Entries Tagged 'politics' ↓

This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending the (fantastically organized) Rochester barcamp 3 on the RIT Campus.

A barcamp is basically a group of knowledgeable people that get together and give talks on subjects that they care about.  It’s quite possibly one of the coolest things I’ve had a chance to be involved in the entire time I’ve been at RIT.  (I didn’t hear about the first one, and last year I was out of town)

I was originally going to give my talk on Django, maybe sprinkling in a bit of discussion on political data, etc. if I had time.  Around midnight the night before Barcamp began however I decided to toss out my presentation and start from scratch.  What I ended up with was in my opinion a lot better.  95% of the people at barcamp are technical, but I realized hardly any would be political.. this in my opinion was a problem.

Of course, one might think it would be risky giving a political talk at a tech-oriented event on a tech-oriented campus.  My audience was on the small side, which was to be expected, and also brilliantly illustrated my first point: most of us are apathetic.

I only had 30 minutes, so my discussion on why people are apathetic was limited, but it led me to the discussion of a vicious circle wherein apathy fosters bad government which in turn fosters further apathy.

I closed the talk with examples of what developers can do which I grouped into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories: software to get people involved, and software to get people information.

Going beyond the obvious examples of flash mobs, blogs, wikis, and the like, I discussed several projects like the UK-based PledgeBank and WriteToThem.  These are projects that push individuals to get involved by encouraging either collective action (in the case of PledgeBank) or in the case of WriteToThem getting people to do more personal than sign their name to what are typically meaningless e-petitions.  (think “303,222 email addresses against Genocide in Darfur”)

I also pointed to examples of sites that aim to give people more information.  Django creator Adrian Holovaty’s new site EveryBlock is a great example of just getting as much information as possible out to people and letting them do with it what they like.  There is also the Sunlight Labs project EarmarkWatch which is a hybrid of sorts as it not only makes it easier to look at details of federal earmark spending, it also encourages citizen involvement due asking citizens to help research earmarks.  The very idea of researching an earmark on your own is empowering, and can also be seen as an approach to get people more involved in at least questioning government.

(Disclaimer: I was lead developer on EarmarkWatch, although my thoughts here do not necessarily reflect those of the Sunlight Foundation)

Wrapping up my talk I asked the developers in the audience to make use of the massive quantities of government data that is out there.  Or at the very least keep in mind the social responsibility that they have as being part of a uniquely skilled class with the power to control the machines and software that dominate so much of our everyday life.

The last slide ends with an equation: Django + Political Data APIs + Barcamp = ?

The discussion stemming from this talk actually led to a second talk later in the evening, where we attempted to answer this question.  We ended up having a 3 hour discussion on how a few developers from RIT most with no former political experience could move on a project that will “change the world.”

Expect to hear more about that in coming weeks.

v1 of the slides that I gave (I’m working on an update as these were done in about an hour)

| View | Upload your own

Slides in OO.org format

Slide overview in PDF format

Popularity: 6%

I’ve spent a bit of time the last couple weeks polishing the new RIT Democrats website.  It’s now up, and I pulled in the old posts which I was putting off but ended up being rather pain free.  I even made a little tiger-donkey logo. (RIT’s mascot is a tiger)

A lot of my political posts will probably be posted there in general for the time being, I’ll probably cross post some things, but if you’re one of the 2-3 people that actually reads this blog for political content, I figured I’d mention it.

Why getting a better website together wasn’t a priority when I was actually in charge of the club is sort of a mystery.  I suppose the revitalized interest in the club due to this being an exciting election year really helped, as did finally having my own server and the original domain name being available again (the club owned it in 2004 but it lapsed and was being domain-squatted).

Popularity: 4%

I was recently asked the question “Would you rather an innocent person be executed or a guilty person freed to kill again?” in a debate on the death penalty.

