Changing views

[superaielman]

Three strikes laws are a huge problem. Prisons in California are having to actually release prisoners early due to just how overcrowded they are.

Domestic violence rates being lower are probably tied into divorce, but there has been a *massive* cultural shift in how accepted it is to beat your wife.  I can't overstate how much cultural mores have changed here; the violence against women act of 1994 in particular is one of the benchmarks there. Shit like martial rape was legal in some parts of the US until the 1990's.  I'd bet money that the shift in culture there is more important than anything else.

That said, I was refering to the lower rate of marriage and the out of wedlock rate in particular.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21569433-americas-marriage-rate-falling-and-its-out-wedlock-birth-rate-soaring-fraying This is not an academic source, but it does cover some the statistics about the marriage rate. In particular, marriage is becoming something reserved for middle and upper class whites.  This is more than a cultural shift away from shotgun weddings, it is entire groups of not getting married.   I can dig up some academic sources if you want, that just works for a casual look see.

Studies done have found a strong statistical correlation between higher punishment and lower crime.

I'm going to need a source on that. Yes, the neoclassical model of punishment does argue that, but every policy I've seen pursued in the west argues otherwise.

But if you made the death penalty the default sentence for oh, say, insider trading?  Almost certainly there would be far fewer cases of insider trading in the US.

Um, no. Insider trading and white collar crime is *extremely* difficult to catch.  That's the rub. You can make a penalty as harsh as you like, but it won't do any good if you can't actually catch people. Keep in mind that people who do insider trading also have th emoney to afford good attorneys. You don't think they would spend their fortunes to avoid death, or even use violent methods to deter whistleblowers and cover up wrongdoing?

[Dark Holy Elf]

Studies done have found a strong statistical correlation between higher punishment and lower crime.  But the punishment has to actually be carried out.

The problem is that people don't really see "death penalty" and "life in prison" as significantly different deterrant-wise. I'm going off memories of something I read years ago here, so take with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty sure it's been shown that prison sentences past ~10 years (no confidence that's the exact number) do not act as a further deterrant. Basically, if something is worth doing to someone despite the risk of 10 years in prison, it's worth doing at any risk (provided the chance of being caught is equal). Super probably has access to much more accurate numbers on this, though.

[superaielman]

Deterrence requires a rational actor. One of the reasons drug laws are so hilariously ineffective is that addiction, both physically and psychologically, is about the abandonment of rationality to feed the need for (whatever). Unsurprisingly drug addiction also fuels property crime as well.

Also, the death penalty is a really fucking terrible idea for any crimes besides treason (which there has been one case of in the US since the end of the second world war, and it's this motherfucker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn) and certain types of murder. Otherwise, you're just going to encourage people to commit violent crimes to cover up their misdeeds.

[Dhyerwolf]

Um, no. Insider trading and white collar crime is *extremely* difficult to catch.  That's the rub. You can make a penalty as harsh as you like, but it won't do any good if you can't actually catch people. Keep in mind that people who do insider trading also have th emoney to afford good attorneys. You don't think they would spend their fortunes to avoid death, or even use violent methods to deter whistleblowers and cover up wrongdoing?

The U.S. government has not prosecuted an individual for nearly a single thing related to the 08 financial crisis. It may be hard to catch, but it isn't that hard. Our government just does not want to prosecute it.

[Grefter]

Madoff was arrested in 2008 and prosecuted in 2009.  He confessed though, so that doesn't really change the sentiment on difficulty of proof. 

The assumption that white collar criminals would jump to the use of violence for coercion with increased penalties is one I question.  You are talking about a different psychological profile there. As soon as you start bringing either a physical presence or a third party into it you are making for much harder trail to hide.

[superaielman]

For increased penalties? No. For the death penalty? Yes. You literally have nothing to lose by killing someone who is a whistleblower at that point. Deterrence also requires punishment to be certain, and white collar crime is some of the hardest crime to track.

