What did you do with my RWHN?

[Doktor Howl]

anybody ever see this film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29

there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.

in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.

EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed

Basically we NEED to understand what happened if we have any interest in interrupting the influences that led to it happening, and may lead to it happening again with other kids.

But we won't.  We'll sling him into GP, and the chance will be lost.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

anybody ever see this film?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_%282003_film%29

there is a HUGE difference between noting the influences that lead someone to do something horrible, to justifying the act.

in other words, there is a crime this person must pay for, but there's also a phonebook of people that should also should be punished, for they lead him to commit the crime, things dont exist in a vaccuum, its all context and influences.

EDIT: goddamn link, now fixed

Basically we NEED to understand what happened if we have any interest in interrupting the influences that led to it happening, and may lead to it happening again with other kids.

This. Entirely.

[The Johnny]

Ok, returning to the Cartels problem:

People living on the verge of starvation with no good options that turn to crime.

So, no ways to survive is the start, bad jobs with bad salaries, these which come from lack of worker's rights and income disparities within the country, which is enforced from top-to-bottom by policy, and this is related to "free market" ideology and practice, which, in part, this third world country engages in at a disadvantage because otherwise it would be marginalized by the first world countries in trading relationships.

If my example is lacking im fine by it being corrected/amended, but try to keep in mind the point im trying to make, in which Cartels are merely a symptom of things larger than itself and that they don't originate from themselves in a bubble that is disconnected with the world at large.

So yes, if a violent trafficker is captured, it should be tried in court as it should be, because everyone, even do has their reasons for doing something, it does not justify them (lets not turn this into DRUGS thread, PLEASE, i mean a trafficker that has actually killed someone, not just committed the crime of selling the goods)... but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.

I do recall reading an interview with a trucker who picked her up and let her ride along for about a week or two, and treated her like an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING. He never had any trouble with her, or saw any indication that she was capable of killing anyone.

But the odds are overwhelming that she would have run into some ratbag and the PTSD would have kicked in and it would have happened all over again. I don't think she was "fixable".

Still, I wouldn't have killed her.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Ok, returning to the Cartels problem:

People living on the verge of starvation with no good options that turn to crime.

So, no ways to survive is the start, bad jobs with bad salaries, these which come from lack of worker's rights and income disparities within the country, which is enforced from top-to-bottom by policy, and this is related to "free market" ideology and practice, which, in part, this third world country engages in at a disadvantage because otherwise it would be marginalized by the first world countries in trading relationships.

If my example is lacking im fine by it being corrected/amended, but try to keep in mind the point im trying to make, in which Cartels are merely a symptom of things larger than itself and that they don't originate from themselves in a bubble that is disconnected with the world at large.

So yes, if a violent trafficker is captured, it should be tried in court as it should be, because everyone, even do has their reasons for doing something, it does not justify them (lets not turn this into DRUGS thread, PLEASE, i mean a trafficker that has actually killed someone, not just committed the crime of selling the goods)... but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.

One would go about removing this problem by eliminating the root causes.

You treat the disease not the symptoms.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.

I  think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.

[Doktor Howl]

but how would one go on about in delivering justice to the employers that give shitty salaries, or the State's worker policy, or the 1st world countries that provoke this? I don't know how, but all of them have guilt.

Pretty sure that we'd be building a worse monster by attaching them to the crime.

The problem has to be solved, but attaching miserly employers to a murder case isn't going to do the job.  Especially if said gunman never worked for them.  And good luck holding El Norte responsible.  We can't take responsibility for the shit we directly do.

Your question does, however, give a pretty good reason why we have the "justice" system we have.

[Doktor Howl]

Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.

I  think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.

Well, here's the root of the problem:  The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality.  And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.

So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?

Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?

The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.

[Doktor Howl]

Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?

Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?

The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.

I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post.  His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.

I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.

So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.

I  think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.

Well, here's the root of the problem:  The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality.  And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.

