of embryos.

 

[brycejones]

Makes perfect sense. A Democrat baby whose parents would have gladly aborted if the timing wasn’t convenient and perhaps already aborted a few, versus a tray of embryos whose parents obviously want a baby otherwise they’d not have gone through the trouble of creating a tray of embryos.

Glenn1 somehow manages to find a new low.

 

[glenn1]

Glenn1 somehow manages to find a new low.

Still higher than the shredded remains of the unborn in a dumpster. Or the conscience of the would-be mothers who had their brains sucked out because they're embarrassed about talking to Mommy about what they did, or don't want to be inconvenienced with a child since their lifestyle would be crimped.

 

[fskimospy]

Still higher than the shredded remains of the unborn in a dumpster. Or the conscience of the would-be mothers who had their brains sucked out because they're embarrassed about talking to Mommy about what they did, or don't want to be inconvenienced with a child since their lifestyle would be crimped.

Again, you said you were in favor of abortion. What happened? We need more stupid and spiteful conservatives about you who mistakenly support human rights because you think it will make liberals mad.

I’m serious, please tell all your conservative friends that more abortions means fewer democratic voters so they will all support abortion rights too.

 

[brycejones]

Or the conscience of the would-be mothers who had their brains sucked out because they're embarrassed about talking to Mommy about what they did, or don't want to be inconvenienced with a child since their lifestyle would be crimped.

Keep going someday might actually make a point based on reality.

 

[Paratus]

What makes a difference is deliberately killing innocent human beings.



Rightly so. Killing someone because of your recklessness and carelessness makes you responsible for their death. It's not as bad as deliberately killing someone, but it's still rightly criminalized.



Fixed that for you. Now does it make sense?

No your reasoning doesn’t make sense because you need to explain why doing something that is 70,000 times less likely to cause death is punishable while being 70,000 more likely to kill a child is fine.

I’m assuming you have a reason? I don’t care whether it’s a religious, scientific or logical reason I would just like to know what it is.

 

[glenn1]

No your reasoning doesn’t make sense because you need to explain why doing something that is 70,000 times less likely to cause death is punishable while being 70,000 more likely to kill a child is fine.

I’m assuming you have a reason? I don’t care whether it’s a religious, scientific or logical reason I would just like to know what it is.

Abortions should be performed this way to more closely resemble the reality. Reach in, pull out the unborn child, hold it up to show the mother, it bursts into flame, and mother weeps in joy that her "burden" is gone. Ideally we'd require the doctor to wear the skull and horns helmet as well. Having it be done sterile fashion where the mom is shielded from the reality of the baby being shredded is like kids not realizing nuggets come from the violent death of a chicken and leads to a similar callousness about the death involved.

 

[fskimospy]

Abortions should be performed this way to more closely resemble the reality. Reach in, pull out the unborn child, hold it up to show the mother, it bursts into flame, and mother weeps in joy that her "burden" is gone. Ideally we'd require the doctor to wear the skull and horns helmet as well.

That feeling when you realize the guy who has been vehemently arguing against abortion for pages has no idea how almost all abortions happen.

 

[fskimospy]

Also amusing is if you look at glenn's posting history he's repeatedly said he doesn't care much about abortion at all. His stance here is almost certainly just becoming more and more extreme because he's rage posting, not because he actually believes it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Also amusing is if you look at glenn's posting history he's repeatedly said he doesn't care much about abortion at all. His stance here is almost certainly just becoming more and more extreme because he's rage posting, not because he actually believes it.

I've kind of observed this and was wondering if it was just me, I've disagreed with him on a number of things, but IMO it does seem like these last few months he's become less reasonable/more extreme than he was previously.

 

[Atreus21]

No your reasoning doesn’t make sense because you need to explain why doing something that is 70,000 times less likely to cause death is punishable while being 70,000 more likely to kill a child is fine.

I’m assuming you have a reason? I don’t care whether it’s a religious, scientific or logical reason I would just like to know what it is.

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?

 

[Paratus]

What justifies the deliberate killing of an innocent human being?

That’s what I’m asking you. In all cases if the person decides not to drink and drive with a child, take an abortificient, or not have unprotected sex then no child is at risk of being killed.

You however are fine with unprotected sex. So it seems you are fine with as many dead kids as it takes to have a child.

So again in that case, how do you justify deliberately risking killing a child(ren)?

Because it seems this is another case where you differentiate between how you would treat a fetus and how you would treat a child despite stating you take the position they are the same.

To address if not answer your question, in my case if there’s no mind there’s no person innocent or otherwise to kill. This is why it’s ok to pull the plug on people who are truly brain dead.

While it’s scientifically difficult to determine when that is during gestation I would probably tag it to when REM sleep is identifiable in the fetus (around 7 months) and limit abortions after that to health of the mother and/or fetal abnormalities.

 

[Atreus21]

That’s what I’m asking you. In all cases if the person decides not to drink and drive with a child, take an abortificient, or not have unprotected sex then no child is at risk of being killed.

You however are fine with unprotected sex. So it seems you are fine with as many dead kids as it takes to have a child.

None of which are killed deliberately. You seem to not understand what deliberate means.

So again in that case, how do you justify deliberately risking killing a child(ren)?

I don't. Conceiving children entails variables entirely outside any human control. That's a wholly different act than deliberately seeking to destroy an innocent human being. Driving my children to school each day involves a risk of a fatal car crash, just as any act at all entails risks to third parties.

Because it seems this is another case where you differentiate between how you would treat a fetus and how you would treat a child despite stating you take the position they are the same.

I don't say they're the same. I say they each share one commonality: a right to live stemming from their status as human beings.

To address if not answer your question, in my case if there’s no mind there’s no person innocent or otherwise to kill. This is why it’s ok to pull the plug on people who are truly brain dead.

There's also a moral difference between the best course of action for end-of-life care for invalids and deliberately seeking to kill an otherwise healthy and innocent human being.

While it’s scientifically difficult to determine when that is during gestation I would probably tag it to when REM sleep is identifiable in the fetus (around 7 months) and limit abortions after that to health of the mother and/or fetal abnormalities.

REM sleep is the cutoff? Why? That seems awfully arbitrary.

 

[nakedfrog]

REM sleep is the cutoff? Why? That seems awfully arbitrary.

More arbitrary than deciding a tiny clump of cells is "an innocent human being"?

 

[Atreus21]

More arbitrary than deciding a tiny clump of cells is "an innocent human being"?

That is the opposite of arbitrary. It's a precisely defined scientific fact for us and any other mammal.