I have seen false conviction estimates ranging from 1 to 5 percent. All systems which involve any kind of classification will have a non-zero false positive rate. Does that mean we should do away with them? Of course not. We should simply seek to improve systems with better and better processes, while accepting that we might approach but never achieve zero false positives.
What alternative would you propose? Doing away with criminal justice? Do you think murderers and rapists should be allowed to roam free? How about drug traffickers who knowingly distribute life destroying substances in their communities?
Think of someone you really love. Maybe its your child, your parents, your partner, or a friend. Now imagine the pain and fear they would feel as they are murdered. What would they think and feel as they are choked to death? Or bludgeoned? The sheer terror. The pain. The senselessness of their life ending. Imagine that you find their corpse. Imagine the pain and horror you would experience. The hole in your heart. Really try to visualize this scenario. To feel it emotionally and with your senses.
Now imagine the perpetrator going unpunished. Walking free. Or getting put on some cushy rehabilitation program to better their life. Does that seem right? Does it seem just? Does it seem fair?
In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors?
In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors?
It seems that victims and their survivors already have a wellspring of support, but not as much effort on reducing the number of perpetrators and victims in our society.
We are focused on 'righting' the wrong rather than actually fixing it. Of course, you could incarcerate or execute these individuals, but that would not be a fix in the same way that starving people to death is a way of 'solving' the famine.
Individuals, no matter how much 'free will' or 'agency' they have, are all subjected to cause and effect.
This conversation isn't in the context of the concept of prisons, or even crime and punishment in general. It's specifically about solitary confinement which, along with corporal punishment, is torture that does permanent damage to someone. If you're going to countenance torture (or capital punishment), the very least you can do is is consider the likelihood of them being innocent.
Yes, the scene you describe is appalling. And, from reports, not uncommon in the States. Would I be in the right state of mind to make effective policy or humane decisions after that trauma? No. Would a reasonable person want revenge? Probably. Would a systematic revenge-based system lead to more or less miserable outcomes?
The US has the highest rate of incarcerations in the world. Is that working?
Putting so much effort into punshiment and so little into prevention smacks of revenge rather than wanting to actually improve things.
So it is OK to inflict righteous punishment on the 5% of innocent prisoners?
If we built a society that treated everyone with respect, we likely wouldn't have so much crime to begin with. If our social institutions were setup to remove children from abusive situations ASAP, if we lived in a world where baby formula didn't have to be locked up at grocery stores (seriously, that is very fucked up, anyone who needs baby formula should be able to go to a government provided store and get some no questions asked, no hoops to jump through), and if we lived in a world where parents didn't have to work multiple jobs with every changing shifts just to pay rent, maybe we wouldn't have to worry about crime so much.
Instead we live in a world where minority children are treated worse in schools, where society assumes teenagers who aren't white are "up to some trouble", and in a world where those in power regularly show distain for life in general.
We've had presidents go on TV defending torture, why the hell should some poor kid who has nothing in life start to feel empathy for anyone?
> I have seen false conviction estimates ranging from 1 to 5 percent.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I think this statistics only means that 1-5% of convicts were falsely convicted and could prove it. So the actual number is probably much larger. I would guess something like 20%.
I have seen false conviction estimates ranging from 1 to 5 percent. All systems which involve any kind of classification will have a non-zero false positive rate. Does that mean we should do away with them? Of course not. We should simply seek to improve systems with better and better processes, while accepting that we might approach but never achieve zero false positives.
What alternative would you propose? Doing away with criminal justice? Do you think murderers and rapists should be allowed to roam free? How about drug traffickers who knowingly distribute life destroying substances in their communities?
Think of someone you really love. Maybe its your child, your parents, your partner, or a friend. Now imagine the pain and fear they would feel as they are murdered. What would they think and feel as they are choked to death? Or bludgeoned? The sheer terror. The pain. The senselessness of their life ending. Imagine that you find their corpse. Imagine the pain and horror you would experience. The hole in your heart. Really try to visualize this scenario. To feel it emotionally and with your senses.
Now imagine the perpetrator going unpunished. Walking free. Or getting put on some cushy rehabilitation program to better their life. Does that seem right? Does it seem just? Does it seem fair?
In my opinion, this discussion is way too academic, abstract, and one-sided. How about we focus on victims and their survivors?