[Dhyerwolf]

Madoff was arrested in 2008 and prosecuted in 2009.  He confessed though, so that doesn't really change the sentiment on difficulty of proof. 

The assumption that white collar criminals would jump to the use of violence for coercion with increased penalties is one I question.  You are talking about a different psychological profile there. As soon as you start bringing either a physical presence or a third party into it you are making for much harder trail to hide.

By the financial collaspe, I meant items specified tied to the financial collapse (LIBOR manipulation especially since that was large collusion across several banks) or afterward discovered excesses and fraud committed by large banks. The government basically has not brought a single personal case against anyone. Matt Taibbi writes a bunch of fantastic stuff about this, but this is probably the best. These are not things they can't prove, these are things that they have basically made it clear over and over again that they don't want to prove.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214

In regards to prosecuting in dealing financially with people placed on U.S. terrorist lists: "Had the U.S. authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at a press conference to announce the settlement, "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the U.S., the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

Saying it's difficult just lets them get away with it because we've already given them an out for not prosecuting. Putting a few deserving people through the wringer here (even trying to just bring them to trial) might go a very long way in curbing future potential excesses. Madoff is a petty thief in comparison to this.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Talking about GMOs like they are a problem while saying the envirnment's not a big deal? I feel like I disagree with mc on everything, here <_<

[metroid composite]

Talking about GMOs like they are a problem while saying the envirnment's not a big deal? I feel like I disagree with mc on everything, here <_<

Well, this is a topic about how our positions have shifted.

Like...sure, if I was given a choice between America ratifying the Kyoto accord, actually making a serious attempt to hit the benchmarks, and pressuring China to do the same......or America having a GMO label?  Yes, obviously it's a much bigger deal to ratify Kyoto.

Just...my positions have changed from:

On GMOs,
Before: "These are like one of those all upside technologies with nothing to worry about."
After: "If they might be triggering allergies it would be good to note them on the packaging.  Also, the way the GMO companies do business with farmers makes me uncomfortable."

On Environment,
Before: "This is an important issue; probably #3 on my list."
After: "This is an important issue; probably #5 on my list."

[Cmdr_King]

Although it should be noted that while folks like Monsanto are probably outright evil, GMOs in general are pretty low on the list of Bad Shit That Needs Fixed About Food and Farming, at least in the US.  Towards the top being, oh, government corn subsidies, or the living conditions of livestock (these two things largely causing obesity and foodborne illness, respectively, in the US).

[Luther Lansfeld]

Is there hard evidence that GMOs cause more allergies than any other type of food? Just from the way they are made, it doesn't really make a lot of sense that it would. (Now, what probably does cause allergies is Roundup, which is what they fertilize their foods with. But that's a different story altogether.) I can't seem to find much beyond natural food bullshit people saying that GMOs are Satan and people who promote them are baby killers or whatever. But yes, agree with CK.

And of course I disagree with environment being #5 on a list of things that are important; when faced with an issue that will be hella hard to reverse, that should be at the top of our list of things to address. >_>

[Cmdr_King]

One of the things they modify in certain foods is their nutritional content.  Grains and vegetables with more complete proteins, say.  Simplest way to do that is to splice in soy proteins.  Soy is a pretty common food allergen, and generally speaking food allergies are specifically allergies to the proteins within.  So your soy-protein rice or wheat is now poison to people with soy allergies.

Similarly, it's certainly possible that unmarked GMOs with these sort of proteins being fed to small children might explain the upswing in food allergies, due to sheer increase in exposure, but I've never seen studies backing that one up.  Although the bigger problem there is kids just not getting dirty enough and developing normal immune function.

[Idun]

#5 isn't a bad position at all.

Oh. I have gone from "global market" to predictable conservative American-grown things; I despise outsourcing. The only way I can participate with this in my daily life is by "buying local" if I can. Cue Portlandia intro.