From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: pagan self-defense
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:07:29 GMT

In article <2AB4F46B.5072@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.190521.8027@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <2AB3EE30.28437@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>>Oh, please.  All I'm saying is that if we are turning out a large enough
>>>number of fucked-up people that we are forced to gear a substantial part
>>>of our society toward dealing with them, we should be looking for the
>>>root cause of the trouble.
>>
>>That's wonderful, but it has no place in a discussion about what to do
>>AFTER they've been turned out.
>
>Oh?  Why not?  Discussions on the net have fractured and spawned others
>before.  Why not now?  The fact that other people are posting followups
>shows that the subject has an audience.  

I'm not commenting about changing the topic; I'm commenting about
things that are relevant to this topic.

>>No changes in the criminal justice system can keep people from
>>"entering" it.  If we're interested in reducing crime, we have
>>to look towards the causes, not our responses because said responses
>>are, by definition, too late.
>
>My point!  We're not finding out WHY there are so many of them!  Why?
>Because such motivations are "soft," and "fuzzy," and anyone who
>attempts them is a starry-eyed liberal. 

Not at all.  In fact, that's an extreme misrepresentation of people
who don't think themselves "starry-eyed liberals".  However, the
stereotypical confusion between "don't make" and "fix" turns the
discussion into meaningless mush.

>>>There are more black men who are crooks and criminals than in college.
>>
>>Yup, and they're no different than white men in the same situation.
>
>I'm saying that this then shows that there is a societal factor in
>determining who's a crook and who's not.  I'm not saying that they are
>any different from the white guys, god damn it.  Please read what I say
>before you pick it apart. 

Chill.  COMPLETE agreement (on that point) isn't criticism.

>>That "situation" isn't much related to the criminal justice system
>>and won't be affected by "rehabilitation" vs "fry them all" discussions.
>
>Who sez?  Oh, let's not talk about it.  Nothing we say can accomplish
>anything, so let's just forget it. 

Pointing out that some things are irrelevant doesn't imply that
EVERYTHING is irrelevant.

The ability to "fix" criminals does not imply the ability to not make
them in the first place.  Moreover, fixing ALONE guarantees that we'll
have more to fix, because it doesn't stop the creation process.

The "fix" discussion can be interesting, but it's a different
discussion than the "don't make" discussion.  Different things come
into play.  For example, "fry them all" does "work" as a "fix";
rehabilitation may, or may not.  However, neither has any effect on
whether or not people become criminals.  If you're interested in
"don't make" issues, rehabilitation details, or "fry them all" simply
doesn't come into it.

Of course, if we're just talking to make ourselves sound good, such
quibbles are rude....

>>>You are making a serious mistake in separating criminals from so-called
>>>normal people (yourself, of course, included in the latter group, as
>>>usual).  WE are the "normal" people; we are also the crooks.
>>
>>No, he's not making a mistake in separating them; they are different
>>in interesting ways.  Those differences aren't surprising given their
>>experiences, but they do exist.  Ignoring those difference won't make
>>them go away and trying to "undo" them is way too late, even if we
>>could/would.
>
>So if ignoring them does nothing and doing anything about them does
>nothing, pray tell what is to be done?  Nothing?

Learn to read.

>I'm not fucking talking about undoing them.

Hint: that's exactly what rehabilitation is; "cure" = "undo".  "Not
make", by definition, happens before there's any opportunity for
"undo" unless you want to argue that children are born "bad".

>I'm talking about finding
>out, and I repeat here -- WHY ARE WE TURNING OUT SUCH A LARGE NUMBER OF
>NUTS and what we can do to prevent this from happening.

Fine, then why are you talking about rehabilitation?  Why do you
attack people who suggest that we should look at how they're different
and how they got that way?  Why do you deny that they're different?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu