Politics Needs Science

[Red]

If you claim that putting insane people in jail,

I don't know about in Croatia, but here in the U.S. if someone is found to be insane, they're put into a mental institution, where they need to be.

a place where they will get even more psychological problems, that made them rape or murder in the first place, is better than doing nothing about them, perhaps the burden of proof is on you.

Firstly, not all people who murder are insane. Secondly, I said I agree that the current system of rehabilitation is flawed and should be fixed (some countries have different means of rehabilitation, and are far more effective); But you're saying we should get rid of it instead of improving it. You have the burden of proof. Don't shift it onto me. You made the claim.

Even if you claim putting them in a psychiatric hospital is better than doing nothing (a much more plausible claim), the burden of proof is still on you, because psychiatry is widely perceived as not a real science.

That's implying I think the current methods of mental rehabilitation are most effective. But what other options are there? Would it be better to have them roam the streets? If so, why?

If you are to disagree on the specifics of these things, that's a different story, and a debate worth having. But again, you're falling into the false dichotomy of it's either all or nothing.

[teo123]

I don't know about in Croatia, but here in the U.S. if someone is found to be insane, they're put into a mental institution, where they need to be.

Hey, listen, now...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... h-services
And my personal experience confirms that. Most of the murderers I happen to know are drug abusers or alcohol abusers, and killed while they were high on drugs or were drunk.
One "murderer" I happen to know killed by giving an old person too many morphine plasters, when he asked for more. And she was sentenced to, I think, ten years.
One murderer I know was a senile paranoid person who didn't recognize her daughter on a tree, so she fired up a tractor and crashed that tree. She was sentenced to 40 years, that is, she will die in jail.
I happened to know Vlatko Vidaković in person, he was constantly talking about having a client named Viktor Tolj who is visibly mentally ill... until, one day, Viktor Tolj came to his office with a gun and killed him and injured his colleague Pero Jurić, which I also know in person. Viktor Tolj killed himself the same day. And all this, I dare say, wouldn't have happened if there were no laws, Pero Jurić and Vlatko Vidaković were lawyers and Viktor Tolj was mad at them because of that.

Firstly, not all people who murder are insane.

Why would a remotely reasonable person think it's right to murder? Have you watched too many crime series, in which people are planning for months to commit a murder, the motive of which is usually money? Well, guess what, that's not based on real events. Or, if it is, it's in no way representative of how most murders happen.

Would it be better to have them roam the streets? If so, why?

Yes, because you shouldn't apply force until you have good reasons to think it will do more good than harm.

[Red]

Hey, listen, now...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... h-services

That's the UK.

I am aware that sometimes the justice system fumbles on this, but are you're advocating for getting rid of it entirely instead of fixing it. You still have a burden of proof.

And my personal experience confirms that. Most of the murderers I happen to know are drug abusers or alcohol abusers, and killed while they were high on drugs or were drunk.
One "murderer" I happen to know killed by giving an old person too many morphine plasters, when he asked for more. And she was sentenced to, I think, ten years.
One murderer I know was a senile paranoid person who didn't recognize her daughter on a tree, so she fired up a tractor and crashed that tree. She was sentenced to 40 years, that is, she will die in jail.
I happened to know Vlatko Vidaković in person, he was constantly talking about having a client named Viktor Tolj who is visibly mentally ill... until, one day, Viktor Tolj came to his office with a gun and killed him and injured his colleague Pero Jurić, which I also know in person. Viktor Tolj killed himself the same day. And all this, I dare say, wouldn't have happened if there were no laws, Pero Jurić and Vlatko Vidaković were lawyers and Viktor Tolj was mad at them because of that.

That's your experience in Croatia. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Why would a remotely reasonable person think it's right to murder?

Many of these people are psychopaths (not necessarily insane), and do it because they don't care. Other people do it for some type of retribution of financial gain. The people who do it so badly are idiots, because they don't think any harm will come unto them.

According to this, only a small percentage of people who murder have some type of mental illness (including psychopathy):
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequ ... cides.html

Do you really think only insane people murder?

Have you watched too many crime series, in which people are planning for months to commit a murder, the motive of which is usually money? Well, guess what, that's not based on real events. Or, if it is, it's in no way representative of how most murders happen.

I've never seen a crime series in my life, but I have seen shows like the Forensic Files, every episode of which is based on real events. These people aren't insane, or intelligent. They make such idiotic mistakes that any intelligent person would be quick to notice. They really are that dumb.

