There's certainly some element of not expecting much from poor arab states. Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours - because it's richer, because it's seen as an extension of the US, and because it advertises and makes much of its status as the only democracy in the region. And there's probably at least some element of racism, but I think it's less a case of "it's all the jews' fault" and more "these smart white folks have a burden the brown savages do not".
>All other cases in WW I/II have been laid behind them by the victims, but this.
My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.
>1. Is that measured for first time criminals only? It is a big step to risk jail.
AIUI it's been tested across criminals in general, not just first time.
>2. To simplify, there are two types of criminals. The first are the idiots that drink beer on a Saturday and get in a knife fight and the second type consider and weigh for/against like any other entrepeneur. How is the sentence length sensitivity if you ignore things like drunks that knife each others?
The thing is, "crime doesn't pay" isn't just a slogan, it's actually true. So the kind of smart people who evaluate the consequences usually end up following a different career. The only place it seems to me that it might make a difference would be the kind of grey area tax avoidance/fraud schemes, where the person is going to argue that what they did isn't a crime at all. But I don't think there would be much support for harsher sentencing of crimes that were only just on the wrong side of the law.
>3. Sentences have influence. A proof: If there was a death sentence for e.g. jay walking, not even I would do it (sober, see 2.). But -- I wouldn't jaywalk even if it was just one year in jail. In that way, there is no influence by sentence length -- is that how the claim is measured?
AIUI studies mostly look at crimes for which the sentencing guidelines were changed, or where different regions sentence differently, or statistically compare criminals who were given different sentences for the same crime. Obviously none of these methods are perfect.
I'll defer to you on psychopaths.
>- Hard drug users. The logical solution is not to give them short sentences if they aren't likely to have stopped the drugs -- for their own sake.
But prison is no good at getting them off the drugs or stopping them reoffending, unless you're going to lock them up forever to rot; what would a long prison sentence achieve that a short one wouldn't? Medical treatment and community service give them a better chance than prison - though still not a great one - at being able to reintegrate into society.
>- International crime syndicates -- see type two above (entrepeneur).
AIUI most of the inherently illegal income for crime syndicates comes from drugs, but it's hard to see how heavier sentencing would damage that income. Street-level dealers are easily replaceable and it's a pretty crappy job already, I don't think longer prison sentences would damage their recruitment. The executives usually stand to lose all their money and lifestyle if they're ever convicted (proceeds of crime and all that); they're banking on paying the right bribes and/or never getting caught.
AIUI you missed a third category of burglar: the independent "professional" who burgles because they're poor and have no skills with which to get a job. But while these guys do a bit better than drug addicts in prison (sometimes they're able to get some kind of qualification there - which is pretty much the only case where spending a longer time in prison will help), community service sentences still give them a better chance of not returning to crime.
I have a hard time to take seriously excuses like "we have harder demands on democracies" together with no criticism of state supported Nazi race hatred.
It is just ridiculously large double standards.
A couple of more examples:
Syria was one of the world's worst police states long before the present turmoil -- many times worse treatment of its citizens than Israel, even with a Palestinian description. Syria is/was a big part of the Israeli conflict, so it is discussed when the conflict is discussed. The criticism of Syria from the left has been almost nil.
The Swedish left wing politics have existed for a bit more than a century. During that time, they have never supported a democracy against a dictator.
As I wrote, there are many more examples of this insanity.
The real reason for this lefty weirdness, is that foreign politics are treated as arguments for internal politics.
The problem is: with incoherent arguments, conspiracy theories and disgusting double standards -- why would anyone sane take the left seriously?
I seriously don't believe you consider so gigantic double standards as rational -- the modern difference is that they aren't for nobles/kings now...
Why do you try to defend double standards of a factor of (at least!) thousands? Do you have no intellectual integrity? Do you identify with the position, like football fans?
Re prison:
We have too different societal systems and prison implementations.
To a Swede, the US 19th century prison system looks both counterproductive and like a crime against humanity.
Sure -- you can make a good argument that a country with 30 times the Swedish population is impossible to control and manage; the problem size increases with the square of the population, or something.
Also, Sweden didn't have "real" criminal subcultures and organised crime syndicates until quite recently. And still don't have desperate people, except for drug users. An influencing factor might be that the police isn't functioning well (compared to most of the rest of Europe) and punishments are short, so crime-as-profession might be a better deal in Sweden.
But in general, if you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proofs. To argue against mathematics (in this case, game theory and evolutionary biology) is an extraordinary claim.
Sure, humans have culture -- which is updated when the environment is updated. There is an obvious lag of at least decades, before the cultures change.
