site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  3yr ago (text post)   34387 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This law has apparently been in effect since 1995, so this is not exactly news.

Is there any reason why the optimal sentences for indigenous convicts are lower than for non-indigenous convicts?

The question is not whether the law is optimal; it is whether it is just. The law says: "(e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders." I don't know enough about the history of treatment of Aboriginals in Canada, nor enough about the actual effect of the law on actual sentencing, to opine one way or th other.

Does it really make sense to blame the offender's dysfunctional background on his indigenous ancestry?

Surely that depends on the individual. Here is the operative law:

I pause here to note that both learned defence counsel and Crown counsel acknowledge that, given the totality of the circumstances, a custodial disposition is necessary. But the court goes on to state that it is important for the court, when sentencing any individual offender, to have particular consideration given to the systematic racism and effects of colonization that have been foisted upon Indigenous persons in this country for decades. In that regard, the court has made it clear that in some circumstances, this should be considered a mitigating factor and might result in a disposition that might not otherwise be appropriate for non‑Indigenous offenders.

[27] However, at para. 78 in Gladue, the court had this to say:

[78] In describing the effect of s. 718.2(e) in this way, we do not mean to suggest that, as a general practice, aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a manner which gives greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice, and less weight to goals such as deterrence, denunciation, and separation. It is unreasonable to assume that aboriginal peoples themselves do not believe in the importance of these latter goals, and even if they do not, that such goals must not predominate in appropriate cases. Clearly there are some serious offences and some offenders for which and for whom separation, denunciation, and deterrence are fundamentally relevant.

[28] The court went on to state at the next paragraph the following:

[79] Yet, even where an offence is considered serious, the length of the term of imprisonment must be considered. In some circumstances the length of the sentence of an aboriginal offender may be less and in others the same as that of any other offender. ...

[29] Then finally at para. 80:

[80] As with all sentencing decisions, the sentencing of aboriginal offenders must proceed on an individual (or a case-by-case) basis: For this offence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code? ...[Emphasis in original]

[30] Some years later, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ipeelee revisited these principles that were enunciated in Gladue and expressed some concern with the effectiveness of s. 718.2(e) in sentencing decisions, but generally accepted and acknowledged the statements contained in Gladue.

[31] At para. 72, the court stated the following:

[72] ... The methodology set out by this Court in Gladue is designed to focus on those unique circumstances of an Aboriginal offender which could reasonably and justifiably impact on the sentence imposed. Gladue directs sentencing judges to consider: (1) the unique systemic and background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts ...

[32] At the same time, at para. 75, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated that that particular provision does not create “a race‑based discount on sentencing.” It states that:

[75] ... The provision does not ask courts to remedy the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in prisons by artificially reducing incarceration rates. Rather, sentencing judges are required to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders in order to endeavour to achieve a truly fit and proper sentence in any particular case. This has been, and continues to be, the fundamental duty of a sentencing judge. ...

[33] These particular principles outlined in Ipeelee and Gladue were recently commented upon by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Altiman, a 2018 [sic ‑ 2019] decision which again acknowledges the necessity to take into consideration the background and history of Indigenous persons in this particular situation; that is, before the courts facing criminal charges.

[34] Being guided by these principles and directions, applying them to the particular circumstances in this case and the victims, and Mr. Thomas's personal circumstances, the question is what is a fit and just sentence that properly reflects all of the relevant fundamental principles of sentencing?

It does not seem to me that there is a whole lot to see here, but perhaps there is; perhaps there is research that attempts to show the effect of the provision on actual sentences is large.

To clarify, when I said this:

It does not seem to me that there is a whole lot to see here, but perhaps there is; perhaps there is research that attempts to show the effect of the provision on actual sentences is large.

I meant that whether the law is or is just depends on its effect on actual sentencing.

Then I don't understand what position you claim I maintained, nor what "lot of things [one has to ignore] in order to maintain it.

Okay, so what's the actual effect on sentencing?

Dial the snark way down. This kind of comment is not conducive to good faith discussion.

what you've provided is an assertion. table stakes is some examples of lighter sentencing, though actual statistics would be better. My sky is blue with scattered white clouds; in point of fact, I think I probably agree with you that first-nations criminals get lighter sentences. but arguments need to be backed up with evidence, not mere assertions.

Sentences are definitely lighter -- when a judge invokes Gladue he specifically includes it in his sentencing decision. I suppose that one could technically assert that "I'm giving this guy a longer sentence because of his racial background; Gladue allows this" but I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it, lol.

Here's an example:

https://www.rmotoday.com/stoney-nakoda/stoney-nakoda-youth-found-guilty-of-shooting-german-tourist-to-be-released-from-custody-2277997

It's typical in that nowadays the Crown anticipates the Gladue report and drops available charges and/or requests a light sentence based on the expected content of the report.

Well of course when a judge invokes Gladue it is to impose a lighter sentence. But the issue is, how often does that happen, how much lighter, and is the result just? After all, it is completely normal to conclude that a defendant is somewhat less morally culpable, and hence deserves a lighter sentence, IF he has been subject to abuse or trauma or deprivation, or what have you. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 319 (1989) ("`[E]vidence about the defendant's background and character is relevant because of the belief, long held by this society, that defendants who commit criminal acts that are attributable to a disadvantaged background . . . may be less culpable than defendants who have no such excuse'"). I don’t purport to know enough about indigenous people in Canada to determine whether the outcomes are just, but unless we know the outcomes, how can anyone make a judgment about them?

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats