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 -
Nayyib Bukele's war on crime: real or fake, good or bad?
Basically, they've arrested at least 60,000 who seem like criminals, without a warrant, and sent them to a newly created prison. There are now troops based in high-risk communities and a whole swathe of the constitution was suspended. Considering the videos, it's hard to see how people with such extensive tattoo-collections could be law-abiding - the usual suspects have been protesting about human rights and the need to see a lawyer.
https://news.sky.com/story/first-inmates-transferred-to-el-salvador-mega-prison-in-crackdown-on-gangs-12821405
Gangs in El Salvedor tended to be incredibly violent and powerful, there was a huge problem with them killing 76 people in 2 days back in March 2022, at which point the government declared a state of emergency. El Salvedor used to be the murder capital of the world, reporting an astonishing 103 homicides per 100K residents in 2015, which then fell steadily to about 18.1 in 2022 and further since. El Salvedor is now out of the top 20 most murderous countries. Bukele took office in 2019, so the decline isn't all under his watch. Obviously, homicide rates don't tell the whole story. They don't include the number of people who die in shootouts with police (120 gang members in 2022). Furthermore, they do not include 'disappearances' which is what the US state department says is replacing homicides in El Salvedoran statistics. Finally, homicides do not capture the level of conflict between gangs and govt - we can imagine a govt that arranges to give the gangs what they want in exchange for peace, a govt that lashes out and crushes them or tries to crush them (causing homicides to spike) or a govt that lets them run rampant (with consistently high homicides). The US alleges that Bukele's been making deals with the gangs, as have all the previous govts. They say Bukele's plans are indistinguishable from previous iron fist policing methods that didn't work either and that El Salvedor's being turned into a one-party state under a state of exception. They suggest instead that El Salvedor adopt 'comprehensive gang prevention, intervention and rehabilitation programs in marginalized communities'.
Bukele says that the US is smearing him because he takes a less-than-liberal approach to human rights for violent criminals. He's also been experimenting with introducing a non-USD basis for his currency in Bitcoin, something that would naturally anger Washington. There's definitely a level of conflict here, they've sanctioned some of Bukele's govt leaders.
I'm inclined to favor Bukele, on the basis that iron fist policing methods should work. I've espoused 'send the criminals to prison or shoot them' policies before. This is on the assumption that the definition of 'criminal' centers around violence, organized crime or serious drug trafficking. Copyright infringement should not be met with summary executions for example. (But if they were it would probably reduce copyright infringement more than 'rehabilitation programs in marginalized communities').
If there's enormous amounts of murder, it follows that there are too many dangerous criminals on the streets. Thus more intensive policing is needed. High levels of crime is extremely damaging, you end up with capital flight, limited investment, a frayed social fabric and so on. I think that a safe society is the foundation upon which legal niceties and so on can be built. You can't build a functional society in a country full of gangs. You can only get a kayfabe liberal democracy like Brazil (or more specifically the North East) which has all the appearances of rights and laws and judges but there's immense corruption and a permanently high rate of crime with gangs enjoying considerable freedom to bully everyone else. What are the rights and laws and judges for if not reducing crime and improving quality of life? In my view, they're not ends in and of themselves.
It's better to dictate terms with the gangs than let them run rampant. I believe Bukele was negotiating for that very reason, before the gangs performatively defected from the terms with the bloodbath in March. The harsher policies since then are better yet. Gangs should not be trying to use leverage on the government by saying 'we can raise the crime level at any time and lower your election prospects'. El Salvedor's gangs seem to be in the 'worst of the worst' category and most El Salvedorans seem to be satisfied with the crackdown.
But I can see there are arguments against the crackdown as well, that certainty relies upon statistics we can't know for certain. Thoughts? Applicable in what Trump would call 'shithole countries' but not in the West? Slippery slope to tyranny?
