Suffering - Lemmy.World

The scariest part is that real world is, in fact, a hardcore free-for-all PvP realm.

I’m not talking competition or something. A random person can absolutely come to you at any time, stab or shoot you and you’ll be dead. Forever. No respawns.

It’s only because people don’t really like being murdered that led them to make and enforce rules on what violence is legitimate that curbed the violence. But even still, anytime, anywhere, by anyone, you can absolutely be killed. And if one day something breaks in the chain that makes police work, we’re super screwed.

It’s not the police that keep us from killing each other, or even laws that do so. Check out law and authority sometime if you’re able. It’s very short and worth a read. We don’t kill each other because we don’t enjoy being killed or killing. We’re social creatures, and don’t want to be shunned. Crimes of passion don’t really change based on laws, but the way we organize society may actually be increasing the number of murders, because some people are desperate enough to kill for food or shelter
Law and Authority

Pëtr Kropotkin Law and Authority 1886 Printed by the New Temple Press, Norbury Crescent, Norburt, S.W.

The Anarchist Library
What the hell are you talking about. I can assure you that perspective of jail is an excellent deterrent to crime

According to a quick search, the US has the 6th highest incarnation rate per capita but is only 148th lowest in intentional homicide rate. Obviously this is far from conclusive but it suggests there’s no strong correlation. There are likely much more significant factors than how prison-happy a country is.

This isn’t exactly an in depth study so I could still be wrong, but it’s much more convincing than just some assurance from a random stranger on the internet.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia

That is such a shallow glance at statistics that I am not even going to bother discussing it. It’s obvious you have zero grasp on statistical inference.

It’s not deeply rigorous but it’s correct reasoning in principal.

The scientific and statistical standard interpretation of the null hypothesis is that there’s no relationship between the variables in question. It’s up to the researcher to establish an evidence based argument that the null hypothesis should be rejected in favor of some alternative.

When we “fail to reject” the null hypothesis, we haven’t proved it’s true, we just continue to assume it is until someone proves otherwise.

In this case, the alternate hypothesis is that there’s a correlation between incarceration and crime rates and the null is that no such correlation exists.

As of now, the bulk of the research has failed to find such a relationship scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C22&q=…

Google Scholar