This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yesterday a man named Marcellus Williams was executed via lethal injection in Missouri. He was convicted of the murder of a local journalist. The main points of the case are that
a) no forensic evidence at the scene (the victim's house) connected him to the crime; DNA fragments on the murder weapon (a butcher's knife from the kitchen) were not his; a bloody footprint was not the same shoe size he wore.
b) He sold a laptop taken from the house to someone else;
c) Two people, a former jailmate and ex girlfriend, both told police that he had confessed to the murder. However, they had a financial incentive for doing so.
On balance it seems fairly likely that he did it; being a career criminal, having two unrelated people tell the cops you did it, and having possession of an item from the crime scene is pretty damning. It also can't be that hard to avoid leaving behind forensic evidence - use gloves, shave your head or wear a balaclava, even deliberately wear differently sized shoes. But when talking about the death penalty, we must take the 'reasonable doubt' thing extra seriously. So what do you think mottizens?
American should put as much effort into getting capital cases right first time as you do into the interminable post-conviction litigation.
This is the part I genuinely like best about the US justice system. It is a brilliant work alignment which penalizes a partisan investigative and prosecutorial system for misconduct in a way which really hurts their utility function.
If you imposed some penalty on misconduct, the result will be that people who cut corners to secure the conviction will be regarded as heroes who sacrificed their career, money, or liberty to put a murderer behind bars. With 'evidence becomes inadmissible' etc, these people are more likely to be considered assholes who ruined a lengthy team effort and enabled the murderer to get off 'on a technicality'.
Why do these reasons justify punishing the public for the mistakes of the prosecutor? If a guilty man gets released and then immediately victimizes another person (as so frequently happens) am I supposed to believe this is a good outcome because the prosecutor was (hopefully) chastened by this outcome? What if I or a loved one was the person who was victimized? Should I see this as worth it in order to incentivize diligence by prosecutors? Why should I have to suffer for their mistakes?
If you live in a society of laws, you are already not optimizing for preventing victimization. Our loss function is not the sum of innocent police victims and crime victims. If we gave police the powers to kill on sight anyone who they were reasonably sure was a reasonably bad person, it could well be that the number of crime victims saved would be higher than the number of innocents summarily executed by police. But such police states tend to devolve into dictatorships in pretty short order, because there is little in the way of safeguards. This frequently leads to a much higher loss of life down the road.
While it is not commonly admitted, I will grant you that the price we pay for living in a non-totalitarian society where laws impose restrictions on the state is paid (among other things) in victims to crimes which would technically be preventable if we tapped every device and abolished due process.
If we accept that this is the way society sets its priorities, then sacrificing a few more future crime victims to safeguard due process against prosecutorial misconduct just seems more of the same.
Of course, we can debate the exact boundaries for throwing a court case out. Fucking your co-council is generally not the sort of misconduct which sees the defendant walk free, but tampering with witnesses or evidence would be different.
Generally, there are some professions in society where unprofessional conduct can result in innocents losing their lives. We rely on physicians, truck drivers, electricians and so on to do their job reasonably well. The only difference with police and prosecutors is that society would technically be in a position to prevent loss of life due to their fuck-ups after it becomes apparent. But again, this is a price consistent with the priorities of a society of laws.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link