This seems a common enough question in such debates that I’ll attempt to actually answer it despite the fact that I feel it is a terrible question (among other things it assumes that all murderers plot to kill again, neglecting crimes of passion and human potential for remorse, it also neglects the option of a prison sentence which I will address).

For the sake of argument let’s take a look at the two options provided:

Option A: Put them to death.

• innocent: The real killer is still free and not being pursued (negative). The state has killed an innocent person, doing the very thing which it is condemning (negative).
• guilty: the public is safe from this individual (strong positive). The state has killed a person (neutral).

Option B: Free them.

• innocent: The killer is going to still be free but is still being actively pursued (neutral).
• guilty: The public is in danger presuming the murderer may kill again. The killer is still being pursued so the person may be caught again. (negative)

The best outcome possible given these options would be A-guilty.   In the other three options the killer is still free.

Let’s assume that no matter what, if free, the killer is going to kill 3 more people. A-innocent is the only option that results in 4 deaths. The first suspect dies at the hands of the state, which regardless of how you feel about the death penalty is a tragedy when the person is innocent. Option A therefore is a high-stakes gamble. It could end the killing, or it could result in the worst possible outcome. Option B leaves the killer on the loose, but both options involve continuing the search. It is possible that after 1-2 of the following killings the killer will be caught, even if it was the person captured the first time. These options are much lower risk.

Personally, the thought of the state killing an innocent person is so repugnant that I would choose B over A. But this is a matter of individual conviction.

As I mentioned however, this is a faulty question as it leaves out the more likely alternative:

Option C: Jail them for life.

• innocent: they will spend time in jail until they either can prove their innocence or die (negative, but less so than killing them).
• guilty: the public is safe from this individual. (strong positive)

C-innocent is somewhat worse than B-innocent, as an innocent person is in jail for some amount of time, and probably during this time the real killer will have the opportunity to strike again. C-guilty however is much better than B-guilty as it puts the criminal away.

The ranking of the possible outcomes is:

• Criminal is captured/punished: A-guilty, C-guilty (the ranking of these depends on your view of the death penalty)
• Criminal is not captured, nobody is punished unjustly: B-guilty, B-innocent
• Criminal is not captured, innocent person is jailed: C-innocent
• Criminal is not captured, an additional life is lost: A-innocent

B-guilty and B-innocent are almost equal as in both cases the search continues and so the guilty will eventually be caught (most likely the person if freed under charges of insufficient evidence will be closely monitored).

Which is the better outcome between A-guilty or C-guilty is determined by one’s view of if the government should use capital punishment at all. Both seem better than a murderer on the loose however.

There are a myriad of other effects outside the immediate scope of the trial, for instance capital punishment of a successful criminal (A-guilty) may be a deterrent. Capital punishment of an innocent criminal (A-innocent) may damage the legitimacy the judicial system in the eyes of the public.

A rational evaluation however does not seem like the law should include an option whereupon the execution of an innocent person would take place. Therefore Option A would be thrown out unless there is a case in which one can say with 100% certainty that the suspect is indeed the culprit. Limited examples to spring to mind, but DNA evidence or even a confession do not constitute 100% as various cases have shown.

Mass murder as seen in genocides and terrorist attacks on civilian targets often has a highly identifiable culprit that does not fear but rather revels in their spotlight. In these cases 100% seems like a fair assessment of their guilt.  Despite the fact that these cases also correspond to the most heinous of crimes, I would encourage people to use this reasoning as a basis for their support of the death penalty in such extreme cases.

Justice must be based in reason and not in passion or indignation at the act committed.

edit: Discussion that ensued leads me to realize I should clarify that I am well aware the game-theory approach taken here is oversimplified, for instance it would be proper instead of choosing a fixed number of subsequent killings to have some sort of probability.  I chose a constant murder rate because the question initially posed assumes one.

Popularity: 4%

Several days ago I was sitting in a Washington DC hotel room and had CNN on in the background. Mike Huckabee was on, and his campaign is the only Republican one I’ve really taken much of an interest in so I was paying a bit of attention and heard him make the statement that our laws were based on the Ten Commandments. He’s certainly not the first person to make such a statement, and I doubt he’ll be the last before the end of this campaign.

Whenever I hear such a statement made I am reminded of the clips of politicians which fight for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in churches but fail to name even three commandments correctly. I somehow doubt that Mike Huckabee is of this kind though, his religious credentials seem genuine.

It’s been some time since I’ve read Exodus, so perhaps my own memory of the commandments is what is faulty, I consulted a list of the commandments and decided to take a look at which of the commandments the founders chose to codify into law. (I’m aware that the specific numbering/grouping of the commandments varies, and I am using the Roman Catholic grouping for consistency)

1. I am the Lord your God / You shall have no other gods before me / You shall not make for yourself an idol
2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
4. Honor your Father and Mother
5. You shall not murder
6. You shall not commit adultery
7. You shall not steal
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife

Right off the bat it is apparent that any laws which would attempt to enforce the first or second commandment would be in clear violation of the first amendment’s religious liberties clause. (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”) Although I am sure lawmakers have attempted to make such laws, the fact that the founders were dedicated to religious liberty would preclude laws based in the first and second amendments from being within the spirit of the nation. That’s fine though, perhaps they just wanted to take the moral lessons from the commandments and leave out the first two.

So how about #3? There actually are “blue laws” in the United States related to businesses being open on Sundays, but they are generally struck down if challenged as they too seem to be violations of the religious liberty clause of the first amendment. The premise that the laws of the nation are based on the ten commandments can hardly be held up by some obscure laws generally seen as unconstitutional.

Despite what parents of disobedient children all over the country may wish, there is no legal way to enforce #4. Free speech and personal freedom give anyone the right to dishonor their mother and father as much as they see fit, as distasteful as it may be.

#5: no murder! There are certainly laws against this, so we’re at 1 for 5. Not only are there laws against it, murder would seem to violate the “right to life” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

As for adultery, it’s true that there are some laws against it in some jurisdictions. The constitutionality of such laws is dubious, and enforcement is difficult. Also, the idea that this is something that the founders based our laws one seems dubious, and remember, the crime that Bill Clinton committed was perjury, not infidelity. (As a side note, apparently punishments in different states range from a $10 fine to potential life imprisonment) I’ll throw Huckabee a bone here and say we’re now at 1.5 out of 6.

#7 is about as easy as number five, stealing is generally recognized as illegal and a violation of the concept of personal property, something the founders clearly recognize as a right. For those keeping score, we’re now at 2.5 out of 7.

#8, Bearing false witness, aka lying, is another gray area. Under oath it’s illegal, but lying in most circumstances is not. In the interest of fairness, perhaps another half-point here.

The last two commandments, often viewed as one, instruct us not to covet our neighbors wife, house, or belongings. Apparently interpretations of covet vary from “envy” to “act to acquire.” Most Christian denominations use the envy definition, but it appears as if a common Jewish interpretation is that any act to acquire something envied is a violation. Neither of these cases is illegal. Legislating against envy would be to attempt to define a thoughtcrime, and even in the case of the alternative definition, asking your neighbor’s wife to leave him for you or offering your neighbor money for his home or oxen is not illegal, but certainly would constitute coveting.

Ultimately, 2 of the 10 commandments seem to be reflected in US law. Thou shall not murder and thou shall not steal. Bearing false witness and adultery are perhaps addressed as well. But that means at best 4 of the 10 commandments are reflected in the law. That hardly seems like an underlying basis. Also one would assume that most if not all pre-Christian societies had similar laws on murder and stealing, so the existence of such laws can hardly be seen as conclusive evidence of an attempt to codify the Ten Commandments into law.

While I said earlier I didn’t doubt Huckabee’s religious credentials, perhaps it is the legal credentials of those who make claims such as his that should be questioned.

Popularity: 8%