Yes, because you shouldn't apply force until you have good reasons to think it will do more good than harm.

If we let insane people roam the streets with impunity, what makes you think they won't go out on a murderous rampage?

[teo123]

Do you really think only insane people murder?

Only? Hey, listen, maybe there are some situations in which a rational person, looking for their own self-interest, would murder. Like, if you and another person are lost on a ship with very little food. Do such things happen in real life? Let's say they do. Does any significant portion of the murders that occur come from such situations? Of course not. And the fact that statistics show most murderers aren't mentally ill is just evidence of how ineffective (or even counter-productive) our mental health policies are, that most dangerous mentally ill persons are left completely undetected until it's too late.
Besides, where do you draw the line here? If we should have the police, courts and jails to somehow deter murderers, do you then think we should also have military, since military supposedly deters psychotic war-mongers from attacking the country?

[Red]

Only? Hey, listen, maybe there are some situations in which a rational person, looking for their own self-interest, would murder. Like, if you and another person are lost on a ship with very little food. Do such things happen in real life? Let's say they do. Does any significant portion of the murders that occur come from such situations? Of course not.

We're talking about murder in the legal context, not from a situational one.

And the fact that statistics show most murderers aren't mentally ill is just evidence of how ineffective (or even counter-productive) our mental health policies are, that most dangerous mentally ill persons are left completely undetected until it's too late.

That makes no sense. How do you arrive at this conclusion?

It shows that most (about 95%) people who murder are not mentally ill, and never have been. How does it say anything about our mental health policies?

Besides, where do you draw the line here? If we should have the police, courts and jails to somehow deter murderers, do you then think we should also have military, since military supposedly deters psychotic war-mongers from attacking the country?

You keep falling for the false dichotomy of 'either all or nothing.' Why do you not think government can improve, like it has so much in the past few hundred years?

[teo123]

We're talking about murder in the legal context, not from a situational one.

I am not sure what you mean by that. What’s “legal context”?

It shows that most (about 95%) people who murder are not mentally ill, and never have been.

Or, a much more reasonable interpretation, for about 95% of mentally ill people who end up murdering, the authorities didn’t know they were mentally ill.

Why do you not think government can improve, like it has so much in the past few hundred years?

Sure, governments can get less powerful and do less, while still existing. A few hundred years ago, governments were generally doing a lot more nonsense supposedly to prevent crime, yet there was a lot more crime.

[Red]

I am not sure what you mean by that. What’s “legal context”?

The scenarios you listed were survival situations, where the verdict would be more of a gray area. Legal Context refers to standard instances where the law would apply.

Or, a much more reasonable interpretation, for about 95% of mentally ill people who end up murdering, the authorities didn’t know they were mentally ill.

So 95% of that 4.3%? Pretty sure that isn't what you meant.

No, that is not more reasonable, exactly the opposite. You have no evidence of this, it's just what you want to be true to suit your narrative. The authorities are not that incompetent.

Sure, governments can get less powerful and do less, while still existing. A few hundred years ago, governments were generally doing a lot more nonsense supposedly to prevent crime, yet there was a lot more crime.

A big thing that's changed is the improved forensics used by the government. The best they had just 150 years ago were eye witness testimony, and maybe some things to link to certain suspects. Now it's much, much harder to get away with crimes. Of course, that's not the only thing, more education has helped, as long as society becoming more civilized in general.

[teo123]

No, that is not more reasonable, exactly the opposite.

So, why do you think most murders happen? And how exactly do you think putting people who murdered in jail, from which they will return with even more psychological problems, possibly helps?

Now it's much, much harder to get away with crimes.

Do you have any evidence of that? Obviously, as forensics got better, so have the criminals. Much like with antivirus software, developing antivirus software might make people more secure now (if it even does that, if the benefits of having antivirus software aren't outweighed by the problems caused by false positives), but, in the long term, it causes viruses to become more sophisticated. And statistics appear to confirm that:

Law enforcement’s ability to make arrests following crimes appears to have significantly diminished in recent years. This is especially true for homicide: From 1980 to 1996,the rate at which homicide cases were cleared nationally decreased more than 7 percent.(The clearance rate is the proportion of crimes in a jurisdiction for which the police report an arrest.).
(...)
Surprisingly, very little research has been conducted on the determinants of clearance rates for any type of crime, including homicide.

