Hacker News Reader

Comment by Glemmlko | Hacker News Reader

No it shouldn't.

It should be the understanding of a society that no human being is just 'bad'. A human being became 'bad' by a definiton of a society due to circumstances like upbringing, environment etc. and a society which failed you.

Prison is the removal of you from society due to impatibility of current values and should help you become 'better'.

Be happy that you had good/avg parents, the mental strength to help yourself, money, luck, body strength, whatever it was which allowed you to comment on HN instead of being in a prison.

View on HN

If all it took to ensure a good outcome was to create good circumstances, we'd have fixed society in the prehistoic era. People would have figured it out and asked the good parents to raise all the kids one generation, and problem solved.

Instead what you see is parents with five successful kids, and one that keeps ending up in prison, and no one can really explain how it went wrong.

Equal parents doesn't need to mean equal circumstances. Times and culture change, parents age, family circumstances change over time, their environment outside the home is different, different friends, different experiences, etc. There's a myriad of factors that can lead to very different circumstances for siblings.

If you talk to people working with foster kids about why some kids succeed despite everything stacked against them, they'll tell you some kids are different.

It's possible you're correct and there's some circumstance controlling things we can't see or don't understand, but that's not a testable idea.

One can't even say that good circumstances are always better than bad circumstances. Bad circumstances can teach a lot about humility, perseverance, empathy, compassion, etc. Good circumstances can lead to grown, spoiled children, people with a child's concept of how the world works, people with no consideration towards others because they didn't need to be part of a community, etc.

Environment plays a huge role, but it's somewhat unpredictable what lessons are taken. One could also say that it's not unanimously clear what makes a good environment; it's likely not simply about having resources and lacking conflict. Likely an amount of scarcity and conflict are needed.

All this isn't to say that kids are all born the same, but I don't consider such differences to generally matter as much as the effect the environment can have.

They haven't had these kids from the beginning. This statement doesn't refute any environmental issues.

Nonetheless we know that humans are neural networks. These are formed. There is something inbetween the initial setup and your human in prison which lead to this or something missing which lead to this.

We can't even properly fix depression and co.

And you mean that?

We have indigeous people and historic effidence, that kids with mental health issues were kept hidden from the rest of a village, sometimes in cages and on chains.

We know very well that the education system around the planet cateres to the masses not to the ones with disabilityes, ADHD etc.

Human beings are complex, any education system is not and its not reflecting the diversity of humans.

In japan for example, kids have to cleanup there own class rooms, wonderful concept, any other real country which adopted that?

> due to circumstances like upbringing, environment etc. and a society which failed you.

It's always someone else's fault.

Its a brain, a brain which gets teached how to act and behave.

Some learn how to think critical, some don't. Some are intelligent, some are empathic, some don't understand the world very well.

Don't simplify this by a snarky and ignorant comment.

I'm not even against moving people out of our society, its fucked up enough that this is necessayr, but i'm against cruelty and i'm for helping.

> Don't simplify this by a snarky and ignorant comment.

It is simple. People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.

Please do define free will, and try to do so in a way that a) gives people actual agency (define that while you're at it, and b) compatible with the available evidence of how the universe works.

You chose to write that post.

So on other words you don't have an answer.

Everything you write is your free choice. And you know it.

No, I don't know it. In fact, I don't think there's any kind of evidence to suggest "free choice" is even possible for any kind of definition of "free choice" that doesn't make a mockery of the idea it is "free".

I'm still waiting for a definition that could even suggest otherwise. I know I won't get one, because nobody I have this discussion with is ever capable of coming up with one.

If you can't even define the terms, why do you imagine I should "know" it to be true?

Saying you have no free will absolves you of any responsibility for your actions. Call it the "Lindsay Clancy" defense. Human society cannot function with such notions.

The "Lindsay Clancy defense", AKA not guilty by reason of insanity, has roots going back thousands of years, and was used as early as 1844 in the US in the murder trial of Abner Rogers, Jr. In 1982, John Hinckley, Jr. used it after shooting at the president. Others have used it even after the post-Hinckley reforms. Yet society hasn't crumbled.

Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."

> Saying "He had no free will" doesn't mean "The state has no right to confine him away from people he might hurt."

You get it.

Saying "he had no free will" would mean there's no basis for using incarceration for vengeance, and it ought to change how prisoners are treated. It does not take away a legitimate need to lock people who remain a threat away. Nor does it entirely take away a justification for some use of incarceration as deterrent, to the limited extent it actually works.

It just means a different calculation over how and when the harm done to those incarcerated outweigh the risks and harms to society of letting them go free, as well as a collective responsibility of society for addressing the conditions that causes these outcomes in the first place.

