The American system of justice is not to rehabilitate, but to humiliate, punish, and torture. Worse, we outsource this to the private prison system which has an incentive to keep people in prison. You go to prison in America you will be brutally tortured, humiliated, and will emerge far worse than when you went in. That is the fault of every American citizen - not the politicians - but the people. Because it is the citizenry who punishes the politician that appears even remotely soft on prisoners, or supports prison reform. America is a vengeful society, overflowing with righteous indignation.
The idea of "tough on crime" was born from the political elites though. Read the Rick Perlstein trilogy, particularly the first two books "Before the Storm" and "Nixonland", which go into this depth. It was used to exploit racial resentment in the civil rights era as part of the "Southern Strategy" as Democrats began accepting civil rights into their political program (and eventually to blame the Civil Rights Act for crime). Racism is obviously a persistent problem here, as well as classism (which is often an unexamined cultural phenomenon in the US) and a culture of vengeance. Vengeance is a DISTINCTLY American idea that has been with us since our calvinist roots and is part of our cultural image in everything from our forever war of foreign intervention to our films (particularly Tarantino films exhibit this). It's a sick, contemptible cultural tenet.
We can begin to reverse this by electing DAs like Philly just has: Larry Krasner, a civil rights attorney who has made lowering sentences where he has prosecutorial discretion and refusing to try insufficient cases a part of his platform ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsEFPHMrAKc ). It will also take citizen pressure to ensure these people follow through on their program as they join a thoroughly racist, punitive institution. Also, people must be willing to elect representatives that will cut criminal penalties across the board. Simply cutting them for nonviolent crimes will not solve the problem: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the...
As a non-American, I have to say this is the most puzzling thing about the US: The abundance of anger and indignation in public debate. I guess it's a natural consequence of a winner-takes-all voting system in combination with a vast and heterogeneous population.
On the contrary. <rapidly fashions tinfoil hat> The US is a representative democracy with only 2 credible political parties. In such a system, if you are one of the incumbents, it pays to polarise every issue: that way no third part can emerge. At the very worst, you are out of power for 8-12 years, but you always come back into power. If you manage to get you hooks into the media, then you can encourage them to polarise every issue too. They'll love it, because confirmation bias is a powerful force. It leads to rabid followers of the various institutions -- who deride the followers of the other institutions.
Hmmm... tin foil hats are comfy. I think I'll wear this one for a while...
A winner-takes-all voting system results in only two parties (Regional third parties can exist, but not national ones). No conspiracy required, only maths.
I studied comparative politics in college and this is absolutely true. Different voting system have different outcomes due to the nature of the rules. Unsurprisingly, every attempt to make a more fair voting/systems ends up with its own pros and cons, such as giving minority parties disproportionate influence due to need for coalitions.
In Canada, we have a first past-the-post voting system (if you get the majority of the votes in the riding, you get the seat) and we have at least 3 parties federally (Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP). Technically, we have 4 (including the Bloc Québecois but they're only in one province). So, it's entirely possible to have a winner take all voting system and have more than two parties. Things have fluctuated over the years and we've had 5 parties when the Progressive Conservatives had a split and the Reform Party was created, but they eventually merged once they realized that they couldn't win if they split the votes.
There's been at least one attempt to try and change the voting system, but the side involved in presenting the pros of the new system really did a terrible job.
Well, it sort of depends on the size of the "voting blocs" in which there are winner-takes-all. If the voting bloc was a single person then you have proportional representation, more or less. In the US, the voting blocs are the states, and they are usually very big, so the US is very far from PR.
How big are these voting blocs in Canada?
Anyway, it's interesting to me that even PR systems usually end up having two major parties (with a host of smaller parties around them). I guess that's because many voters cannot bother to educate themselves about the smaller parties or because there's usually one big question of the day that can be answered in a yes/no fashion...
