Mandatory sentencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing 

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term for certain crimes, commonly serious and violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Mandatory sentencing laws often target "moral vices" (such as alcohol, sex, drugs) and crimes that threaten a person's livelihood. The idea is that there are some crimes that are so heinous, there is no way to accept the offender back into the general population without first punishing them sufficiently. Some crimes are viewed as serious enough to require an indefinite removal from society by a life sentence, or sometimes capital punishment. It is viewed as a public service to separate these people from the general population, as it is assumed that the nature of the crime or the frequency of violation supersedes the subjective opinion of a judge. Remedying the irregularities in sentencing that arise from judicial discretion are supposed to make sentencing more fair and balanced. In Australia and the United Kingdom, sentencing has been heavily influenced by judicial idiosyncrasies. Individual judges have a significant effect on the outcome of the case, sometimes leading the public to believe that a sentence reflects more about the judge than the offender. Subsequently, creating stricter sentencing guidelines would promote consistency and fairness in the judicial system. Mandatory sentences are also supposed to serve as a general deterrence for potential criminals and repeat offenders, who are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught. This is the reasoning behind the "tough on crime" policy.

United States federal juries are generally not allowed to be informed of the mandatory minimum penalties that may apply if the accused is convicted because the jury's role is limited to a determination of guilt or innocence. However, defense attorneys sometimes have found ways to impart this information to juries; for instance, it is occasionally possible, on cross-examination of an informant who faced similar charges, to ask how much time he was facing. It is sometimes deemed permissible because it is a means of impeaching the witness. However, in at least one state court case in Idaho, it was deemed impermissible.

Notably, capital punishment has been mandatory for murder in a certain number of jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom until 1957 and Canada until 1961.

History

United States

Throughout US history, prison sentences were primarily founded upon what is known as discretionary sentencing. Leading up to this period of time, sentencing practices were largely criticized due to the discretionary applications utilized in sentencing. The assessment for sentencing was determined by three separate decisions (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy decisions to particular facts. In review of these policies regarding the applications of sentencing, the policy decisions are those that dictate what considerations should affect punishment. The second, which is factual determinations are the means by which a judge determines whether to apply a particular policy to an offender. The third decision judges make in discretionary schemes is how to apply the sentencing policies to the particular facts. This authority was applied by the judge under the discretionary sentencing system as historically practiced. It was not until the mid-twentieth century that mandatory sentencing was implemented. In short, the difference between mandatory and discretionary sentencing system lies in policy and application decisions.

Now that historical practices of sentencing have been introduced, it is just as important to outline examples in reference to (1) policy decisions, (2) factual decisions, and (3) decisions applying policy vs. decisions to particular facts.

• Policy Decisions – Policy guidelines that determine what should be acknowledged in an individuals sentencing criteria. For example: One judge might consider a reduction in time to be served vs. a judge who intends to exercise the fullest extent of the law in reference to the crime committed.
• Factual Decisions – A review of details that would enable particular policies to be applied at the discretion of the assigned judge. Hypothetically consider, two or more individuals who attempt to commit a crime using a deadly weapon. Assume these individuals reach their destination point, where they plan to commit such a crime. Then the one individual who is primarily carrying the weapon takes it out to threaten another individual and waves it about, but is suddenly spooked enough that the weapon is dropped. While the other individual who accompanied the perpetrator decides to pick up the weapon, wave it about and even inflicts force of use with the weapon in order to attempt or commit the crime.

Their actions would result in punishment as a part of the sentencing process, regardless of the type of weapon in question. The 1st, individual in fact waved the weapon, but the 2nd, waved and inflicted force of use of the weapon. Therefore, the two individuals in question regarding the same crime would receive two separate sentences.

• Decisions Applying Policy vs. Decisions to Particular Facts - This form of application is the core of discretionary sentencing. It allows for sentencing to be tailored to an individual. For example, consider a minor juvenile who has committed a crime that would allow for a lengthy sentencing period, but because the individual is a minor the assigned judge can exercise discretion and decrease the sentence to be served vs. applying the full length of the sentencing as outlined in policy and the facts associated with the crime.

Overtime, the United States had under gone developmental growth in implementation of laws, sentencing guidelines and monumental transition points in time. Beginning in the early 1900s, the United States began to assess its role on the use of drugs, their purpose and the responsibilities within the law. During this time in 1914, opiate drug use outside of medical purpose was prohibited. It was not until 1930 that marijuana would reach the same platform as opiates, prohibiting use. This further led to stiffer regulations, even though the use of marijuana was not believed to evoke violent tenancies as previously suggested in earlier years, but this level of awareness had not reached public acknowledgment. Which further led to the implementation of sentencing guidelines in reference to drug use as well as sales consisting of opiates primarily (heroin and morphine), but also to include marijuana. The sentencing guidelines outlined applied to the use and sales of drugs. However, during this time discretionary sentencing was actively practiced. Therefore, the individuals who were guilty of utilizing such drugs vs. the sale of such use typically resulted in different sentences. Mandatory sentencing and increased punishment were enacted when the United States Congress passed the Boggs Act of 1951.

The acts made a first time cannabis possession offense a minimum of two to ten years with a fine up to $20,000; however, in 1970, the United States Congress repealed mandatory penalties for cannabis offenses. With the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Congress enacted different mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana.

• 1st Offense: 2–5 years.
• 2nd Offense: 5–10 years.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 is the one act known for shaping America. The implementations of this act has had many profound affects in the legal system, as we know it today. This act led to a Drug Free initiative regarding an individual's employment, a Drug Free work place and certification requirements for employers, and a Drug Free environment for those who receive government benefits regarding low-income recipients and their housing. This act further addresses interventions regarding illegal sales of imports, the ability to overtake ones assets, if an individual is found guilty of distribution. The act also implemented the first laws surrounding money laundering, which also led to the exposure of professional dealers and further identifies the crisis we are faced with today in reference to "The War on Drugs" we still combat today. Those found guilty of distribution were sentenced as outlined.

