As a bleeding heart liberal on justice issues, as well as a data guy, I thought that John Geddes’ piece on the MacLeans website explaining just how unevidence based the Tories’ justice policies are was well worth passing on. Also worth reading if you’re interested in this stuff: Dan Gardner’s piece on the Finnish justice system.
I would argue that almost everything is a “justice issue[].”
“how unevidence based the Tories’ justice policies are”
Get outta town!
I read this, then went over to Politcal Animal, an american politics blog, and read this about gays in the US military:
“As a rule, reality, evidence, and common sense hasn’t played much of a role in the debate over DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell], so it’s likely that the new study won’t have much of an effect.”
Its a funny ol’ world
Being a bleeding heart and being ruthlessly, sincerely data-driven could conceivably lead one into contradiction. One impulse or the other must be master where the data might support cruelty or perhaps even sheer illiberalism. But of course, in practice, bleeding hearts only boast of their data-drivenness when criticizing stringent justice policies; and it’s impossible to get from data to policy without choosing your endpoints first.
I think it might be fair for me to say I’m a bleeding heart on this because the data against that position is so equivocal. Usually, you at least see some sort of studies and what not to support the opposing side, even if they’re asinine. As Geddes points out, the Tories don’t even know that the mandatory minimums they’re proposing are actually less than the norms imposed by the courts in some circumstances.
If there’s data to support cruelty in the justice system, I’d like to see it.
Thank you for posting both of these. I was unaware of both articles, and both shed light on issues that I have not thought about in some time.
Errr… yeah, Cosh… what % of Con policies have any rational statistical merits to them?
The Conservative power base doesn’t care too much about rationality, I figure. Just sell them whatever they perceive to be necessary/desirable, and they’re happy. In fairness, this applies equally to the other parties’ power bases.
From the article about Finland:
“When Finland took a hard-line approach, its crime trends were identical to those of its liberal neighbours. And when it switched to a liberal system its trends continued in line with its neighbours. Ultimately, Finland’s choices about how to punish crime had little or no effect on the crime rate.”
Surprise, surprise. Yet people, and parties, at both ends of the spectrum continue to be driven by ideology rather than rationality, whether they support useless mandatory minimum sentences or those goofy native sharing/sentencing circles. Why is this? Everyone’s driven by their own perceptions to a degree, but it would be nice to see some capacity for critical thought, even/especially when such thought leads to conclusions that conflict with one’s preconceived ideas.
Very tangentially related: my wife is Mexican, so I’m fairly well-tuned to anti-Mexican bigotry. There’s a surprising amount of it in Alberta, despite the tiny Mexican population. It’s bizarre: in Edmonton, hating Mexicans is a bit like hating Maoris or Bulgarians. Given that many of the people spewing venom have never met a real live Mexican, I have to figure their prejudice comes from something other than personal experience. I don’t want to sound like one of those useless people who blame the media for everything, but I have to wonder if ideas gleaned from CSI and American newscasts might make an impact on the gullible. Perhaps the same gullible group think mandatory minimums will fix Canada’s, uh, rampaging crime problem.
Also: I initially interpreted “well worth passing on” as as meaning well worth ignoring, not well worth sharing, and couldn’t figure out what the hell you meant. A lawyer shouldn’t be so ambiguous. Or maybe you should.