= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
We had a long discussion about prison on LW last year.
In response to
[Link] Why prison doesn't work and what to do about it
Thanks, it will take me a while to get through all this. There are some great comments in there.
In response to
Open Thread, July 16-31, 2012
I recently went through my wardrobe and inverted all of my stacks of clothes. I realized I have a tendency to wear whatever is on top and neglect to wear things for months at a time that are buried below. Then it occurred to me, maybe it doesn't matter.
Consider: a newly purchased shirt can be worn X number of times before it becomes unwearable. Does it really make a difference if those times are clustered together tightly or spread out?
My original thinking was that if I have several pairs of shoes & wear them in rotation, they will last longer. That might be true because the uses will be spread apart, but if I really kept to the rotation system, wouldn't all of my shoes be ready for replacement at roughly the same time, another problem in its own right?
There is also the social aspect to be considered. It seems that it is socially unacceptable in most circles to wear 1 shirt every day of the week and more socially acceptable to cycle through 7 or so. Maybe even more than 7 is "optimally" socially acceptable.
What strategy is better, clustering uses together by wearing your favorite items frequently or cycling through your wardrobe? How many different articles of clothing should one have to cycle through in terms of social acceptability? Do we have any practicing Minimalists here and how do they deal with the social aspect of this?
You could probably do an analysis looking at the expected utility in terms of social benefits (people seeing you as well-dressed or fashionable), or performance of the clothing (sports clothing, jeans, work boots), depending on what you wear and do.
In terms of clothing minimalism, it probably depends on your friends and work environment. Many people seem to have multiple similar-looking work outfits, so that they don't have to worry too much about changing their appearance regularly, and others have room to imagine any number of identical items of clothing in the wardrobe at home. Without evidence to the contrary people tend to expect you to have a similar amount of clothing as they themselves do.
A good tactic is to keep a number of discernably unique and stylish clothing items that you do not wear often at all. These can be rotated for social occasions, so that you aren't seen to be wearing the same thing twice in recent succession. This seems to be all most people look for, although it depends on your associates.
Personally I wear whatever seems comfortable and appropriate, making sure to wash most clothing items after one day of use, and thinking about the social implications of being seen wearing whatever I am wearing. The social implication of wearing the same thing for multiple days is that you are dirty and smelly. In my experience as long as you keep clean and presentable, and are seen to have multiple different clothing items, most people don't worry about it, but this may be highly dependant on your local culture.
Regarding things wearing out at the same time - well, even if you use them as evenly as possible there should be more than enough randomness in daily usage to mean things wear out at different times. Even if you buy two identical shirts, they won't get the exact same treatment, leading to an increasing difference in the number of wears before each becomes unusable. (see "Random Walk" problems for an interesting mathematical treatment of a similar concept)
Regarding rotation making things last longer - I think it's fine to think of it as a fixed (but unknowable) number of uses before something wears out. So no matter how you rotate your clothes, each item should have the same base value as it would have otherwise. Thus individual day-to-day changes in clothing (which items are more relevant to the current day's activities) are probably much more important.
One last unmentioned point - clothes sitting at the bottom of a drawer can be easily forgotten. It can be good to upend your drawers every once in a while just to make sure you haven't forgotten any hidden gems. Or, err, moth-eaten horror stories (although it's been a while since this happened to me).
They don't see it as fairness! They see what they're currently doing as being right and fair and just! Nobody is a villain in their own minds.
Which is why I didn't use the word "justice".
Hagrid's case sets a precedent which makes it obvious the Wizengamot is playing to a double-standard in this case
Not really. The Wizengamot has an explicit policy of punishing a wizard (or half-wizard) who murdered a mudblood less than mudblood who tried to murder a noble wizard, the last scion of a Most Ancient House. It's only a double standard to you; it's a valid and relevant difference to them.
True, it would only make a valid argument if there were some swing voters who were more concerned with fairness than with supporting the power structure of the nobility, which is unlikely.
Most of those points were already brought up and ignored. Everyone at the "trial" came in knowing exactly which way to vote, and Harry doesn't have time to alter their individual opinions. Its pretty clear that if Hermione had never come into contact with Harry, but still wound up in the same situation (inexplicably) things would be very different. Although I do like how you're idea calls back the opening to the chapter. Also, Harry just talking makes for kinda poor drama. Where getting close to the climax of this section and I'd be pretty surprised if it ended with Harry getting to know the members of the Wizengamot, but i could be wrong.
Judging by Fudge and Umbridge's demeanor, the voters might put more weight on the words of the Boy Who Lived than on those of Dumbledore, especially as Dumbledore wasn't phrasing his arguments in such a way as to appeal to the parts of the audience who didn't already support him.
I agree with your point about it making a poor climax though. I think it's quite unlikely for this reason, but still like the idea of Harry suddenly gaining super-lawyer powers :).
if [Harry] asked [Hermione] the right questions under veritaserum he could probably find out about the huge chunk of missing time she has in her memory
What huge chunk of time is missing from her memory?