• 5g. of Crack vs. 500 g. of Powder Cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 5 years.
• 50 g. of Crack vs. 5,000 g. of Powder Cocaine resulted in a minimum sentencing of 10 years.
• 50 g. of Powder Cocaine imported resulted in No Mandatory Sentence

Separate from each state's own courts, federal courts in the United States are guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. When a guideline sentencing range is less than the statutory mandatory minimum, the latter prevails. Under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors have great power to influence a defendant's sentence and thereby create incentives to accept a plea agreement. In particular, defendants with prior drug felonies are often subject to harsh mandatory minimums, but the prosecutor can exercise his discretion to not file a prior felony information. Then the mandatory minimum will not be applied.

Safety Valve was created in 1994 to reduce mandatory sentencing for drug offenders under the following provisions:

1. the defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
2. the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense;
3. the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury to any person;
4. the defendant was not an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in section 408 of the Controlled Substances Act; and
5. not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan, but the fact that the defendant has no relevant or useful other information to provide or that the Government is already aware of the information shall not preclude a determination by the court that the defendant has complied with this requirement.

In October 2011 a report was issued to assess the impact of United States v. Booker mandatory minimum penalties on federal sentencing by the United States Sentencing Commission.

In 2013, United States Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. announced that the Justice Department would follow a new policy restricting mandatory minimum sentences in certain drug cases. Prosecutions dropped, drug enforcement agent morale dropped, and fentanyl and heroin overdoses soared, reported The Washington Post in 2019. In Alleyne v. United States (2013) the Supreme Court held that increasing a sentence past the mandatory minimum requirement must be submitted by a jury and found factual beyond a reasonable doubt. It increases the burden on the prosecutor to prove that the sentence is necessary for the individual crime by requiring that a mandatory minimum sentence be denied for defendant unless they fulfill certain criteria. Attorney General Holder held that the charges placed on an individual should reflect the uniqueness of the case and consideration in assessing and fairly representing his/her given conduct. This is supposed to prevent recidivism.

Criminal justice advocates in the United States argue that mandatory minimum sentences are a major cause of the removal of the "bottom income half to quartile" of its population from the general public. As part of police targeting and surveillance and often harsh sentencing, mandatory sentencing often is proposed as "fairness" by those unfamiliar with the penal systems in the US. Mandatory sentencing still has not been linked to other areas such as racial profiling, a 700% increase in US prison incarceration rates, zero tolerance and prison growth at the expense of employment, housing, education, family support and quality of life.

The U.S. state of Florida has a 10-20-Life mandatory sentence law regarding sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission of another crime, and many PSA posters were created after the law was passed, which coined the slogan “Use a gun, and you’re done.” It gave a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years if the offender pulls a gun, but does not fire a shot, 20 years if at least one shot is fired, and 25 years to life if the offender shoots someone.

Australia

In 1996, 12 month mandatory sentencing laws around third offence home burglary were introduced by Western Australia through amendments to the 1913 Criminal Code. In 1997 mandatory sentencing was introduced to the Northern Territory in Australia. The three strikes and out policy raised incarceration rates of indigenous women by 223% in the first year. The incarceration rate for men rose by 57% and 67% for indigenous men. The mandatory sentencing laws sparked debate of the laws being discriminative (indirectly) as indigenous people are overrepresented in the crime statistics in the Northern Territory.

New South Wales has two mandatory sentences currently. The Crimes Amendment (Murder of Police Officers) Bill 2011 introduced mandatory life sentence without parole for a person convicted of murdering a police officer. Also, the Crimes and Other Legislation (Assault and Intoxication) Amendment 2014 introduced mandatory minimum sentencing of 8 years for alcohol fuelled acts of violence, as a response to the cases of king hit assaults in Sydney. These laws were championed by NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell largely due to the wide media coverage of similar cases, in particular the case of Kieren Loveridge who killed Thomas Kelly.

Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in Queensland, South Australia, and the Northern Territory. Life imprisonment is only mandatory in the other states for aircraft hijacking or with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years (25 years in South Australia and the Northern Territory) if a criminal is convicted of the murder of a police officer or public official.

Australia also has legislation allowing mandatory prison sentences of between five and 25 years for people smuggling, in addition to a fine of up to $500,000, and forfeiture and destruction of the vessel or aircraft used in the offence.

In 2017, the government of Victoria introduced a "two-strike" policy, with a minimum six-year jail sentence for repeat violent offenders.

Victoria also has a mandatory 10 year minimum sentence for people convicted of killing someone in a so-called "one punch" attack.

Victoria has mandatory sentencing of 6 months imprisonment for any assault of emergency workers however the courts have overruled this as is the case with https://www.news.com.au/news/national/paramedic-assault-laws-work-says-judge/news-story/64deeecddde2daee7e1c538269b31cdd

Mandatory death sentence

• In Canada until 1961, murder was punishable only by death, provided that the offender was a sane adult.
• In 1930, the city of Canton (now Guangzhou), in China, enacted a mandatory death penalty for three-time offenders.
• In Czechoslovakia, under Beneš decree No. 16/1945 Coll., informing to German authorities during World War II's occupation was subject to mandatory death sentence if it led to death of the person concerned by the act.
• In pre-1833 France, before jury were allowed to find mitigating circumstances to felonies, death penalty was the only available sentence for capital offenses.
• In Hong Kong, murder carried a mandatory death sentence until 1993 when capital punishment was legally abolished. However, the last execution was in 1966; since then all death sentences were automatically commuted into life imprisonment.
• In India, murder committed by a convict serving a life sentence carries a mandatory death sentence. The mandatory death penalty provided in Section 31A of India Law is in the nature of minimum sentence in respect of repeat offenders of specified activities and for offences involving huge quantities of specified categories of narcotic drugs. As of August 2005, aircraft hijacking also mandates use of the death penalty.
• In Japan, the only crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence is instigation of foreign aggression.
• In Malaysia and Singapore, there is a mandatory death penalty for certain offences, most notably murder and possession of a certain amount of controlled drugs.
• In Taiwan, there used to be a large number of offenses that carried a mandatory death penalty; by 2006 all these laws have been relaxed to permit judicial discretion.
• In the United Kingdom, crimes punishable by a mandatory death sentence included murder (until 1957; from 1957 to 1965, only if certain aggravating criteria were met), treason (until 1998), sedition and espionage.
• In the United States, mandatory death sentences were determined to be unconstitutional in 1976, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Woodson v. North Carolina. They were mainly used for murder and assault by life convicts.