So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.

Yes, that IS the difficult part, which is exactly why we need articles like the one in Rolling Stone, to make people talk about this shit.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Im just saying that people that do horrible acts should be made accountable, but also those that influenced given person to do said horrible acts. But influences can become abstractions with no sole guilty individual, who would be accountable for a crime derived from systemic poverty?

Woooo...So, basically, we would convict the parents, for example, alongside the person who committed a crime?

The disconnect here is that you seem to be stuck in the American paradigm of punishment, rather than thinking about social shifts that could reduce crime, which is the main reason we need to understand what causes kids like the Tsarnaevs to do what they did. "Reducing crime" and "arresting people" are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Punishing people doesn't prevent crime at all.

I was specifically responding to his comment about holding people accountable, in that post.  His follow up argument (the cartel member example) seems to be saying the same thing.

I asked for clarification, but he seems to have missed that post.

So I am responding to the two different arguments; yours, and what I perceive his to be.

Ah, OK.

I don't typically read "accountability" and "punishment" as being the same, though.

[Doktor Howl]

Thing is, while I am against the hair shirt punishment concept that America craves, I am also sort of leery of the motives/background approach, because the logical extension of that is that we FIX people based on that, and the idea of mentally fixing people leads to a pretty deep, nasty rabbit hole.

I  think what Johnny is talking about is far more along the lines of the social determinants of crime. If you look at the two recent talks I posted in the TED thread, they both address that issue, one in far more depth than the other. You don't just take one step back and say "OK, this person committed a crime because they were messed up in the head, so we have to fix people who are messed up in the head". You have to keep asking for more reasons and going deeper. Why were they messed up in the head? Neglectful and abusive parents. Why were the parents neglectful and abusive? They were messed up in the head too. What is the underlying factor that connects so many people being messed up in the head? Economic inequality... and so on.

Well, here's the root of the problem:  The people that write the laws that define the system (and the funding) have no interest in addressing economic inequality.  And the American people don't want to hear about it, because then THEY are complicit.

So while you and Johnny are correct, IMO, the difficult part isn't scoping the problem, it's selling the solution to a complacent "it hasn't happened to me yet" public, and then ramming it down the festering pie-holes of corrupt fixers and whores in expensive suits.

Yes, that IS the difficult part, which is exactly why we need articles like the one in Rolling Stone, to make people talk about this shit.

Yep.  And people who don't actually want things fixed (ie, the two groups I mentioned) instead act all offended and butthurt over his "new rockstar image", for the express purpose of stopping that dialogue from occurring.

[Eater of Clowns]

A lot of the focus in the Rolling Stone article was how Dzhokar's inner most thoughts prior to the bombing are inaccessible. An FBI agent who comments on it says that little things like his 9/11 hijacker sympathy is a crack in the facade, and while that might be true is an unreliable way of preventing this kind of thing from happening.

What is entirely avoidable is the other picture it paints about disenfranchised young men. Am I correct in that this is a group that's well known to be at risk for radicalization, um, everywhere? Of the Tzarnaev brothers, one of was on food stamps and the other was tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt to a school he chose because of its affordability. Their parents had already removed themselves from the country for financial reasons.

Both brothers also had a strong sense of Chechen pride, Tamerlan being desperate to belong to something and Dzhokar identifying with a culture that, from what I read, he had very few ties to.

Those are the factors that need to be looked at, more than anything.

ETA - I started writing this like 10 posts and a page ago and now a lot of this has already been brought up. I fucking hate posting from work for that reason. It's frustrating to stay on top of a conversation that's moving faster than I can keep up.

[Doktor Howl]

Ah, OK.

I don't typically read "accountability" and "punishment" as being the same, though.

I've been working for corporate whores for too long, I think.   

In our company's terms, "determine accountability" = "someone's head on a plate last Tuesday, please".

And my company isn't even one of the really bad ones.