I work in lobbying so I'm on the periphery of something very interesting: The idea of voting blocs, and being able to identify who is going to vote which way, based on discernible facts such as race, gender, culture, religion, occupation, income, etc. This is the new holy grail in politics.
I believe that with the right algorithms and data stream (i.e. Facebook) you can calculate a parties relative strength in the electorate, based on voter characteristics. Then apply layers of other data. For example, apply crime statistics to it. Ex. Murder victim has characteristics that would make it more likely than not they are liberal. Democrats -1. Murderer is caught and has characteristics that they are more than likely Conservative. Republicans -1. Result null.
Terrorist walks into a gay nightclub and kills 49 people who have characteristics that they are most likely o vote liberal. Democrats -49. Terrorist enters a military base and murderers 13 people who have characteristics that would appear most likely to vote conservative. Republicans -13. All +/- a statistical norm.
Very cold calculus... I think government officials and political parties are doing this right now, harvesting immense data to say with certainty: In a particular voting district, we can reasonably say with x turnout we will have a result of y; x1:y1, etc.
In Canada, there's a few hundred districts across the country, so each one is no more than a few hundred thousand people at most. But, I'd say most are under 50k people. Those districts each get to elect one person to parliament. If one party gets a majority of the seats in parliament, they form the government (a majority government). If they don't (but have the largest number of seats for a single party), they try and form a coalition and form a minority government. If they can't form a coalition, the next largest party gets a chance to do it and if so they form the government. Realistically, this second option doesn't really happen.
So, doesn't a district elect a congressperson? If so, the voting bloc isn't a whole state, except I guess for electing the President and senators. Canada doesn't have an elected senate and we don't have anything like an elected President. We have a Prime Minister, but they're the head of the governing party in parliament. We also have a Governor-General, who represents the Queen as our head of state, but it's mostly a ceremonial position, except when there's a change in government. Even then, they're highly constrained and it's basically ceremonial there too.
I agree with that in general, but it's a bit oversimplified. America is also a dangerous and violent society--our per capita murder rate has averaged 5-10x higher than the U.K. for over a century (long before private prisons and modern mass media).
I agree that it's a moral failing if the people that we don't deal with that problem in a more graceful and humane way.
Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples.
> That's a logical fallacy (Simpson's Paradox). It could be the case that when you condition on each neighborhood, the per capita murder rate is lower than Britain's, but the overall per capita murder rate is higher.
One, phrase your statement properly. You intended to compare neighborhood to corresponding neighborhood between the two countries. Not "Britain's".
Two, as others have mentioned. You have no basis for invoking Simpson's Paradox.
> Explain how Simpson's Paradox works here. Explain how it can be mathematically possible for each state/city/etc to have a lower murder per capita than the national murder per capita. Use concrete numbers as examples.
Three, how does your example satisfy my comment?
Four, I know Simpson's Paradox. I also know the difference between knowing something and knowing the name of something.
Your math is wrong, rayiner didn't mention neighborhood variation at all, and Simpson paradox is relevant to changes over time or resampling, not simple rate comparisons
What's your evidence that this is Simpson's Paradox? In order for that to be the case, you'd have to have a significantly higher proportion of the US population living in the most dangerous neighborhoods as compared to the UK. That may be the case, but I'd be reluctant to assume that.
Yeah, I don't think the muder rate in the US vs. the UK actually exhibits that.
I was just pointing out that it's not okay to say "the unconditional rate of murder in A is greater than the unconditional rate of murder in B, therefore A is more dangerous than B". While it may be true that A is more dangerous than B, the implication is wrong.
>You go to prison in America you will be brutally tortured
Having read the article for context, I think you could gain some perspective from it:
>In Syrian prisons, dissidents are beaten, given electric shocks, crushed in a folding board called the “flying carpet” and hanged in their thousands after two-minute “trials”. More commonly, prisons are vile because they are overcrowded and ill-managed, so the nastier inmates (and guards) can do what they please. At some Brazilian lockups, for example, heavily outnumbered guards patrol the perimeter and allow gang bosses to impose order within.