Maybe, but the economy is so poor and corrupt anyway. The smarter criminals don't have tattoos anyway... things like govt. corruption. The literature suggests long prison sentences and the 'carceral state' is a mediocre or poor deterrent, but I am skeptical of this. I think in the US it's a more effective deterrent and crime mitigator than the media would have you believe, and that the high carceral rate in the US reflects unfavorable demographics but also a low tolerance for crime, particularly recidivism. Countries with better demographics need fewer prisons, and or have more crime, that is possibly unreported. Norway and other Scandinavian countries have a lot of crime that is possibly overlooked or unreported despite the alleged success of its more lenient criminal justice system...like break-ins and thefts.
True. I recall an adage that goes something like 'why are the poor poor - because they are bad at stealing'
I reckon a lot of the literature focuses on deterrent overly much. A bullet in the back of the head might not deter but it will prevent recidivism. If someone is locked in prison (cell-phone directed drug rings excepted) they can't really commit much crime. Better than deterring is removing capability entirely. If there are no criminal networks integrated into local communities, people will be much less likely to commit crimes. Merely deterring crime is a bit like threatening to beat a drug addict if he relapses. Far better to remove all the drugs, from the point of view of preventing a relapse.
Furthermore, the carceral state in the US isn't highly effective. There's plenty of criminals wandering around, randomly murdering people after getting released from jail. 21 prior convictions!
https://news.yahoo.com/family-begin-healing-process-now-200921560.html
If you only take half the antibiotics the doctor proscribes you might feel less sick but you won't be cured. The US carceral state is similar, I would've thought after your ninth or tenth conviction the time for leniency would be over.
Deterrence is one philosophical justification of punishment (i.e. we are causing harm--punishment--in order to achieve a benefit; how do we describe that benefit? Deterrence answers "by making future harmful acts less likely."). It comes in two flavors: general and specific. General deterrence might be thought of punishment as an example to others: "do this bad act, and this is what you'll get." Specific deterrence is the effect of that message on the person punished.
Incapacitation is another philosophical justification, though it answers the same question above with "make it impossible for the punished person to repeat his bad act." Incapacitation can be temporary (imprisonment is the most common example) or permanent (execution, similarly).
Putting a bullet in the back of someone's head certainly meets the terms of permanent incapacitation and specific deterrence. It may also produce general deterrence, though the best evidence in this area tends to suggest that higher certainty of punishment is more effective than higher severity.
Recidivism is a measure of the failure rate of specific deterrence. If that failure rate is unacceptably high, then changes should be made (and will be made, extra-judicially if necessary in the long run). The famous "three strikes" laws were demanded and enacted by the public in response to an earlier era's judgment that prisons were functioning as revolving doors, and criminals were neither deterred nor incapacitated from committing rather a lot of crime, even after being caught and prosecuted.
(Other justifications not mentioned above include retribution and rehabilitation. Even though a particular type of punishment might fit a justification, there is still the weighing of the costs of punishment vs. the benefit produced. Executing jaywalkers is certainly one form of incapacitation, but the benefit is slight and the cost very large.)
Arguably retribution is just another form of deterrence, except this time the state is deterring the victims' friends and relatives from taking revenge on criminals (likely to get out of hand when it's a personal beef) by carrying out a more measured form of revenge.
Niether the friends of the victim nor the friends of the perpetrator are happy with the state's decision, but in both cases just enough punishment and just enough fairness has been shown that no one is going to risk jail to fill the gap in justice which the state has left.
While this is an excellent rationale for the criminal justice system generally, retribution and deterrence are distinct. Deterrence justifications are consequentialist--they are focused on reducing future bad events. Retribution justifications are deontological--a criminal deserves punishment for his crime, and the purpose of the justice system is to make a best effort towards matching punishment to crime. A particular policy or type of punishment could be supported by either or both justifications, but they are fundamentally different rationales.
That said, you're correct that the point of the criminal justice system is to replace ad hoc vigilante justice with an orderly system run by disinterested parties.
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
More options
Context Copy link