You might expect that Snead goes on to explain why these laws are bad things. But he doesn’t! He assumes we can all see that these are obviously bad things.
Well, I can see that these are bad things, but what I can’t see is what they have to do with outcome-based justice. These all exist because of political decisions, not impassioned consideration of their likely effects.
Yes, exactly. Those laws are claimed to deter crime, but really, they’re the result of politicians wanting to appear to be “tough on crime.” The appearance matters more than the result.
That doesn’t really matter; if these things (bad or not) are to have any bearing on the idea of outcome-based justice, then the connection has to be established. Maybe Snead did establish this, and Phil just didn’t report that part, but I’m pretty sure that they’re not based on outcomes at all. When I lived in California, the supporters of the three-strikes law, as far as I could see, discussed punishment and not prevention. The rhetoric surrounding sex offenders is mostly about protecting children, but the evidence is not there, and sex offenders are made out to be monsters; this is not a rational decision but a political one.
(As for why I’m against these, it’s because every one of them increases the power of the state to punish people. In principle, I agree with Phil’s implicit claim that justice should be utilitarian and outcome-based justice (consequentialist ethics) is the right approach. But in practice, if “outcome-based justice” means increasing the power of the state, then I’m against it, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Phil’s point.)
Well, I can see that these are bad things, but what I can’t see is what they have to do with outcome-based justice. These all exist because of political decisions, not impassioned consideration of their likely effects.
Yes, exactly. Those laws are claimed to deter crime, but really, they’re the result of politicians wanting to appear to be “tough on crime.” The appearance matters more than the result.
Care to explain?
That doesn’t really matter; if these things (bad or not) are to have any bearing on the idea of outcome-based justice, then the connection has to be established. Maybe Snead did establish this, and Phil just didn’t report that part, but I’m pretty sure that they’re not based on outcomes at all. When I lived in California, the supporters of the three-strikes law, as far as I could see, discussed punishment and not prevention. The rhetoric surrounding sex offenders is mostly about protecting children, but the evidence is not there, and sex offenders are made out to be monsters; this is not a rational decision but a political one.
(As for why I’m against these, it’s because every one of them increases the power of the state to punish people. In principle, I agree with Phil’s implicit claim that justice should be utilitarian and outcome-based justice (consequentialist ethics) is the right approach. But in practice, if “outcome-based justice” means increasing the power of the state, then I’m against it, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Phil’s point.)