Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This graph (too big to post here) of Bush approval ratings is interesting. It shows a steady decline, with three upward spikes following 9/11, the start of the Iraq War, and the capture of Saddam Hussein.

I just wanted to mention, that you seem to call things "interesting" when I think you really mean "says what I hope is true, but is probably just political nonsense." Does anyone else notice that Ty does this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just wanted to mention, that you seem to call things "interesting" when I think you really mean "says what I hope is true, but is probably just political nonsense." Does anyone else notice that Ty does this?

The graph, which you obviously haven't bothered to look at, compiles polling data since Bush became president. The reason I think it's interesting is that the trends are so simple. I don't really "hope" anything is "true" about polling data from three years ago.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I just wanted to mention, that you seem to call things "interesting" when I think you really mean "says what I hope is true, but is probably just political nonsense." Does anyone else notice that Ty does this?

I'm pretty sure Karl Rove agrees that this polling data is interesting, but he probably has a different meaning in mind.

We're gonna need two dictionaries in this country pretty soon. Not a good indication of a uniter/not-divider.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yes

Do I have to say anything else after you admit to such Don Quixote-like stupidity on the part of liberals? Too late I guess.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
because liberals tend to understand the difference between "deterrence" and "recidivism."

First, what in this quote has anything to do with the previously noted "Yes"? Second, it would be goofy to ask for the differences, so could you explain any relationship you've seen asserted between "deterrence" and "recidivism" that would amount to some sort of equivalence?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Don Quixote-like stupidity

There is a much more elegant term for this. I shall never forgive you for having wasted an opportunity to use it.

Second, it would be goofy to ask for the differences, so could you explain any relationship you've seen asserted between "deterrence" and "recidivism" that would amount to some sort of equivalence?

When you kill a killer, you have reduced his recidivism rate to zero, but you have not deterred him. Deterrence is a mental phenomenon of which dead men are presumably incapable, depending on your particular eschatology.

All of which is to say, the entire post was a joke at your expense for having used the wrong word to describe what you meant, which was obvious.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I shall never forgive you

What are you, my ex? Take a number.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

All of which is to say, the entire post was a joke at your expense for having used the wrong word to describe what you meant, which was obvious.

Do you ever notice how people around you laugh more when you aren't trying to be funny?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Do I have to say anything else after you admit to such Don Quixote-like stupidity on the part of liberals? Too late I guess.




First, what in this quote has anything to do with the previously noted "Yes"? Second, it would be goofy to ask for the differences, so could you explain any relationship you've seen asserted between "deterrence" and "recidivism" that would amount to some sort of equivalence?

You really did miss it, didn't you? He was just making fun of you for using the word deterrence imprecisely (to be kind). You can not deter a person by killing them. You could look it up.

S_A_M

[eta: I know, stp! But I will not be deterred, and will be a recidivist.]

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You really did miss it, didn't you? He was just making fun of you for using the word deterrence imprecisely (to be kind). You can not deter a person by killing them. You could look it up.

S_A_M

[eta: I know, stp! But I will not be deterred, and will be a recidivist.]

Ha, this is what you get for trusting Atticus to do your thinking for you!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deterred

(Spree: Its a fucking dictionary goddammit!)

Oh, I'm sorry, you guys will take definition B and I'll take definitions A and B. A starting off with "to prevent".

Never let it be said that I haven't guided you to the lite Sammy.

Hello

PS Props to Yummy Burger for his feisty inthefaceness this week

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Ha, this is what you get for trusting Atticus to do your thinking for you!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deterred

(Spree: Its a fucking dictionary goddammit!)

Oh, I'm sorry, you guys will take definition B and I'll take definitions A and B. A starting off with "to prevent".

No, I'll take your definition A too: "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt: “Does negotiated disarmament deter war?”"

Dead people have neither fear nor doubt. They can't be deterred after they're interred. _Other_ people can be deterred (theoretically) by the execution of a murderer. The murderer is not deterred.

Didn't even need to break out the OED.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm pretty sure Karl Rove agrees that this polling data is interesting, but he probably has a different meaning in mind.

No, you're right. The fact that the approval ratings have dropped from below the 90% level for sure change Rove's job. It's still part-time, but more hours -without question.