Other

Denmark has mandatory minimum sentences for murder (five years to life) and regicide (life in prison § 115), deadly arson is punished with imprisonment from 4 years to life, and for an illegal loaded gun one year in state prison.

The state of Florida in the United States has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life, which includes the following minimums: 10 years' imprisonment for using a gun during a crime, 20 years' imprisonment for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 years' imprisonment in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.

In Canada and Ireland, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder if committed, at the time of the offence, as an adult. Parole ineligibility periods vary, but under Irish and Canadian law, are not less than 7 and 10 years, respectively.

In New Zealand, life imprisonment is mandatory for murder. Murders with certain aggravating factors have a mandatory 17-year non-parole period, instead of the default 10 years for life imprisonment. Since 2002, judges have the ability to overrule mandatory sentences where they would be deemed "manifestly unjust", such as in cases involving mercy killings and failed suicide pacts.

In Germany, murder for pleasure, sexual gratification, greed or other base motives, by stealth or cruelly or by means that pose a danger to the public or in order to facilitate or cover up another offense is mandatorily punished by life imprisonment.

In the United Kingdom, upon conviction for murder, the court must sentence the defendant to life imprisonment. The law requires that courts must set a minimum term before they become eligible for parole. For this purpose a number of "starting points" are in place that give guidance to a judge in order to impose a sentence in each different case of murder. There are currently five "starting points" for murder in England and Wales, namely: 12 years' imprisonment for cases of murder committed by a person under 18; 15 years' imprisonment for all "other" cases of murder committed by a person over 18; 25 years' imprisonment for cases of murder where a person over 18 uses a knife or other weapon at the scene; 30 years' imprisonment for cases of murder with "particularly" high aggravating factors, such as those that involve the use of a firearm or explosive, or a murder in the course of committing another offence such as robbery or burglary; and a whole life order, in cases that involve such "exceptionally" high aggravating factors, such as the murder of two or more persons, or the murder of a child following abduction or with sexual/sadistic motivation, meaning the person will never become eligible for parole.

The United Kingdom currently also has three more mandatory minimum sentences for certain offences, namely: a minimum of 7 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of trafficking, supplying or producing Class A drugs for the third or subsequent time; a minimum of 5 years' imprisonment (for a person over 18) or 3 years' imprisonment (for a person aged 16–17) for possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, transfer or sale of a prohibited firearm or weapon for the first or subsequent time; and a minimum of 3 years' imprisonment for a person over 18 convicted of a domestic burglary for the third or subsequent time.

Three strikes law

In 1994, California introduced a "Three Strikes Law", which was the first mandatory sentencing law to gain widespread publicity. This state is known for fully enforcing laws and is considered most severe in comparison to other states. The Three strikes law was intended to reduce crime by implementing extended sentencing to deter repeated offenders. This consideration further restricts one’s ability to commit new crimes.  Similar laws were subsequently adopted in most American jurisdictions.

However, California's "Three Strikes Law" is clearly outlined for all, especially those who are subjected to such sentencing.

strike (1)

• Directly affects individuals who exhibit a history regarded as violent or serious pertaining to their initial felony conviction. Should this history exist, it could greatly impact sentencing guidelines surrounding an individuals present felony conviction.

strike (2)

• An individual who has committed a crime resulting in their 2nd felony conviction, would be affected by the second strike as well. This would impact the length of the individuals sentencing by doubling the sentence one would initially be subject to, if it were their first felony conviction.

strike (3)

• Is intended individuals who appear to be repeated offenders. Therefore, this strike is for individuals who have two or more felony convictions, their sentencing would result in a minimum of 25 years to life.

A similar "three strikes" policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory life sentence on a conviction for a second "serious" violent or sexual offence (i.e. "two strikes" law), a minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug, and a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for those convicted for the third time of burglary. An amendment by the Labour opposition established that mandatory sentences should not be imposed if the judge considered it unjust.

According to figures released by the British government in 2005, just three drug dealers and eight burglars received mandatory sentences in the next seven years, because judges thought a longer sentence was unjust in all other drug and burglary cases where the defendant was found guilty. However, in 2003 a new "two strikes" law was enacted (effective from April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is dangerous.

Australia's Northern Territory in March 1997 introduced mandatory sentences of one month to one year for the third offence regarding property and theft. They were later adopted by Western Australia.

Race

Concerning US federal prisons, Barbara S. Meierhoefer, in her report for the Federal Judicial Center stated: "The proportion of black offenders grew from under 10% in 1984 to 28% of the mandatory minimum drug offenders by 1990; whites now constitute less than a majority of this group. This is a much more dramatic shift than found in the federal offender population in general."

Harsh penalties lead to racial disparity. According to the Statistical Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties presented in October 2011, "[o]f all offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum punishment and who remained subject to that penalty at sentencing, 38.5 percent were Black (n=4,076), 31.8 percent were Hispanic (n=3,364), and 27.5 percent (n=2,913) were White."

Although exceptions such as the safety valve are authorized, demographics associated with race relevant to mandatory sentencing continue to show. "Hispanic offenders received relief from applicable mandatory minimum penalties at the highest rates, with rates of 65.9 percent in fiscal year 2000, 57.7 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 55.7 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other Race offenders had the next highest rates (52.8% in fiscal year 2000, 53.1% in fiscal year 2005 and 58.9% in fiscal year 2010). Black offenders consistently had the lowest rates (45.7% in fiscal year 2000, 32.8 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 34.9% in fiscal year 2010). White offenders received relief at 60.3 percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 percent in fiscal year 2005, and 46.5 percent in fiscal year 2010."

