Boarchariot
6mo ago
It's incentive for people who have committed crimes to give their money to the justice system, which supports the justice system. That's the benefit it provides society as a whole.
I am making it as a simple comparison, because there is a difference between a man vs a man, and the political situation where it is group vs group. The obvious difference to me is that the most vocal, violent, and dissident points of view control the dialogue (and retaliatory actions from each side continue indefinitely) while other people, who are not involved, are caught in the crossfire. Hence the tragicomedy of Romeo and Juliet.
To the other comparisons to war, which are also group vs group: defecting in this sort of political dilemma, rather than war, serves to improve the standing of specific people within the society, and not the group as a whole. The difference should be that the detriment of your neighbours is a sign of the detriment to yourself. Even if you believe that defecting helps the party who does so (to me it seems like a defect-defect downward spiral, not a defect-cooperate situation where there is any benefit), it does not folow that a benefit to the party is a boon to the people of the country more generally. But as long as people are happy to watch politicians (pretend to) club each other over the head, happy that their outgroup experiences tribulations (which means everyone gets a turn), and happy that the other side is upset, I don't see how anything constructive can happen. The reality is that the politicians will drink Johnny Walker with one another after the show is over, but the general public will have no such consolation.
Boarchariot
6mo ago
I wonder what the arguments from either side would be if "the other guy did it first" wasn't acceptable to the voting public, and we held all of our public officials accountable to serving the good of the public as a primary purpose. While I agree that both leftists and democrats do bad things and have for a long time, I don't think refuting the partial benefits along with the outright bad/ridiculous is best.
Unfortunately, things are so heated that any political discussion is less about how society should be run to benefit the people living in it, and more about finding ways to stick it to the other guy. That might help placate half the country emotionally, but I'm not sure it does any material good for people who aren't politicians or above a certain income/class.
Boarchariot
6mo ago
Why is considering the specifics of a defendent's circumstances not impartial?
I don't personally consider that a benefit. In fact, I think it is a flaw because it causes people to act in ways that are less utilitarian/net good. I think the feeling of retribution and satisfaction is the primary driver for justice in a small society/community and serves the purpose of banding people together. But i do not believe it is a good in itself, and it should be tempered by rationality to discern the best course of action.
Like other intense emotions, it acts as an indicator for a desired change (the crime should never occur again, for example). But it does not indicate the exact course of action that should happen for the greatest benefit, especially on a social level.
Boarchariot
6mo ago
Have you read Romeo and Juliet? A schoolyard bully is mano e mano. A feud between groups is much messier, with innocents caught in the fallout.
We tacitly acknowledge this with all punitive justice - we may not be able to make a right, but the best we can do is visible punishment of transgressors.
I don't know that visible punishment as its own end is why we have punitive justice. Most proponents will cite things like deterence, or prevention (i.e. keeping dangerous people in jail), or in more leftist societies rehabilitation. The point being the result: reduction of crime, a safer society. Punitive justice seems like an archaic tool that still has contemporary benefits, similar to old rules about the sabbath that gave people community, or old rules about what to avoid eating to prevent disease.
The punitive aspect is, in part, that we have that as a means available (familiar, common sensible, and traditional). But contemporary societies realized to varying degrees that punishing conditions don't help in themself. Hence why torture isn't allowed, or prison conditions aren't totally uncomfortable (in other countries at least).
As someone who isn't American, it's sad to see that American society is unable to come to a point of real discussion about what is better for the function of their country, and instead resorts to arguments about what the other side has done. It seems to me that both sides are unhappy with the justice system and how it can be abused to treat people unfairly. That seems to be a problem beyond either side, but it is highlighted when either side can cherry pick examples.
From an outside perspective, I am deeply concerned that Trump will do nothing to help the structural issues. But to be fair, I don't think the Democrats had any better chance.
Boarchariot
6mo ago
I tore my ACL a few years ago and got surgery over a year later. I can give you my impressions.
The doctors told me that completely torn ACLs do not heal on their own. I believe I read that partial tears do heal a bit. But my layman's interpretation of "heal" here is that you want the tendon to perform the same function as before, in terms of durability, strength, etc. A severe injury is hard to bounce back from in those regards, when it's really hard to train or gauge tendon strength.
It's not surprising that your friend regained his leg strength and then some. Once the collateral damage of an ACL injury heals (soft tissue or other) there is nothing hindering strength except the break in training. Closed chain movements like squats are particularly safe. The ACL shouldn't have much to do with it.
Stability is also trainable. The muscles in the leg can be trained, along with balance and proprioception, to become very stable. It is just a matter of training good movement patterns (true with or without surgery). My assumption for myself is that I had a lot of poor movement patterns that led to the injury in the first place. Stuff like balancing on one leg, single leg squats, were very useful in my recovery. Then you can get into dynamic movements like jumping and running.
The real tricky consideration is that your friend is a professional athlete in a relatively injurious sport. That goes far beyond training in a gym. You are dealing with open chain exercises and the added chaos of a competitive sport with other players. I'm sure your friend is aware via doctors, but the most difficult movements after a hurt knee are things like jumping and cutting, where there are higher forces and changes in direction. Add in the intensity of competition (which is where most athletes are injured) and I personally became more interested in surgery as an option.
The biggest factor for me was psychological. I did not want to second guess how my knee would perform under pressure, or risk further injuries like miniscus tears. Truth be told, I bet a lot of athletes could get away with no surgery (it's not unheard of), but if you are dealing with a drop in performance or durability I'm not sure it is worth the risk at that level. But I can also understand wanting to limit recovery time, especially if a surgery date is relatively far away (and the surgery does suck to recover from, arguably worse than the injury) or expensive (mine was free here). My doctor heavily encouraged anyone younger than 35 or involved in high-risk sports (like soccer) to opt for the surgery.
The surgery isn't fool proof but I would guess it does help (my leg feels rock solid now). But your friend will have to weight the risks and rewards of the options. I would say my leg felt 80-90% better in weightlifting and everyday use just before I got my surgery, but I did not get back into sprints or intense dynamic activities until after surgery.
Boarchariot
10mo ago
I also learned to drive recently, in my 30s. I also found lessons really exhausting, but I totally chalked it up to nerves. Not that I was panicked or fearful, but driving takes a lot of focus and concentration, as well as multitasking and anticipation. With lessons that is even more true. You're paying attention to the road, to the car, to other drivers, and to the instructor, all while learning and doing new things.
Now that I've had my liscence for two years, it is a lot less exhausting. I can easily drive for many hours. A lot of things that you have to actively focus on while you are learning become second nature.
What are the arguments that it is compromised? I don't know that I have seen a well laid argument. I have seen many piecemeal or specific cases that people bring up, but I have seen that from both sides, where evidence is cherry picked. In fact, it might be fair to say that in terms of public opinion, the justice system is pretty bad. No one is satisfied. Both sides can be correct even if they disagree on the problems (just as ADHD can be both over diagnosed and under diagnosed, to use an ACX example). I haven't seen a non-partisan (or even close to non-partisan) take, outside of Scott's recent post on prisons, which only scratches the surface of one part of the justoce system.
More options
Context Copy link