Any talk of Kerry as a senator on WW in Late november? i think that would be soooo cool.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
No, you're right. The fact that the approval ratings have dropped from below the 90% level for sure change Rove's job. It's still part-time, but more hours -without question.

Any talk of Kerry as a senator on WW in Late november? i think that would be soooo cool.

Um, sweet pea, it's below 50%. I think you need to get your eyes checked, or the grandkids might try to take away your car.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No, I'll take your definition A too: "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt: “Does negotiated disarmament deter war?”"

Dead people have neither fear nor doubt. They can't be deterred after they're interred. _Other_ people can be deterred (theoretically) by the execution of a murderer. The murderer is not deterred.

Didn't even need to break out the OED.

S_A_M

And it seems you read the "as by" as "i.e." whereas I see an "e.g."

Wouldn't it be redundant to say "prevent or discourage" if by "prevent" they meant only "discourage"?

On what I see as a separate note, why can't people be deterred after they're interred even only using your part of the definition? If they get out, wouldn't their punishment tend to have created fear and doubt as to the wisdom of criminal conduct? In law school, I believe it was referred to as "specific deterrence".

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
On what I see as a separate note, why can't people be deterred after they're interred even only using your part of the definition? If they get out, wouldn't their punishment tend to have created fear and doubt as to the wisdom of criminal conduct? In law school, I believe it was referred to as "specific deterrence".

"If they get out"? Looks like we have two different dictionaries already.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And it seems you read the "as by" as "i.e." whereas I see an "e.g."

Yep.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Wouldn't it be redundant to say "prevent or discourage" if by "prevent" they meant only "discourage"?

Nope. For example, millions of people seem to think that capital punishment deters murder. It _may_ do so, but even if it does "discourage" murder, i.e. reduces the overall murder rate in a state, it fails to "prevent" lots of murders each year. So, it "prevents" some, but nor others, by "discouraging" murder.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
On what I see as a separate note, why can't people be deterred after they're interred even only using your part of the definition? If they get out, wouldn't their punishment tend to have created fear and doubt as to the wisdom of criminal conduct? In law school, I believe it was referred to as "specific deterrence".

You're right, of course, that one of the goals of punishment under most theories is "specific deterrence", i.e. keeping that particular criminal from committing another crime. However, that concept is normally applied in the context of that criminal's behavior after they are released from prison into this world, not the next.

So, you're just using the word "deterrence" in a different way than it is used by (I think) most folks, and the theories. After all, the concept of deterring someone rests on the fact that said person will make a (usually) conscious choice not to commit a crime based on the possibility of a certain punishment. So far as we know, the executed person doesn't make a choice not to commit further crimes.

I think the concept you're looking for is "incapacitation", which is another another one of the Big Five purposes of criminal sentencing that I recall: (a) punishment; (b) general deterrence; (c) specific deterrrence; (d) incapacitation (i.e. no further crimes while in the pokey); and (e) rehabilitation.

I think the most commonly advanced theoretical justifications for capital punishment are punishment and general deterrence, but I suppose incapacitation would fit too -- although I think its not usually used that way.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
For example, millions of people seem to think that capital punishment deters murder. It _may_ do so, but even if it does "discourage" murder, i.e. reduces the overall murder rate in a state, it fails to "prevent" lots of murders each year. So, it "prevents" some, but nor others, by "discouraging" murder.

S_A_M

But the question was --Wouldn't it be redundant to say "prevent or discourage" if by "prevent" they meant only "discourage"?--

You answer No, but give an answer showing that by "prevent" they must have meant "discouraging". Again, the question was, why would the dictionary (uhm, the only one in evidence so far, thanks for asking) say "prevent or discourage" if they only meant "discourage" when they wrote "prevent"?

Would y'all dance better if the music was more lively?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

You're right, of course, that one of the goals of punishment under most theories is "specific deterrence", i.e. keeping that particular criminal from committing another crime. However, that concept is normally applied in the context of that criminal's behavior after they are released from prison into this world, not the next.


S_A_M

Oh shit! You said "interred" and I wasn't thinking "buried"! I was thinking, you know, like "interned". Ain't that a clever turn of events.