“If we want to rebuild a shared public trust in expertise, we will need a more realistic and humane language to talk about scientific expertise and its place in our political life—an account of expertise that is worthy of the public’s trust. Such an account would affirm scientific expertise as a praiseworthy human achievement, indispensable to understanding the world around us and valuable for making political decisions. But it would also recognize the role of uncertainty and judgment in science, and thus the possibility of error and disagreement, including value disagreements, when using science for public policy. Reestablishing an appropriate role for science in our politics, in other words, requires restoring the central role of politics itself in making policy decisions.” - Unmasking Scientific Expertise, by M. Anthony Mills/Issues in Science and Technology
This from a Tennessee State University document titled Defining Citizenship and Civic Engagement:
“Attempting to define civic responsibility can be a daunting task because of frequently overlapping constructs, values, and interpretations. Indeed, the very mention of the term civic responsibility evokes notions of what it means to live in a democracy, in addition to the complementary ideas of citizenship, social responsibility, civic engagement, and community involvement. [But here goes…] Civic responsibility means active participation in the public life of a community in an informed, committed, and constructive manner, with a focus on the common good.”
Many states, including North Carolina, require offenders to undergo a Risk and Need Assessment (RNA), which helps criminal justice officials target interventions to reduce recidivism. For example, prisons use RNAs to identify programs inmates should attend while incarcerated. Probation and parole agencies use them to develop an offender’s supervision plan and inform responses to violations. RNAs, supplemented by criminal records, are also used to classify an offender’s level of risk and need, from Minimal to Extreme. These classifications turn out to be rather good predictors of recidivism…
Mmmm…82% of the probationers in 2019 had prior arrests and 59% had been placed on probation before. Around a third were previously incarcerated felons. Of probationers with prior arrests, over half had been arrested three or more times. In other words, a lot of repeat offenders are being put on probation in North Carolina - somewhat ironic given the 1994 sentencing reform was supposed to divert more repeat offenders to prison. Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not against probation for all repeat offenders…
Throughout this series of posts, I’ll be using North Carolina as a case study, partly because the state implemented major sentencing reforms in 1994 and 2011, so enough time has passed to detect possible effects. Just a important, North Carolina has great data.
Mmmm. Why do Iowa and Kansas have such low poverty levels?
Intuitions about right and wrong clash in moral dilemmas. These dilemmas activate a moral trade-off system designed for resolving conflicts among moral values. Examples of moral values include fairness, reciprocity, responsibility, care, entitlement, merit, loyalty, and honesty. When asked to resolve moral dilemmas, many people made compromise judgments, which strike a balance between conflicting moral values by partially satisfying at least some of them. The moral tradeoff system delivers that solution as an intuitive moral judgment. (paraphrasing Guzman et al, 2022)
Why do some people seem more deserving of government assistance than others?
Social scientists have been exploring this question for decades. Much of the research has focused on the criteria people use to judge the “deservingness” of the vulnerable and poor.
“One year ago, a damning investigation uncovered that 888 units of S.F’s permanent supportive housing were sitting empty. Those numbers have gotten worse…A year ago, when the average time between being approved for housing and handed keys was 85 days, the city said it was aiming to cut the time to 30 to 45 days. But last week, when asked what progress they’d made, officials disclosed that wait times had actually gone up. In fact, they’ve more than doubled. It now takes an average of five months, or around 150 days, to move someone experiencing homelessness into a home. That’s a shameful length of time for a program allotted $356 million each year.” San Francisco Chronicle, March 5, 2023