Are we just getting too soft?

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

Actually, I think most people are interested in learning when presented with ideas in an interesting and fair way. Too much debate these days takes place via memes and sound bites, and is lead by people with entrenched positions they do not want to examine. It doesn't help ordinary people, nor does the sad state of news reporting and documentary television in the US.

The general intellectual culture also allows people to dismiss those who do know what they're talking about as entrenched ideologues as well. It's a very post-modernist way of thinking.

It's entirely possible to actually know something by studying it, but people who have that authority are dismissed as ivory-tower elites who don't know what it's like in the "real world". This of course neglects that those people have studied far more of the real world than those who go off of limited personal perspective.

 

[Icemanaroonie]

Ah the old "intolerant of intolerance" line?

Somewhat. My experience as a student has been that under the guise of tolerance we ban many things from being said, done, or worn. However, in doing so people have been aggressive towards others, in effect becoming intolerant under the guise of tolerance to the point of stupidity. Among other thinfs, I saw someone not too long ago being ostracized for using the word renege.

 

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

Somewhat. My experience as a student has been that under the guise of tolerance we ban many things from being said, done, or worn. However, in doing so people have been aggressive towards others, in effect becoming intolerant under the guise of tolerance to the point of stupidity. Among other thinfs, I saw someone not too long ago being ostracized for using the word renege.

I agree that's ridiculous. There's all kinds of stupidity out there, but generally I think we're heading to a more inclusive and tolerant society. It's of course extremely hard to pin down an overall direction or mindset, there are just far too many people for that. The only thing you can really control is yourself.

I'm a big fan of unfettered free speech, and unfettered free speech in response to other people's free speech.

 

[fdeck]

I read this article the other day. It makes a good point.

Helicopter Parenting & College Students’ Increased Neediness

From the article:

Of course, correlation does not by itself prove cause-and-effect. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that the causation is at least partly in the reverse direction—poor coping on the part of the child may cause parents to become highly protective and controlling.

Another possibility is that both helicopter parenting and neediness share a common underlying cause such as genetics. See the following:

Invalid Link Removed

The idea is that correlations between parenting and the behavioral outcome of children are due to a common root cause, which is the heritability of behavioral traits. Of course both articles could be utter bunk, or their conclusions could be overturned by further research. I read this stuff for amusement, but not for profound insights.

 

[El Güero]

Of course both articles could be utter bunk, or their conclusions could be overturned by further research.

That's the truth, studies and articles don't prove anything.

They might provide food for thought, but nine times out of ten they lack any empirical proof.

 

[Icemanaroonie]

That's the truth, studies and articles don't prove anything.

They might provide food for thought, but nine times out of ten they lack any empirical proof.

Dude by definition studies provide empirical proof.

 

[One Drop]

[

And you have accurate figures stating what these lower crime rates would be if they had much more inmate friendly conditions in jail?

Of course you don't, and that's why the whole Happy Holidays Hotel Prison argument holds no water.

There are no factual figures for comparison.

Yeah right...so present YOUR FACTS which prove me wrong.

Well, took you at your word and rose to your challenge, and linked some facts and studies from various respected sources, who for the most part don't have vested interests or an agenda to support.

Have you any comments or thoughts about the material presented and the arguments they support?

 

[ChrisB2]

More people are in prisons now than when you were a kid, even with heavier sentencing and more crimes that prison can be used as a sentence.

The idea could be forwarded that softer prison conditions have reduced the deterrent effect, thereby causing an increase in incarceration due to less incentive to avoid prison. One might also suggest that some who choose a life of crime have an easier time behind bars than they do on the outside. In that scenario, softer prisons make us less safe, as some of those released have no problem with the notion of returning, creating ye ol' revolving door.

And comparing the situation in Switzerland (or any other country) to that in the US (as you do with almost every topic) ignores the complete dissimilarity in cultures; there simply is no comparison.

Besides all that, I'm curious how you would explain increased US prison population in spite of softer conditions. Police brutality and judicial bias, perhaps?

Add to that the inordinately high sentences and levels of imprisonment for certain minorities for the same crimes

Ah, the Race Card. Correlation does not prove causation. There is nothing inherently unjust about an imbalance in the racial breakdown of prison populations. There may be injustice, but the fact of population proportion alone proves nothing.

That comment qualifies for the "Bomb Thowing" award for the day, congrats!

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Mandatory minimum sentences - particularly for petty drug offenses.

 

[bolophonic]

That's the truth, studies and articles don't prove anything.

They might provide food for thought, but nine times out of ten they lack any empirical proof.

Am I reading this correctly, that you go around believing that 90% of all the academic knowledge that humanity has produced is just a bunch of talk? Have you ever known a scientist?

 

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

The idea could be forwarded that softer prison conditions have reduced the deterrent effect, thereby causing an increase in incarceration due to less incentive to avoid prison. One might also suggest that some who choose a life of crime have an easier time behind bars than they do on the outside. In that scenario, softer prisons make us less safe, as some of those released have no problem with the notion of returning, creating ye ol' revolving door.