And it is easy to make proof of concept examples of punishments influencing crime (e.g. see previous re prison/death for jaywalking).
>But in general, if you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proofs. To argue against mathematics (in this case, game theory and evolutionary biology) is an extraordinary claim.
To argue that humans (and criminals in particular) behave rationally is a far more extraordinary claim. I believe in using evidence over theory (much like in medicine - see the use of blood-thinning drugs after heart attacks) - and the (admittedly imperfect) evidence we have is that prison sentences are ineffective in preventing future crime.
I see you gave up defending thousands of times less criticism of brutal dictators and nazi racist hatred propaganda. (See previous examples if you want to touch that.)
There are afaik papers that discuss different evolutionary strategies for animals of different social status in groups. In some level, behaviour with so big influences on fitness generally makes sense in game theory.
It would be interesting to see support for the claims about sentence length not influencing behaviour? I've only heard claims, bever seen a good overview of the research. (As I wrote above, not or drunk idiots getting into fights.)
>> Yes, we do hold Israel to a higher standard than its neighbours
When I compare the volume of criticism from the left, I have to ask: How many thousands times more criticism is reasonable? For much, much less?
Compare with e.g. Sudan, which literally can be argued to be at least thousands of time worse -- and not only is it criticised less, the muslim world's shameful support isn't criticised.
What shocks me is that the left support (as in -- not calling out) state nazi propaganda. Public news media, children(!) tv. And so on.
Is it a new Ribentropp-Molotov nazi/left alliance!?
There are many more possible examples (some more in previous comments). I just can't see how you reasonably can argue your position here.
>>My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.
You really don't think the permanency of the refugees' situation (and dictators' need for external enemies) have the large influence?
(Also, up to now, the Jewish side haven't been that religious.)
I'll take the rest later or tomorrow. (I am in Europe, the prisons and criminal subcultures are (still) very different here. At least in Sweden, no one needs to be a criminal to not starve. There are, simplified, two motivations for criminals: Drugs or a big car to impress stupid women with breast implants.)
>All other cases in WW I/II have been laid behind them by the victims, but this.
My instinct is to lay that at the feet of religion. Two violently opposed religions claiming the same areas as important holy sites makes peace hard.
>1. Is that measured for first time criminals only? It is a big step to risk jail.
AIUI it's been tested across criminals in general, not just first time.
>2. To simplify, there are two types of criminals. The first are the idiots that drink beer on a Saturday and get in a knife fight and the second type consider and weigh for/against like any other entrepeneur. How is the sentence length sensitivity if you ignore things like drunks that knife each others?
The thing is, "crime doesn't pay" isn't just a slogan, it's actually true. So the kind of smart people who evaluate the consequences usually end up following a different career. The only place it seems to me that it might make a difference would be the kind of grey area tax avoidance/fraud schemes, where the person is going to argue that what they did isn't a crime at all. But I don't think there would be much support for harsher sentencing of crimes that were only just on the wrong side of the law.
>3. Sentences have influence. A proof: If there was a death sentence for e.g. jay walking, not even I would do it (sober, see 2.). But -- I wouldn't jaywalk even if it was just one year in jail. In that way, there is no influence by sentence length -- is that how the claim is measured?
AIUI studies mostly look at crimes for which the sentencing guidelines were changed, or where different regions sentence differently, or statistically compare criminals who were given different sentences for the same crime. Obviously none of these methods are perfect.
I'll defer to you on psychopaths.
>- Hard drug users. The logical solution is not to give them short sentences if they aren't likely to have stopped the drugs -- for their own sake.
But prison is no good at getting them off the drugs or stopping them reoffending, unless you're going to lock them up forever to rot; what would a long prison sentence achieve that a short one wouldn't? Medical treatment and community service give them a better chance than prison - though still not a great one - at being able to reintegrate into society.
>- International crime syndicates -- see type two above (entrepeneur).
AIUI most of the inherently illegal income for crime syndicates comes from drugs, but it's hard to see how heavier sentencing would damage that income. Street-level dealers are easily replaceable and it's a pretty crappy job already, I don't think longer prison sentences would damage their recruitment. The executives usually stand to lose all their money and lifestyle if they're ever convicted (proceeds of crime and all that); they're banking on paying the right bribes and/or never getting caught.
AIUI you missed a third category of burglar: the independent "professional" who burgles because they're poor and have no skills with which to get a job. But while these guys do a bit better than drug addicts in prison (sometimes they're able to get some kind of qualification there - which is pretty much the only case where spending a longer time in prison will help), community service sentences still give them a better chance of not returning to crime.