Gartner on Assessing the Age of Software Languages and Tools
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: MicroFocus Java
Next: MicroFocus Java
From: Anonymous on 18 Jun 2008 13:27 In article <g3asd122ir0(a)news2.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> >> 2) If it is true that to 'punish the guilty, despite lack of evidence it >> does any good as a preventive measure (deterrent)' then recidivism rates >> for all crimes would be 100%. > >Reoffending clearly partitions the set of former prisoners (ie, a >given former prisoner will either commit another crime, or not), but >it remains to be demonstrated that deterrence is equivalent to >non-reoffense. Perhaps I read the original posting incorrectly, Mr Wojcik, but I interpreted the '(deterrent)' as being used to defined what preceded it, that is 'a preventive measure'. Person A commits crime(n) and is punished for it. In that Person A makes a connection between committing crime(n) and an unpleasant consequence (punishment) so that the possibility of incurring another similar unpleasant consequence deters Person A from committing crime(n) again then a causal effect has been established between punishment and deterrence. In that Person A does not consider an unpleasant consequence a deterrent then crime(n) gets committed again. (this assumes bunches of stuff about Free Will, a desire to perform behaviors which reward and a desire to avoid unpleasantness, of course... but that seems par for the course insofar evaluations of human behaviors are concerned) > >I find it hard to believe that deterrence + recidivisim is a zero-sum >game, and there are no other variables. You might find it even harder to believe what some folks call 'evidence'. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Jun 2008 14:30 On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >Person A commits crime(n) and is punished for it. > >In that Person A makes a connection between committing crime(n) and an >unpleasant consequence (punishment) so that the possibility of incurring >another similar unpleasant consequence deters Person A from committing >crime(n) again then a causal effect has been established between >punishment and deterrence. There are cases where this has been established, but when we're talking societies, the statistical analysis needs to include a wide variety of factors. >In that Person A does not consider an unpleasant consequence a deterrent >then crime(n) gets committed again. > >(this assumes bunches of stuff about Free Will, a desire to perform >behaviors which reward and a desire to avoid unpleasantness, of course... >but that seems par for the course insofar evaluations of human behaviors >are concerned) Deterrence is also supposed to deter "good guys" from considering crime in the first place. >>I find it hard to believe that deterrence + recidivisim is a zero-sum >>game, and there are no other variables. > >You might find it even harder to believe what some folks call 'evidence'. Or prefer what other folks call "evidence". There is lots of conflicting evidence out there. And lots of variables. I enjoyed a book _Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything_ by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner. One chapter examines "be tough" law enforcement policies which claimed success - and concludes that birth control and abortion were more important.
From: Anonymous on 18 Jun 2008 14:41 In article <2nki54tbsdqllbku516bkruekgtpaodoqs(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>Person A commits crime(n) and is punished for it. >> >>In that Person A makes a connection between committing crime(n) and an >>unpleasant consequence (punishment) so that the possibility of incurring >>another similar unpleasant consequence deters Person A from committing >>crime(n) again then a causal effect has been established between >>punishment and deterrence. > >There are cases where this has been established, but when we're >talking societies, the statistical analysis needs to include a wide >variety of factors. I'm not sure who this 'we' is, Mr Brazee... what I was responding to was an assertion of 'There seems to be a genetic human instinct for revenge, to identify and punish the guilty, despite lack of evidence it does any good as a preventive measure (deterrent).' Human beings, last I looked, have both 'genetic instincts' and the ability to interpret phenomena as 'evidence'... I'm not sure where the genes of a society might be found nor how/what a society considers evidence. [snip] >I enjoyed a book _Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden >Side of Everything_ by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner. One >chapter examines "be tough" law enforcement policies which claimed >success - and concludes that birth control and abortion were more >important. I enjoyed learning that the birth-rate in Europe declined after the number of chimmneys available for stork-nesting lessened. DD
From: Michael Wojcik on 20 Jun 2008 04:39 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <g3asd122ir0(a)news2.newsguy.com>, > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> 2) If it is true that to 'punish the guilty, despite lack of evidence it >>> does any good as a preventive measure (deterrent)' then recidivism rates >>> for all crimes would be 100%. >> >> Reoffending clearly partitions the set of former prisoners (ie, a >> given former prisoner will either commit another crime, or not), but >> it remains to be demonstrated that deterrence is equivalent to >> non-reoffense. > > Perhaps I read the original posting incorrectly, Mr Wojcik, but I > interpreted the '(deterrent)' as being used to defined what preceded it, > that is 'a preventive measure'. As did I. I didn't read it as "the only preventative measure". > Person A commits crime(n) and is punished for it. > > In that Person A makes a connection between committing crime(n) and an > unpleasant consequence (punishment) so that the possibility of incurring > another similar unpleasant consequence deters Person A from committing > crime(n) again then a causal effect has been established between > punishment and deterrence. Yes, by definition. That doesn't appear to be relevant to my point, however, which is that it has not been demonstrated that this effect (if it exists) represents the sole and entire cause of non-reoffense. > In that Person A does not consider an unpleasant consequence a deterrent > then crime(n) gets committed again. This has not been demonstrated. Indeed, there are trivial counterexamples: Person A gets hit by a bus shortly after punishment; Person A goes on to a life of luxury and is too idle to commit crime; etc. > (this assumes bunches of stuff about Free Will, a desire to perform > behaviors which reward and a desire to avoid unpleasantness, of course... > but that seems par for the course insofar evaluations of human behaviors > are concerned) It assumes far more than that, I'm afraid. In particular, it assumes the question, which is whether there are other circumstances which imply the predicate "non-reoffense". >> I find it hard to believe that deterrence + recidivisim is a zero-sum >> game, and there are no other variables. > > You might find it even harder to believe what some folks call 'evidence'. I'm not sure what metric to use for difficulty-to-believe, but certainly "what some folks call 'evidence'" is often unworthy of belief. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Anonymous on 20 Jun 2008 07:38
In article <g3fvki12q8m(a)news2.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <g3asd122ir0(a)news2.newsguy.com>, >> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> 2) If it is true that to 'punish the guilty, despite lack of evidence it >>>> does any good as a preventive measure (deterrent)' then recidivism rates >>>> for all crimes would be 100%. > >> >>> Reoffending clearly partitions the set of former prisoners (ie, a >>> given former prisoner will either commit another crime, or not), but >>> it remains to be demonstrated that deterrence is equivalent to >>> non-reoffense. >> >> Perhaps I read the original posting incorrectly, Mr Wojcik, but I >> interpreted the '(deterrent)' as being used to defined what preceded it, >> that is 'a preventive measure'. > >As did I. I didn't read it as "the only preventative measure". Yes, I would agree that there is nothing I would call grounds for concluding uniqueness. > >> Person A commits crime(n) and is punished for it. >> >> In that Person A makes a connection between committing crime(n) and an >> unpleasant consequence (punishment) so that the possibility of incurring >> another similar unpleasant consequence deters Person A from committing >> crime(n) again then a causal effect has been established between >> punishment and deterrence. > >Yes, by definition. That doesn't appear to be relevant to my point, >however, which is that it has not been demonstrated that this effect >(if it exists) represents the sole and entire cause of non-reoffense. If, as we agreed earlier, there is nothing which gives grounds for concluding uniqueness then it would seem that an objection such as this, based on uniqueness, is based on nothing for which grounds have been given. DD |