Of course human society can function with such notions. For starters, we still have no evidence that supports "free" will, and human society manages to function just by blatantly ignoring it and holding on to what we have nothing to suggest is more than fiction.

But a society that accepts that people have less or no actual agency would still have legitimate reasons to incarcerate, just fewer, and still has legitimate reasons for a criminal justice system, just with different priorities.

E.g. protecting against genuine risks of reoffending is still a moral reason to incarcerate where there are no alternatives - maximising freedom means protecting people against real threats even if the person making up that threat is not able to choose differently.

But if you accept that there is no free will, then the moral basis for conditions that amount to vengeance disappears. Society won't collapse over that - in fact, we know from the reoffending rates in places like Norway that treating prisoners better correlates strongly with less reoffending, and so even if you don't buy that there is no free will, it remains the most moral choice purely on the basis of lessening the suffering inflicted on the rest of society as well.

If you accept there is no free will, most of the other logical consequences comes down to how you approach society as a whole, and how criminal justice changes is just a side effect: If people have no free will, then a whole lot of arguments use to e.g. deny benefits and welfare breaks down, and we arrive at a strong moral argument for improving conditions for the poor since we know poverty correlates strongly with more crime, which directly produces harm both for society as a whole and directly for the perpetrator and victims.

None of this causes society to stop functioning. It just stops people using "free" will as an excuse to not to look for root causes and focus on what actually works to reduce offending and reoffending rates by hiding behind immoral ideas about moral hazards.

P.S. I note you've still not tried to actually provide any argument for how free will could even potentially exist.

Oh honey… tell that to Alan Turing, or millions or gay people, or the literal millions of people who smoked pot and are stuck in prison forever.

And that’s ignoring all the laws people break on the regular.

I did not say there was no injustice happening.

Nor did I say that all laws are just.

I'm not your honey, either.

Is your entire line of thinking about crime and punishment not entirely dependent upon laws and punishments, as they exist right now, being perfectly just?

Because otherwise, “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them” is a bit Javert from Les Mis.

I was pretty clear.

> “they knew the law and chose to break it, therefore they get what’s coming to them”

Please don't make up quotes and attribute them to me. That's called the strawman fallacy.

I'll quote you clearly.

> "People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong."[0]

Broader Context: In response to a commentary on how 'good and bad' can be complicated:

> "It's always someone else's fault."[1]

Broader-broader Context: Prison is punishment, etc.

So, a reasonable chain of thought here and paraphrase of what you've said is: "people know right from wrong" -> we're in the context of crime and punishment, so this is operating as a substitute for "they know what's legal and illegal". If it's not, it doesn't belong here, because at this point we should all know that legality != morality.

"and they chose wrong" -> therefore they chose the consequences - they chose punishment. The colloquial way of saying that is "they get what's coming to them".

So, while those weren't your words, was that your implicit statement? And if not, what is the implicit statement?

I ask because the people in those cells are real, and 23 of them died of heat.

  [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834799
  [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49834226

> at this point we should all know that legality != morality

Recall that I wrote this to you:

"I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just."

Recall also that you wrote this here:

> People have free will. Bad people know what right and wrong is, and they chose wrong.

The context being that the "bad" person is such simply because they chose to break the law. Even if it doesn't match your thoughts, surely you can see how one might read your comments as both claiming that laws are not morals, and also that those who break the law made the "wrong" (moral) choice (put another way: laws are morals).

Breaking the law is not strictly a moral failure. It can be, but they have an "orthogonal" relationship. To that point:

> I did not say there was no injustice happening. Nor did I say that all laws are just.

Choosing to follow an unjust law is a moral failure. That moral failure is baked into the word "unjust". This blanket statement that the choice to commit a crime is a choice to be "bad" is not self-evident (or it's laughably tautological) and, regardless, is contradicted by the assertion that not all laws are "just".

Of course, one can assume you have more nuanced thoughts than that; the point of my coment is that you've not communicated that nuance here, so you appear to be contradicting yourself: saying both that laws are morals and that they are not morals.

I am not making any claim about the law. You have confused that with what honor is.

Wow! what a dodge! Try reading: The Sun Does Shine: How I Found Life and Freedom on Death Row

That case is irrelevant to the point. I never said law and justice were perfect. Nothing human is perfect.

Not sure I am following your point. You commented that people have choices, good and bad. I presented you with a story where a good boy was watering his mother's yard and he was thrown in prison (28 yrs) for a murder he did not commit. I guess the only choice to be made was the corrupt police employees? I think you and I will go around and around in circles on this. I wish you well.

No they don't. They have a range of free will. And free will alone doesn't help you if you are unable to understand what you actually want.

Short term goals vs. long term goals requires long horizion thinking. Critical thinking is necessary to break through cultural heritage. I grew up a christian, took me until 14 to denounce this garbage.