And, once again, the odds of getting away with a murder are not particularly low, they are around 50% in Croatia, and around 30% in the USA. In fact, it could be that those who get caught have mostly murdered unintentionally (or while they were drunk or high on drugs, if intentionally makes sense in that context), while those who had planned to murder mostly get away with it.
The biggest criminals obviously get away with their crimes either forever or for a very long time. Željko Ražnatović, the guy who organized Vukovar Massacre, was left on power for almost 20 years after he did that. Luckily, he was convicted, and assassinated. Branimir Glavaš, the guy who killed countless people whom he considered to be possible political opponents during the Battle of Osijek, was also left on power for more than a decade. And Milan Martić, the Croatian guy who organized the Bombing of Zagreb in 1995 (apparently, it wasn't the Serbian Chetniks who did that, as we are taught in school), only recently got sued. And who killed the tens (or hundreds) of people during the Varivode Massacre in 1995? It's been 25 years, nobody got prosecuted for that, but somebody did kill all those innocent people. What's the point of justice system then? The justice system apparently only punishes people who do crimes unintentionally or, at the best case, small criminals. What's justice about it when the biggest criminals either never get justice or they get it decades later?

[Red]

So, why do you think most murders happen?

I've told you, financial gain, retribution, sex even. They aren't insane, and they aren't rational either. These people are terrible at risk assessment.

And how exactly do you think putting people who murdered in jail, from which they will return with even more psychological problems, possibly helps?

I've told you again and again, I do not support the current system of punishment, I support rehabilitation. The system has issues, but it's outrageous to call for abolition of it because of those issues. I think the education system is terrible, but I'm not calling for it to be abolished, because it can be improved (like the system they have in Finland).

Punishment is not ideal, and is a very weak deterrent, but it's better than having it be legal, since then intelligent psychopaths who would have been aware of the consequences if it were illegal can now feel free to murder with impunity.

You still haven't provided evidence however to why you think it's better off being legal than it resulting punishment other than just speculation.

Do you have any evidence of that? Obviously, as forensics got better, so have the criminals.

Only the smart criminals, which makes up a very, very tiny percentage of them, and they almost always eventually get caught too if they keep it up for long enough.

Intelligent people committed crimes more back in the day because they knew it was immensely difficult to get caught since the forensics were lacking. Murderers like Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac would be caught had they committed the same crimes today.

Law enforcement’s ability to make arrests following crimes appears to have significantly diminished in recent years. This is especially true for homicide: From 1980 to 1996,the rate at which homicide cases were cleared nationally decreased more than 7 percent.(The clearance rate is the proportion of crimes in a jurisdiction for which the police report an arrest.).
(...)
Surprisingly, very little research has been conducted on the determinants of clearance rates for any type of crime, including homicide.

Correlation does not imply causation.

In fact, it could be that those who get caught have mostly murdered unintentionally (or while they were drunk or high on drugs, if intentionally makes sense in that context), while those who had planned to murder mostly get away with it.

That's manslaughter, which is a separate charge from murder. Do you have any evidence that it was manslaughter and not murder, or just speculation?

What's the point of justice system then? The justice system apparently only punishes people who do crimes unintentionally or, at the best case, small criminals. What's justice about it when the biggest criminals either never get justice or they get it decades later?

So get rid of it rather than improve it? You haven't shown how that helps.

[teo123]

You still haven't provided evidence however to why you think it's better off being legal than it resulting punishment other than just speculation.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Where do you draw the line, I mean, you don't think somebody who says we should end killing animals for food bears the burden of proof, so why do you think somebody who says we don't need prisons bears the burden of proof? The burden of proof is on one proposing that we should have more laws, rather than on one proposing we should have fewer laws.

Correlation does not imply causation.

I don't think this is a correlation-causation fallacy. You claimed the fact that more murders are solved now is the reason there are fewer murders now, right? I showed you that the fact that more murders are solved today is wrong, and that's a valid response.
When Nina Teicholz claims the reason there is more type-2-diabetes today than there was before is that we are eating less red meat today than before, showing that we are eating more red meat today than before disproves that claim (along with the fact that vegetarians tend to have lower rates of diabetes, and the fact that most studies done on the matter show that saturated fat, abundant in red meat, causes diabetes).

Do you have any evidence that it was manslaughter and not murder, or just speculation?

And who bears the burden of proof, one who claims it was done intentionally or one who claims that it was done unintentionally?