This does not tell the whole story. There is also a huge racial element to how and why we lock people up (and for how long). The documentary 13 explored this in depth and showed how whites used "prison/jail" to makeup for the lost free labor of slaves. Or how Regan used "the war on drugs to simply lock up blacks. To have a discussion about the American prison system and never mention race shows just how bias the HN crowd is; even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Agreed much of our drug policy and criminal system systematically keeps down black people. Not sure that one comment skipping a discussion of race implies all of HN is biased, though
I disagree; and your watered down comment is an example of what I was talking about. It does not just "systematically" keep people down. That is just your elitist way of saying "meh, the system is not optimized for your success but get over it". In reality; the system was actually designed to incarcerate a certain group of people, not because of American's "Puritan” roots but because America is racist as hell and always has been but it does not benefit the HN crowd (mainly White/Asian/Indian etc…) to admit or examine this issue since it does not reinforce the image of how they want to see themselves. That is how an entire discussion on this issue can take place without even a mention of the driving force behind America’s incarceration strategy.
You simply assert that America set out to incarcerate Blacks because it is sore about giving them freedom? Perhaps it's a bit more complex than that.
Growing up African American (or for that matter Native American) you are far more likely to be in a single parent household, therefore poorer. Your schools are often worse as a result. Girls mature a couple years faster. All this leads to a vicious cycle of younger pregnancies, often out of wedlock. Add to this that anyone growing up in a tough neighborhood needs to "toughen up". And you have a lot of vicious cycles perpetuating this kind of life.
It is not race-related. Nigerians for example who immigrated in the 20th century have culture that differs in many respects. The average Nigerian American family income is higher than many other ethnicities including Dutch and French Americans.
There has got to be a way to help communities combat destructive cultural elements without getting all bent out of shape about racism. I feel there is a very vocal industry out there that wants everyone to say Blacks are victims, and shouts down any hint that they have the power to choose what they do in their own family and neighborhood just like everybody else.
I am black, I don't need you to explain what "growing up black" is like. Your entire argument is that of a naive outsider that does not understand the parallels between race and culture.
Why are responses like these such cryptic hit-and-run allusions to lack of knowledge and assertions of bias? Why not directly engage with facts, statistics, right here instead of saying one should read an entire book, while offering nothing to directly address the substance of what we discussed?
Look, there are members of the "Black race" who have a different culture and make more money and themselves look down upon "ghetto culture". Here are some elements of the culture:
swearing frequently,
guffawing loudly in public places,
escalating arguments to violence over trivial things,
filming themselves on youtube abusing defenseless people, etc. etc.
Look, I come from Russia. I can readily admit - and so can many Russians - that certain sectors of Russian society have similar tendencies to drink and violent escalations etc. These are just facts and they are not race related, they are culture related.
I am a man. I realize men are disproportionstely profiled by police vs women for violent crimes and are incarcerated far, far more often than women. Yet I am willing to deal with facts about men's behavior vs women's behavior on the average without yelling systemic sexism and that men are victims. We have to be able to deal with facts as adults and men, just like women, have the power over their behavior and probability of going to jail. When it comes to men vs women you presumably agree w me, but somehow you seem to suggest that speaking in non racial terms is racist. Why, because you think African Americans are incapable of making choices that other ethnicities (Han Chinese, Jews) can make when it comes to eg raising a family?
No, my "systematically" meant "by design, throughout the system". Also, I definitely didn't say "meh", act particularly elitist, say anything about the system vs "your success", or try to make excuses for America based on "Puritan roots". I think the system is racist as hell.
I'd love to have a real discussion about this, but you're putting words in my mouth, versus responding to my actual comment and trying to have a conversation
>Because it is the citizenry who punishes the politician that appears even remotely soft on prisoners, or supports prison reform.
So, because the man on the street rejects shorter sentences or decriminilization, he is to blame for "brutal torture and humiliation" and privatization? Nah.