Arguments against

Opponents of mandatory sentencing point to studies that show criminals are deterred more effectively by increasing the chances of their conviction, rather than increasing the sentence if they are convicted. In a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Judge Paul G. Cassell, from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, described mandatory sentencing as resulting in harsh sentencing and cruel and unusual punishment, stating that the sentencing requirements punish defendants "more harshly for crimes that threaten potential violence than for crimes that conclude in actual violence to victims". A hearing in 2009 heard testimony from the American Bar Association which stated that "Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy". In 2004 the association called for the repeal of mandatory minimum sentences, stating that "there is no need for mandatory minimum sentences in a guided sentencing system." A 1997 study by the RAND Corporation found that mandatory minimums for cocaine offenses were not cost-effective in regards to either cocaine consumption or drug crime.

Some judges have expressed the opinion that mandatory minimum sentencing, especially in relation to alcohol-fueled violence, is not effective. In R v O’Connor, the High Court of Australia gave the opinion that when an offender is intoxicated, there will likely be a change in their personality and behaviour, which will then affect their self-control; that, while an offender may commit an act which is voluntary and intentional, it is not something that they would have done in a sober state. Intoxication is not a justification for criminal behaviour, nor (in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and Commonwealth) a legal defence; but since an intoxicated person's decisions are less likely to be shaped by rational assessment of consequences than those of a sober person, deterrence is likely to be less effective for intoxicated people.

Research indicates that mandatory minimum sentencing effectively shifts discretion from judges to the prosecutors. Prosecutors decide what charges to bring against a defendant, and they can "stack the deck", which involves over-charging a defendant in order to get them to plead guilty. Since prosecutors are part of the executive branch, and the judicial branch has almost no role in the sentencing, the checks and balances of the democratic system are removed, thus diluting the notion of separation of powers.

 

Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that it is the proper role of a judge, not a prosecutor, to apply discretion given the particular facts of a case (e.g., whether a drug defendant was a kingpin or low-level participant, or whether sex offender registration is an appropriate measure for a given crime and offender). When prosecutors apply discretion, they tend to invoke sentencing disparities when choosing among a variety of statutes with different sentencing consequences. In addition to fairness arguments, some opponents believe that treatment is more cost-effective than long sentences. They also cite a survey indicating that the public now prefers judicial discretion to mandatory minimums.

In 2015, a number of United States reformers, including the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Koch family foundations, the Coalition for Public Safety, and the MacArthur Foundation, announced a bipartisan resolution to reform the criminal justice system and reduce mandatory sentencing laws. Their efforts were lauded by President Obama who noted these reforms will improve rehabilitation and workforce opportunities for those who have served their sentences. In their arguments they noted that mandatory sentencing is often too harsh of a punishment and cripples someone's livelihood for minor crimes.

People sentenced to mandatory sentences

• Weldon Angelos – 55 years for possessing a handgun while he sold $350 worth of marijuana to a police informant on three separate occasions
• Leandro Andrade – 50 years without parole for theft of nine video tapes
• Morton Berger – 200 years without probation, parole or pardon for twenty counts of sexual exploitation of a minor; each count represented a separate child pornography image he had possessed
• Genarlow Wilson – 10 years for aggravated child molestation; released in 2007 after serving four years because the courts decided his sentence was disproportionate to the actual facts of the crime
• Chantal McCorkle – 24 years for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; sentence subsequently reduced to 18 years on appeal
• Richard Paey – 25 years for 15 counts of drug trafficking and other charges including fraud; granted a pardon in 2007 after serving three and a half years due to the circumstances of his drug use
• Timothy L. Tyler – Life in prison for possessing 13 sheets of LSD.
• John the Painter – Sentenced to death for arson in royal dockyards.
• Van Tuong Nguyen - Sentenced to death for trafficking 396.2g of heroin through Singapore

Zero tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance 

A zero-tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero-tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-determined punishment, whether mild or severe, is always meted out.

Zero-tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may be sexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments. In 2014, the mass incarceration in the United States based upon minor offenses has resulted in an outcry on the use of zero tolerance in schools and communities.

Little evidence supports the claimed effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies. One underlying problem is that there are a great many reasons why people hesitate to intervene, or to report behavior they find to be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero-tolerance policies address, at best, only a few of these reasons.

Etymology

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the first recorded use of the term "zero tolerance" was in 1972. It was originally used in politics in the United States.

An earlier use of the term came in the mid-1960s, in reference to an absolute ban of the pesticide heptachlor by the United States Food and Drug Administration; for example, in an article that appeared in the June 1963 issue of Popular Mechanics, it is stated that "Heptachlor, though, is even more toxic and has been given a 'zero tolerance' by the FDA; that is, not even the slightest trace of heptachlor is permitted on food."

History

The idea behind zero-tolerance policies can be traced back to the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, approved in New Jersey in 1973, which has the same underlying assumptions. The ideas behind the 1973 New Jersey policy were later popularized in 1982, when a US cultural magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, published an article by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling about the broken windows theory of crime. Their name for the idea comes from the following example:

Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants.

According to scholars, zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offenses, homeless people, and the disorders associated with them.  A well-known criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security, it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes", those committed by lower social classes, excluding white-collar crimes.

On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, nearly all the scientific studies conclude that it didn't play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is claimed by its advocates. On the other hand, large majorities of people who are living in communities in which zero tolerance policing has been followed believe that in fact it has played a key, leading role in reducing crime in their communities. It has been alleged that in New York City, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him and that in the same period, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy. But the experience of the vast majority of New Yorkers led them to precisely the opposite conclusion and allowed a Republican to win and retain the Mayor's office for the first time in decades in large part because of the perception that zero tolerance policing was key to the improving crime situation in New York City. On the other hand, some argue that in the years 1984–87 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani's one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two American specialists, Edward Maguire, a Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the effectiveness of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that "neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves any impact on the evolution of offenses." They argue that crime decrease was due not to the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

An alternative argument comes from Kelling and William Bratton, Giuliani's original police chief, who argue that broken windows policing methods did contribute to the decrease in crime, but that they were not a form of zero tolerance:

Critics use the term "zero tolerance" in a pejorative sense to suggest that Broken Windows policing is a form of zealotry—the imposition of rigid, moralistic standards of behavior on diverse populations. It is not. Broken Windows is a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidelines, and supervision, as well as an ongoing dialogue with neighborhoods and communities to ensure that it is properly conducted

Sheldon Wein has set out a list of six characteristics of a zero tolerance policy:

1. Full enforcement (all those for whom there is adequate evidence that they have violated the rule are to be identified)
2. Lack of prosecutorial discretion (for every plausibly accused person, it is determined whether the person has in fact violated the policy)
3. Strict constructivist interpretation (no room for narrow interpretation of the rule)
4. Strict liability (no excuses or justifications)
5. Mandatory punishment (not under a mandatory minimum penalty)
6. Harsh punishment (mandatory minimum penalty is considered relatively harsh given the nature of the offence).

