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 -
Gladue is awful and has been a disaster for indigenous Canadians; it doesn't just affect sentencing, it also makes convicting people more difficult because it can be used to "shield" juries from information that may prejudice them (like prior offences). But because the policy actually makes life worse for indigenous communities, it becomes a self-reinforcing justification for doubling down.
There was an awful incident a few years ago in Hamilton where an indigenous man high on meth shot a Good Samaritan who had intervened to stop him bullying an old man. Gladue provisions were introduced into the trial to prevent the jury from knowing about the killer's previous convictions for assault and weapons offences, and this measure was subsequently upheld in court. In a darkly ironic twist, while the killer was found not guilty, the two paramedics who came to the scene got 6 months of house arrest for mishandling the medical treatment.
I don't see anything in this summary of Gladue about the admissibility of prior convictions, and the prohibition is perfectly normal in common law countries. Eg, in the US, the general rule is that prior convictions are inadmissible except under fairly narrow circumstances. In fact, character evidence in general is usually inadmissible. See, eg, Fed Rule of Evidence 404 ["(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident."].
So, a prior crime is inadmissible to show that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes or that particular crime, but if the defendant has a distinctive M.O., the prior crime can be admitted to show he was the perpetrator. Or, eg, if I am caught breaking into a woman's bedroom at night and claim that I was merely trying to steal something, my prior rape of a woman in her bedroom might be admitted to show that I intended to commit a rape.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link