The only moments she misses are (according to Harry's theory) * the moment in which she remembers seeing Draco and Snape plotting against her, which was implanted by a FMC and removed after the duel (leaving all the true but misleading memories of being furious at Draco in place) * and a short time intervall after the duel, where the false memories of her performing the Blood Cooling charm were inserted.
In addition, we can assume that these memory charms were very precisely executed because of their utmost importance to the plan. Thus, even the transitions between these false memories and the true memories surrounding them would probably be unnoticable. (Remember, a legilimency expert already checked her.)
(Of course, there is also the Groundhog Day incident when she really lost a huge chunk of time – but it's not related to this event in any way that's obvious to Harry. I'm not aware of any evidence that he even knows about that.)
I was referring to the Groundhog Day incident. Harry probably isn't aware of it, but could come across it by asking simple questions of Hermione like "why were you so angry that day of the battle?". Hermione seems aware that she is missing memories here, due to her "lost track of time" statement to Susan.
Thinking of what Draco might have done to her and then obliviated seems a reasonable explanation for her anger towards him during the battle, and perhaps why she can believe that she did attempt to murder him.
Hagrid was convicted in the canon universe which is noticeably different from the world presented in the fic. Hagrid was convicted at least 35 years before Voldemort started causing trouble and plunging the wizarding world into chaos. Most of all, Hagrid was fortunate enough NOT to piss off Lucius Malfoy. So there's no reason for that example to be particularly relevant to Hermione's predicament.
Hagrid's story seems to be unchanged, and Harry is aware of it - he was told he was responsible for getting the conviction overturned and the wand returned. The point is more that Lucius Malfoy doesn't directly control the Wizengamot. His main tool at this trial seems to be rhetoric, drumming up righteous indignation and playing the part of the aggrieved Noble. If Harry stops focusing on Lucius and in stead focuses on the individual voters, he can find arguments to sway different sections.
Hagrid's case sets a precedent which makes it obvious the Wizengamot is playing to a double-standard in this case, but he would certainly have to come up with more arguments. Another point he could make is that Hermione had no motive. Another is that her behaviour before the event was completely out of character. He has Hermione right there, and veritaserum on hand, so if he asked her the right questions under veritaserum he could probably find out about the huge chunk of missing time she has in her memory - good evidence that she was psychologically manipulated.
Has anyone suggested Harry simply giving a long impassioned plea, thus acting as Hermione's missing lawyer? He might be able to sway enough of the voters if he proposes a satisfactory lesser punishment (and passes a rhetoric and/or sophistry skill check). Hagrid was convicted of murder in Hogwarts, and his punishment was having his wand snapped and being expelled.
It seems that almost all of the studied phenomena had outcomes determined by other people's emotional responses (presidential primary, idol competition, stock market performance, movie success). These would be expected to correlate with the subjects' emotional responses, as they are likely similar.
This was noted briefly in the paper, but seemed to be largely ignored in the conclusions.
Although the weather study does support the hypothesis, it is a somewhat unfair example, as there is little to go on other than feelings without access to complicated simulation software.
I do believe the fundamental point has validity, but the paper does not seem to support it to anywhere near the level that is implied.
A concrete example of caveats being ignored, from the conclusion:
"The fact that this phenomenon was observed in eight different studies and with a variety of prediction contexts suggests that this emotional oracle effect is a reliable and generalizable phenomenon."
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I've disagreed with people before on this topic; I feel that the primary goals of the system should be rehabilitation (so that society can make productive use of former offenders) and deterrence. I've discussed it with people who seem to argue the primary goal is punishment - perhaps this is intended to work as deterrence, but it's clear that this is not the case. A "you were bad, now you get punished" mindset seems to be at work, rather than one seeking to solve the issues. The notion that people who committed crimes should not be allowed to learn new skills or seek ways of bettering themselves because they are being punished is not uncommon, even though this removes an opportunity for people to try and get out of a criminal lifestyle.
On the other hand, recidivism is pretty high in Ireland, and I've heard that here and elsewhere, prison is practically a criminal education centre. Sentences are often inconsistent - I'll try find some examples of weird sentencing - and often cut short.
The only conclusion I can draw here is that current system is a total mess, and needs significant overhaul.
I'm okay with capital punishment for particularly serious crimes. There was a good post on this recently.
Final point: I've heard it said (though cannot find figures on this) that in parts of the US, the time spent waiting on death row is so long, that your life expectancy is higher if you murder someone when you're in your early twenties than if you stay on the streets. Interesting that choosing execution could be seen as a rational choice.
I tend to agree with you about rehabilitation being the primary requirement. I've also found that many people desire retribution first and foremost.
It seemed strange that civil service wasn't mentioned in the article. In my country it is quite common as a minor punishment. Undesirable jobs such as cleaning of public areas are at once highly visible (people can see that they are unpleasant, and that punishment is being carried out) and rehabilitative (a work ethic must be developed to carry out the sentence). Even this, however, is hard to contemplate, as it smells like slavery.
I wonder what other options there may be that are simply hard to table, but obvious in retrospect.
That linked discussion on capital punishment is interesting, thank you :).