Wein sees these points as representing "focal meaning" of the concept, namely, that not each one need be met literally, yet that any policy that clearly meets all six of these conditions would definitely be seen as a case of a zero tolerance policy.

Applications

Bullying in the workplace

Various institutions have undertaken zero-tolerance policies, for example, in the military, in the workplace, and in schools, in an effort to eliminate various kinds of illegal behavior, such as harassment. Proponents hope that such policies will underscore the commitment of administrators to prevent such behavior. Others raise a concern about that use of zero-tolerance policies, a concern that derives from analysis of errors of omission versus errors of commission. The reasoning is that failure to proscribe unacceptable behavior may lead to errors of omission, and too little will be done. However, zero tolerance may be seen as a kind of ruthless management, which may lead to a perception of "too much being done." If people fear that their co-workers or fellow students may be fired, terminated, or expelled, they may not come forward at all when they see behavior deemed unacceptable. (That is a classic example of Type I and type II errors.) Too stringent a policy may actually reduce reports of illegal behavior.

Narcotics

In the United States, zero tolerance, as an approach against drugs, was originally designed as a part of the War on Drugs under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ostensibly to curb the transfer of drugs at the borders. Law enforcement was to target the drug users rather than the transporters or suppliers under the assumptions that harsh sentences and strict enforcement of personal use would reduce demand and strike at root cause of the drug problem. The policy did not require additional laws; instead, existing law was enacted with less leniency. Similar concepts in other countries, such as Sweden, Italy, Japan, Singapore China, India, and Russia have since been labeled zero tolerance.

A consistence of zero tolerance is the absolute dichotomy between the legality of any use and no use, equating all illicit drugs and any form of use as undesirable and harmful to society. That is contrasting to viewpoints of those who stress the disparity in harmfulness among drugs and would like to distinguish between occasional drug use and problem drug use. Although some harm reductionists also see drug use as generally undesirable, they hold that the resources would do more good if they were allocated toward helping problem drug users, instead of combating all drug users. For example, research from Switzerland indicates that emphasis on problem drug users "seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people."

More generally, zero-tolerance advocates holds the aim at ridding the society of all illicit drug use and that criminal justice has an important role in that endeavor. The Swedish parliament for example set the vision a drug-free society as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. The visions were to prompt new practices inspired by Nils Bejerot, which were later called zero tolerance. In 1980, the Swedish attorney general dropped the practice of giving waivers for possession of drugs for personal use after years of lowering the thresholds. The same year, police began to prioritize drug users and street-level drug crimes over drug distributors. In 1988, all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal, and in 1993, the enforcement of personal use was eased by permitting the police to take blood or urine samples from suspects. The unrelenting approach towards drug users, together with generous treatment opportunities, has received UNODC's approval, and it is cited by the UN as one of the main reasons for Sweden's relatively low drug prevalence rates. However, that interpretation of the statistics and the more general success of Sweden's drug policies are disputed.

Driving

The term is used in the context of driving under the influence of alcohol to refer to a lower illegal blood alcohol content for drivers under the age of 21. In the US, the legal limit in almost all states is .08%. Utah is the exception, with .05% being the limit. For drivers under 21, the prohibited level in 16 states is .01% or .02%, which is also true in Puerto Rico, despite its drinking age of 18.

In Europe, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden have zero-tolerance laws for drugs and driving, as opposed to the other main legal approach in which laws forbidding impaired driving are enacted instead. Legislation varies in different countries that practice zero tolerance on drug use for drivers. Only a limited set of (common) drugs is included in the zero-tolerance legislation in Germany and Belgium, but in Finland and Sweden, all controlled substances fall into the scope of zero tolerance unless they are covered by a prescription.

In Argentina, the Cordoba State Highway Patrol enforces a zero-tolerance policy.

In Asia, Japan also practices zero-tolerance, and people will receive a fine and can be fired for DUI, even the next morning if there are still traces of alcohol. Foreigners may even be deported.

In schools

Zero-tolerance policies have been adopted in schools and other education venues around the world. The policies are usually promoted as preventing drug abuse, violence, and gang activity in schools. In schools, common zero-tolerance policies concern possession or use of drugs or weapons. Students and sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors, who possess a banned item or perform any prohibited action for any reason are automatically punished. School administrators are barred from using their judgment, reducing severe punishments to be proportional to minor offenses, or considering extenuating circumstances. For example, the policies treat possession of a knife identically, regardless of whether the knife is a blunt table knife being used to eat a meal, a craft knife used in an art class, or switchblade with no reasonable practical or educational value. Consequently, the policies are sometimes derided as "zero-intelligence policies".

There is no credible evidence of zero tolerance reducing violence or drug abuse by students.

The unintended negative consequences are clearly documented and sometimes severe:  school suspension and expulsion result in a number of negative outcomes for both schools and students.

Although the policies are facially neutral, minority children are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of zero tolerance.

The policies have also resulted in embarrassing publicity for schools and have been struck down by the courts and by Departments of Education, and they have been weakened by legislatures.