For a site populated by people that deal with complex technical systems on a daily basis, the idea that systems also exist and shape our outcomes in every day life seems to frequently be a foreign concept.

My dad told me that the difference between men and animals is honor. And being honorable is something each of us can choose to be, or not to be.

Blaming society for one's own actions is dishonorable. You get to choose, and you are responsible for your choice.

Yet here you are, blaming your dad for your personal shortcomings in worldview.

I have many shortcomings. All of them are my fault.

leaving a bad or unequal society in place is similarly dishonourable. That is still a choice you make

That sounds like you were shaped by your upbringing. And honor itself is subjective and shaped by the social context it exists in. I don't believe killing to maintain honor is moral and there are millions of people out there who do because of the context they exist in. Likewise, I do not think it is honorable to make prisoners suffer (such as from excessive heat) when it's something in your control while others do because they were raised to believe that once you have wronged, your own worth as a human is diminished.

As humans, we have the capacity to hold multiple concepts like honor and contextual awareness at the same time when adjudicating a crime. Someone who stole to feed their family when they were in a dire situation should not be given the same sentence as someone who stole for personal gain. Our ability to acknowledge complex situations and deal with them also separates us from animals.

> Someone who stole to feed their family when they were in a dire situation

It's still wrong. Having a need does not entitle one to steal. Honor is not something you apply only when it doesn't cost you.

What is more dishonorable than letting other people starve, while you have a surplus of food?

It cannot be dishonorable to care for your loved ones. If circumstances leave few other options, stealing is an honorable act.

Trump doesn't have honor and is right now the most powerful person on the planet due to his access to the United States of Americas Military.

Society is not that easy and just because your father said something, doesn't make it true.

Honor is a concept and for sure a great character trait but if you don't get teached a concept like honor, you don't follow it.

I cannot think of a society that doesn't have a core value of honor.

> just because your father said something, doesn't make it true.

He had a pretty good track record. For example, his squadron trusted him with their lives.

Well, letting the humanist rehabilitation part aside, there is that social aspect of a sanctioning instance to prisons. Expectations of sanctions do drive human behavior.

I'm not against the idea of the society taking control over the life of one of its own (lets be fair, our planet is small, we are too interconnected) we can't just put people somewere else.

But cruelty shouldn't be part of this. Help and rehabiliation

>no human being is just 'bad'

Meanwhile in this thread, everyone is getting worked up about how evil Texas Christians supposedly are, as though a red flag was waved in front of a bull.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

And?

My comment is independent form the others.

Put your ideas into action in this thread instead of getting self-righteous about people who (a) may or may not even exist, (b) mostly aren't reading this thread even if they do exist.

You assume, you don't know what I do besides writing a comment like this.

Stop trying to assume things, if you don't want to take part in this discussion, don't.

But stop playing a game of fallacy

They aren't ontologically evil, they aren't "just bad." They choose to be evil.

I could say the same about prisoners.

I don't need a degree in sociology to want the dude who broke into my car removed from society.

If he finds the experience improving, so much the better, but it is not my primary concern.

Yeah feel free to continue thinking that simple and be ignorant.

Its easier eh?

But lets be clear, you will be on the reciving side or have been already anyway.

Or if never, you speak from a point of privilige...

You hear that? You're ignorant and privileged for not wanting your car broken into.

Society as a whole is not wholly responsible. Some people are taught and some are just bad - bad brains, bad choices, bad intents. I've never had to teach a toddler what to do when another child takes their toy. Somethings are just innate. Some can be helped and should be, others cannot. Taking away an individual's responsibility removes dignity and gets in the way of healing. We don't have to give into the fallacy of choosing one or the other - both society and the individual can be responsible for their actions.

But yes, we have been devaluing human life and dignity, or if you prefer the Image of God, across all of society. The conditions of these prisons should not exist even if this is purely punitive, which I do not believe it should be. Victims deserve justice, but criminals deserve the right to pay the price and come out "clean". We should want to make society whole, to bring them back into the fold as full members, but too often we don't want to pay the cost.

Society or our villages before a planet full of 8 billion people were responsible.

Everyone of us was born to a mother and father. And yo utell me if someone isn't born 'right' we should do what? Kill them? I think Hitler tried that. Not really sure were you are going with this.

Do you really believe our society is really trying to help people? We are sitting in front of our television, watch reality tv and do other shit. We have more than enough capacity to help others. We just don't. This doesn't make it fair in any sense for every human being we brought into existens.

I don't get your point with the toddler.

> I've never had to teach a toddler what to do when another child takes their toy. Somethings are just innate.

It is safe to guess you dont have much experience with toddlers or kids. Yes some needs to be taught what to do in that situation.

Also, you are using language of dignity and rights in pretty manipulative and dishonest way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com