And comparing the situation in Switzerland (or any other country) to that in the US (as you do with almost every topic) ignores the complete dissimilarity in cultures; there simply is no comparison.

Besides all that, I'm curious how you would explain increased US prison population in spite of softer conditions. Police brutality and judicial bias, perhaps?



Ah, the Race Card. Correlation does not prove causation. There is nothing inherently unjust about an imbalance in the racial breakdown of prison populations. There may be injustice, but the fact of population proportion alone proves nothing.

That comment qualifies for the "Bomb Thowing" award for the day, congrats!

Nah.

You are right we have a different culture here; we don't care about people as much.

As to the disparity in incarceration: for marijuana use specifically white and black people are about equally likely to use, but black people are far more likely to suffer legal consequences.
Link Removed

You should watch Where to Invade Next, it describes the many ways in which the USA is truly (negatively) exceptional compared to other developed countries. We could change that.

 

[bolophonic]

I can't believe that some of you guys are willing to put forth the "opinion" that modern prisons are "soft" nowadays.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

They are, as compared to a few decades ago. Nowadays being a jailbird has become an occupation. It beats having to work, if you're not inclined to working.

 

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

Maybe we are becoming too soft; there's a lot of people in the USA terrified of brutalized women and children.

 

[One Drop]

They are, as compared to a few decades ago. Nowadays being a jailbird has become an occupation. It beats having to work, if you're not inclined to working.

It's simply not true, in general the trend has been the opposite compared to a few decades ago, since the 70s in fact.

There is the phenomena of people becoming institutionalized and not being capable of readjusting to the world outside again. When you add the difficulty for ex-cons to get work, and a system that makes no provision for helping people back on their feet, it's no wonder recidivism is so high.

It depresses me to hear such facile opinions, just too easy to ignore what is happening out there.

 

[One Drop]

Nah.

You are right we have a different culture here; we don't care about people as much.

As to the disparity in incarceration: for marijuana use specifically white and black people are about equally likely to use, but black people are far more likely to suffer legal consequences.
Link Removed

You should watch Where to Invade Next, it describes the many ways in which the USA is truly (negatively) exceptional compared to other developed countries. We could change that.

Whenever another country's experiences are brought up the inevitable answer for those who are against the idea being discussed is to claim American exceptionalism. The last time I looked Americans were also human beings who react to outside influences and in a similar way to the rest of humanity.

Furthermore, the example I give are relevant because they show the results of change in policy in those countries and so illustrate the effects of a different kinds of laws land attitudes to a problem. But I doubt the people claiming there is no point in comparing have even bothered looking into it because they are already convinced the US has nothing to learn from anywhere else (even though many of these progressive ideas originated in the USA but only get tried out in other countries).

But there is enough information to be studied by the results of different policy and practice state to state- this gets ignored in every rebuttal because it is not so easy to dismiss with a wave of a hand and a claim that comparison with anywhere else is pointless.

 

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

Whenever another country's experiences are brought up the inevitable answer for those who are against the idea being discussed is to claim American exceptionalism. The last time I looked Americans were also human beings who react to outside influences and in a similar way to the rest of humanity.

Furthermore, the example I give are relevant because they show the results of change in policy in those countries and so illustrate the effects of a different kinds of laws land attitudes to a problem. But I doubt the people claiming there is no point in comparing have even bothered looking into it because they are already convinced the US has nothing to learn from anywhere else (even though many of these progressive ideas originated in the USA but only get tried out in other countries).

But there is enough information to be studied by the results of different policy and practice state to state- this gets ignored in every rebuttal because it is not so easy to dismiss with a wave of a hand and a claim that comparison with anywhere else is pointless.

It's frustrating because its entirely possible to actually know how they work out, but people are just apathetic.

 

[One Drop]

The idea could be forwarded that softer prison conditions have reduced the deterrent effect, thereby causing an increase in incarceration due to less incentive to avoid prison. One might also suggest that some who choose a life of crime have an easier time behind bars than they do on the outside. In that scenario, softer prisons make us less safe, as some of those released have no problem with the notion of returning, creating ye ol' revolving door.

One could, but then one would have to support the notion that prisons have become softer, which is easily disproved.

Then you would have to support the proposition that people choose a life of crime, that they do so because they know prison will be better than being on the outside, and that prison has as strong a deterrent effect as you claim.

Are you prepared to do any of this, or is your way of debating to simply ignore all evidence given to support contrary positions, dismiss those positions out of hand, and then simply list a set of contradictory ones you believe in, without a scrap of supporting evidence?

Because this is all you have done.

I have thrown out ideas, not bombs. Sorry if you feel they are dangerous. They are, but only to preconceived ideas and articles of faith.

One question- do you really believe the revolving door is a result of soft prisons and not a result of a legal and incarceral system that creates this situation?

 

[Munjibunga]

Why am I soft in the middle when the rest of my life is so hard?

 

[Hoff Kinkmeister]

Why am I soft in the middle when the rest of my life is so hard?

Because you're just a sack of meat and viscera?