Criticism

Some critics have argued that zero-tolerance policing violates the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct passed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police: "The fundamental duties of a police officer include serving the community, safeguarding lives and property, protecting the innocent, keeping the peace and ensuring the rights of all to liberty, equality and justice". The code requires that police behave in a courteous and fair manner, treat all citizens in a respectable and decent manner, never use unnecessary force. As Robinson (2002: 206) explains:

Zero-tolerance policing runs counter to community policing and logical crime prevention efforts. To whatever degree street sweeps are viewed by citizens as brutal, suspect, militaristic, or the biased efforts of "outsiders," citizens will be discouraged from taking active roles in community building activities and crime prevention initiatives in conjunction with the police. Perhaps this is why the communities that most need neighborhood watch programs are least likely to be populated by residents who take active roles in them.

Critics say that zero-tolerance policing fails because it destroys several important requisites for successful community policing; police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation (Cox and Wade 1998: 106).

Zero tolerance violates principles of health and human services and standards for the education and healthy growth of children, families and communities. Even traditional community service providers in the 1970s aimed for "services for all" (such as zero reject), instead of 100% societal exclusion (zero tolerance). Public administration and disability has supported principles that include education, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, and political participation in the community which zero-tolerance groups claim are not a right in the US.

Opponents of zero tolerance believe that such a policy neglects investigation on a case-by-case basis and may lead to unreasonably harsh penalties for crimes that may not warrant such penalties in reality. Another criticism of zero-tolerance policies is that it gives officers and the legal system little discretion in dealing with offenders. Zero-tolerance policies may prohibit their enforcers from making the punishment fit the crime.

It also may cause offenders to go farther since they know that if the punishment is the same for a little or a lot. That phenomenon of human nature is described in an adage that dates back to at least the 17th century, "might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb". Until 1820, the English law prescribed hanging for stealing anything worth more than one shilling, whether it was a low-value lamb or a whole flock of sheep.

In the kids for cash scandal, Judge Mark Ciavarella, who promoted a platform of zero tolerance, received kickbacks for constructing a private prison that housed juvenile offenders and then proceeded to fill the prison by sentencing children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, scuffles in hallways, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Walmart. Critics of zero-tolerance policies argue that harsh punishments for minor offences are normalized. The documentary Kids for Cash interviews experts on adolescent behaviour who argue that the zero-tolerance model has become a dominant approach to policing juvenile offences after the Columbine shooting.

Recently, argumentation theorists (especially Sheldon Wein) have suggested that, frequently, when people advocate adopting a zero tolerance policy, they commit what he has called the "zero tolerance fallacy". Subsequently, Wein has proposed standards which arguments for zero tolerance policies must meet in order to avoid such fallacious inferences.

Cognitive architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cognitive architecture refers to both a theory about the structure of the human mind and to a computational instantiation of such a theory used in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and computational cognitive science. One of the main goals of a cognitive architecture is to summarize the various results of cognitive psychology in a comprehensive computer model. However, the results need to be formalized so far as they can be the basis of a computer program. The formalized models can be used to further refine a comprehensive theory of cognition, and more immediately, as a commercially usable model. Successful cognitive architectures include ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought - Rational) and SOAR.

The Institute for Creative Technologies defines cognitive architecture as: "hypothesis about the fixed structures that provide a mind, whether in natural or artificial systems, and how they work together – in conjunction with knowledge and skills embodied within the architecture – to yield intelligent behavior in a diversity of complex environments."

History

Herbert A. Simon, one of the founders of the field of artificial intelligence, stated that the 1960 thesis by his student Ed Feigenbaum, EPAM provided a possible "architecture for cognition" because it included some commitments for how more than one fundamental aspect of the human mind worked (in EPAM's case, human memory and human learning).

 

John R. Anderson started research on human memory in the early 1970s and his 1973 thesis with Gordon H. Bower provided a theory of human associative memory. He included more aspects of his research on long-term memory and thinking processes into this research and eventually designed a cognitive architecture he eventually called ACT. He and his students were influenced by Allen Newell's use of the term "cognitive architecture". Anderson's lab used the term to refer to the ACT theory as embodied in a collection of papers and designs (there was not a complete implementation of ACT at the time).

In 1983 John R. Anderson published the seminal work in this area, entitled The Architecture of Cognition. One can distinguish between the theory of cognition and the implementation of the theory. The theory of cognition outlined the structure of the various parts of the mind and made commitments to the use of rules, associative networks, and other aspects. The cognitive architecture implements the theory on computers. The software used to implement the cognitive architectures were also "cognitive architectures". Thus, a cognitive architecture can also refer to a blueprint for intelligent agents. It proposes (artificial) computational processes that act like certain cognitive systems, most often, like a person, or acts intelligent under some definition. Cognitive architectures form a subset of general agent architectures. The term 'architecture' implies an approach that attempts to model not only behavior, but also structural properties of the modelled system.

Distinctions

Cognitive architectures can be symbolic, connectionist, or hybrid. Some cognitive architectures or models are based on a set of generic rules, as, e.g., the Information Processing Language (e.g., Soar based on the unified theory of cognition, or similarly ACT-R). Many of these architectures are based on the-mind-is-like-a-computer analogy. In contrast subsymbolic processing specifies no such rules a priori and relies on emergent properties of processing units (e.g. nodes). Hybrid architectures combine both types of processing (such as CLARION). A further distinction is whether the architecture is centralized with a neural correlate of a processor at its core, or decentralized (distributed). The decentralized flavor, has become popular under the name of parallel distributed processing in mid-1980s and connectionism, a prime example being neural networks. A further design issue is additionally a decision between holistic and atomistic, or (more concrete) modular structure. By analogy, this extends to issues of knowledge representation.

In traditional AI, intelligence is often programmed from above: the programmer is the creator, and makes something and imbues it with its intelligence, though many traditional AI systems were also designed to learn (e.g. improving their game-playing or problem-solving competence). Biologically inspired computing, on the other hand, takes sometimes a more bottom-up, decentralised approach; bio-inspired techniques often involve the method of specifying a set of simple generic rules or a set of simple nodes, from the interaction of which emerges the overall behavior. It is hoped to build up complexity until the end result is something markedly complex (see complex systems). However, it is also arguable that systems designed top–down on the basis of observations of what humans and other animals can do rather than on observations of brain mechanisms, are also biologically inspired, though in a different way.

Notable examples

A comprehensive review of implemented cognitive architectures has been undertaken in 2010 by Samsonovich et al. and is available as an online repository. Some well-known cognitive architectures, in alphabetical order:

• 4CAPS, developed at Carnegie Mellon University under Marcel A. Just
• 4D-RCS Reference Model Architecture developed by James Albus at NIST is a reference model architecture that provides a theoretical foundation for designing, engineering, integrating intelligent systems software for unmanned ground vehicles.
• ACT-R, developed at Carnegie Mellon University under John R. Anderson.
• ALifeE, developed under Toni Conde at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
• ANCS, a cognitive model was developed by Abdul Salam Mubashar at QUINTELLISENSE.
• Apex developed under Michael Freed at NASA Ames Research Center.
• ASMO, developed under Rony Novianto at University of Technology, Sydney.
• Behaviour Oriented Design, developed by Joanna J. Bryson at MIT.
• CHREST, developed under Fernand Gobet at Brunel University and Peter C. Lane at the University of Hertfordshire.
• CLARION the cognitive architecture, developed under Ron Sun at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and University of Missouri.
• CMAC – The Cerebellar Model Articulation Controller (CMAC) is a type of neural network based on a model of the mammalian cerebellum. It is a type of associative memory. The CMAC was first proposed as a function modeler for robotic controllers by James Albus in 1975 and has been extensively used in reinforcement learning and also as for automated classification in the machine learning community.
• CMatie is a 'conscious' software agent developed to manage seminar announcements in the Mathematical Sciences Department at the University of Memphis. It's based on Sparse distributed memory augmented with the use of genetic algorithms as an associative memory.
• Copycat, by Douglas Hofstadter and Melanie Mitchell at the Indiana University.
• DUAL, developed at the New Bulgarian University under Boicho Kokinov.
• DUAL PECCS, developed under Antonio Lieto at the University of Turin - A hybrid knowledge representation and processing system integrated with the declarative memories and the knowledge retrieval mechanisms of the following cognitive architectures: ACT-R, CLARION, LIDA and Soar.
• EPIC, developed under David E. Kieras and David E. Meyer at the University of Michigan.
• FORR developed by Susan L. Epstein at The City University of New York.
• GAIuS developed by Sevak Avakians.
• Genie – "General Evolving Networked Intelligence Engine" is a Cognitive Computing Platform developed by Intelligent Artifacts and built on top of GAIuS. Its "no data modeling" paradigm and simple API calls enables anyone to build and deploy powerful custom artificial intelligence applications within minutes.
• Google DeepMind – The company has created a neural network that learns how to play video games in a similar fashion to humans and a neural network that may be able to access an external memory like a conventional Turing machine, resulting in a computer that appears to possibly mimic the short-term memory of the human brain. The underlying algorithm is based on a combination of Q-learning with multilayer recurrent neural network.
• Holographic associative memory is part of the family of correlation-based associative memories, where information is mapped onto the phase orientation of complex numbers on a Riemann plane. It was inspired by holonomic brain model by Karl H. Pribram. Holographs have been shown to be effective for associative memory tasks, generalization, and pattern recognition with changeable attention.
• The H-Cogaff architecture, which is a special case of the CogAff schema.
• Hierarchical temporal memory is an online machine learning model developed by Jeff Hawkins and Dileep George of Numenta, Inc. that models some of the structural and algorithmic properties of the neocortex. HTM is a biomimetic model based on the memory-prediction theory of brain function described by Jeff Hawkins in his book On Intelligence. HTM is a method for discovering and inferring the high-level causes of observed input patterns and sequences, thus building an increasingly complex model of the world.
• CoJACK An ACT-R inspired extension to the JACK multi-agent system that adds a cognitive architecture to the agents for eliciting more realistic (human-like) behaviors in virtual environments.
• IDA and LIDA, implementing Global Workspace Theory, developed under Stan Franklin at the University of Memphis.
• Memory Networks – created by Facebook AI research group in 2014 this architecture presents a new class of learning models called memory networks. Memory networks reason with inference components combined with a long-term memory component; they learn how to use these jointly. The long-term memory can be read and written to, with the goal of using it for prediction.
• MANIC (Cognitive Architecture), Michael S. Gashler, University of Arkansas.
• MIDCA (Cognitive Architecture), Michael T. Cox, Wright State University.
• PreAct, developed under Dr. Norm Geddes at ASI.
• PRODIGY, by Veloso et al.
• PRS 'Procedural Reasoning System', developed by Michael Georgeff and Amy Lansky at SRI International.
• Psi-Theory developed under Dietrich Dörner at the Otto-Friedrich University in Bamberg, Germany.
• R-CAST, developed at the Pennsylvania State University.
• Sigma, developed at the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies
• Spaun (Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network) – by Chris Eliasmith at the Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience at the University of Waterloo – Spaun is a network of 2,500,000 artificial spiking neurons, which uses groups of these neurons to complete cognitive tasks via flexibile coordination. Components of the model communicate using spiking neurons that implement neural representations called "semantic pointers" using various firing patterns. Semantic pointers can be understood as being elements of a compressed neural vector space.
• Soar, developed under Allen Newell and John Laird at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Michigan.
• Society of mind and its successor the Emotion machine proposed by Marvin Minsky.
• Sparse distributed memory was proposed by Pentti Kanerva at NASA Ames Research Center as a realizable architecture that could store large patterns and retrieve them based on partial matches with patterns representing current sensory inputs. This memory exhibits behaviors, both in theory and in experiment, that resemble those previously unapproached by machines – e.g., rapid recognition of faces or odors, discovery of new connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, etc. Sparse distributed memory is used for storing and retrieving large amounts (${\displaystyle 2^{1000}}$ bits) of information without focusing on the accuracy but on similarity of information. There are some recent applications in robot navigation and experience-based robot manipulation.
• Sparsey by Neurithmic Systems is an event recognition framework via deep hierarchical sparse distributed codes
• Subsumption architectures, developed e.g. by Rodney Brooks (though it could be argued whether they are cognitive).
• QuBIC: Quantum and Bio-inspired Cognitive Architecture for Machine Consciousness developed by Wajahat M. Qazi and Khalil Ahmad at Department of Computer Science, GC University Lahore Pakistan and School of Computer Science, NCBA&E Lahore, Pakistan
• TinyCog a minimalist open-source implementation of a cognitive architecture based on the ideas of Scene Based Reasoning
• Vector LIDA is a variation of the LIDA cognitive architecture that employs high-dimensional Modular Composite Representation (MCR) vectors as its main representation model and Integer Sparse Distributed Memory as its main memory implementation technology. The advantages of this new model include a more realistic and biologically plausible model, better integration with its episodic memory, better integration with other low level perceptual processing (such as deep learning systems), better scalability, and easier learning mechanisms.
• VisNet by Edmund Rolls at the Oxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience – A feature hierarchy model in which invariant representations can be built by self-organizing learning based on the temporal and spatial statistics of the visual input produced by objects as they transform in the world.

Accelerationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism 

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that capitalism and its historically associated processes should be accelerated instead of overcome in order to generate radical social change. Accelerationism may also refer more broadly and usually pejoratively to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse. Some contemporary accelerationist philosophy starts with the Deleuzo-Guattarian sociology theory of deterritorialization, aiming to identify and radicalize the social forces that promote this emancipatory process.

Accelerationist theory has been divided into mutually contradictory left-wing and right-wing variants. Left-wing accelerationism attempts to press "the process of technological evolution" beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends. Right-wing accelerationism supports the indefinite intensification of capitalism itself, possibly in order to bring about a technological singularity. Accelerationist writers have additionally distinguished other variants such as "unconditional accelerationism". A far-right and white nationalist adaptation of the term surfacing during the 2010s eschews the focus on capitalism of the prior variants to refer to an acceleration of racial conflict through terrorism, resulting in a societal collapse and building of a white ethnostate.

Background

In his essay "A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism", Nick Land cites a number of philosophers who have expressed apparently accelerationist attitudes. These include Karl Marx in his 1848 speech "On the Question of Free Trade", advocating free trade on possible accelerationist principles as follows:

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

In a similar vein, Friedrich Nietzsche argued that "the leveling process of European man is the great process which should not be checked: one should even accelerate it", a statement often simplified, following Deleuze and Guattari, to a command to "accelerate the process".

Contemporary accelerationism

Prominent theorists include right-wing accelerationist Nick Land. The Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU), an unofficial research unit at the University of Warwick from 1995 to 2003, included Land as well as other social theorists such as Mark Fisher and Sadie Plant as members and is considered a key progenitor in both left-wing and right-wing accelerationist thought. Prominent contemporary left-wing accelerationists include Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, authors of the "Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics"; and the Laboria Cuboniks collective, who authored the manifesto "Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation". For Mark Fisher, writing in 2012, "Land's withering assaults on the academic left [...] remain trenchant", although problematic since "Marxism is nothing if it is not accelerationist".

Along accelerationist lines, Paul Mason has tried to speculate about futures after capitalism in works such as PostCapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. Mason declares that "[a]s with the end of feudalism 500 years ago, capitalism's replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human being. And it has started". He considers that the rise of collaborative production will eventually help capitalism to kill itself.

Focusing on how information technology infrastructures undermine modern political geographies and proposing an open-ended "design brief", Benjamin H. Bratton's book The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty is associated with accelerationism. Tiziana Terranova's "Red Stack Attack!" links Bratton's stack model and left-wing accelerationism.

Other forms of accelerationism

Since accelerationism was coined in 2010 by Benjamin Noys to describe the aforementioned philosophical movement, the term has suffered from considerable conceptual stretching and has taken on several new meanings.

Žižekian accelerationism

Several commentators have used the label accelerationist to describe a political strategy articulated by the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. In a November 2016 interview with Channel 4 News, Žižek asserted that were he an American citizen, he would vote for Donald Trump as the candidate more likely to disrupt the status quo of politics in that country. This usage of the term accelerationism bears similarities to the Marxist immiseration thesis.

Far-right accelerationism

Since the late 2010s, neo-Nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists have increasingly embraced a violent form of accelerationism as a way of establishing a white ethnostate. The origins of the far-right version of accelerationism dates back to the 1980s, when American Nazi Party-National Socialist Liberation Front (ANP/NSLF) member James Mason advocated in the newsletter Siege for sabotage, mass killings and assassinations of high-profile targets to create chaos and destabilize and eventually destroy the system. His works were later republished and popularized by Iron March and Atomwaffen Division, both connected to terror attacks and numerous killings. According to Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a nonprofit organization renowned for tracking hate groups and filing class action lawsuit against discrimination:

Other ideological variants of accelerationism seek to push beyond capitalism by bringing it to its most oppressive and divisive form, prompting a movement to build a just economic system in response. In the case of white supremacists, the accelerationist set sees modern society as irredeemable and believe it should be pushed to collapse so a fascist society built on ethnonationalism can take its place. What defines white supremacist accelerationists is their belief that violence is the only way to pursue their political goals. To put it most simply, accelerationists embrace terrorism.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings that killed 51 people and injured 49 others, had embraced accelerationism in a section of his manifesto titled "Destabilization and Accelerationism: tactics". It also influenced John Timothy Earnest, the man accused of causing the Escondido mosque fire at Dar-ul-Arqam Mosque in Escondido, California; and committing the Poway synagogue shooting which resulted in one dead and three injured. Furthermore, it influenced Patrick Crusius, the man accused of committing the El Paso Walmart shooting that killed 23 people and injured 23 others. Brenton Tarrant wrote:

True change and the change we need to enact only arises in the great crucible of crisis. A gradual change is never going to achieve victory. Stability and comfort are the enemies of revolutionary change. Therefore [sic] we must destabilize and discomfort society where ever possible.

Although this tendency is distinct from Landian accelerationism, Land has promoted Atomwaffen-affiliated Order of Nine Angles that adheres to the ideology of neo-nazi terrorist accelerationism, describing O9A's works as "highly-recommended".