3 ms·

> It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment. I'd be very nervous a

> It shows that modest, swift, carefully metered punishment is a lot more effective than the more traditional slow, but heavy punishment. I'd be very nervous about extending this beyond drunk driving. With DUIs, breathalyzers are essentially "proof" of the crime (to the extent that there is ever incontrovertible proof for any crime). And if you refuse a breathalyzer, you've violated the implied consent law, so there's no ambiguity there either. You may be able to get off on a technicality, but it's rather difficult to abuse this, short of a police officer falsifying breathalyzer results outright. But for most other crimes, there's a lot of ambiguity, which is why we have a separation between LEOs and the court system. I'm already uncomfortable with the level of unchecked power that LEOs (and non-LEOs, like the TSA) have today. I really don't want them to have any more leeway with detention of civilians.

DenisM 11y ago
You seem to be under the impression that this method abdicates judicial review? That's not the case, the metered punishment is delivered in pieces after the court order. That is rather than send a person to jail upon conviction, a judge would put them on electronic probation, where each violation results into a small, immediate penalty. This will help in two way - prevent harsh sentences for simple missteps, and actual train people to follow the rules of the law by shortening feedback loop of the events.
hackeraccount 11y ago
In a perfect world if you extended this beyond DUI the punishments given out would be reduced. Especially, the punishments that happen after you serve your time. One of my biggest problems with criminal justice system is the way the ex-cons are dogged by their mistakes for the rest of their life. I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair. It is unfair if you believe that the jail is supposed to rehabilitate people. It seems to me that people believe it in theory but don't believe it in practice.
  - agarden 11y ago
    It is also unfair if their crime was more a matter of the circumstances they found themselves in than their baked-in character. For example, if they got convicted for second-degree murder because they had a hot-tempered friend in college who started a fight, they tried to held, and then the friend pulled a gun and shot someone. That's the kind of mistake some (many?) people are not likely to make again. But the record is permanent. And due to Fundamental Attribution Error, the world is inclined to believe that they were involved and did what they did with intent because they had and continue to have a flawed character.

DenisM 11y ago

You seem to be under the impression that this method abdicates judicial review? That's not the case, the metered punishment is delivered in pieces after the court order. That is rather than send a person to jail upon conviction, a judge would put them on electronic probation, where each violation results into a small, immediate penalty. This will help in two way - prevent harsh sentences for simple missteps, and actual train people to follow the rules of the law by shortening feedback loop of the events.

hackeraccount 11y ago

In a perfect world if you extended this beyond DUI the punishments given out would be reduced. Especially, the punishments that happen after you serve your time. One of my biggest problems with criminal justice system is the way the ex-cons are dogged by their mistakes for the rest of their life. I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> I understand the interest an employer (or in the worst of cases a neighbor) might have in knowing that about a person but... somehow it seems deeply unfair. It is unfair if you believe that the jail is supposed to rehabilitate people. It seems to me that people believe it in theory but don't believe it in practice.
- agarden 11y ago
  It is also unfair if their crime was more a matter of the circumstances they found themselves in than their baked-in character. For example, if they got convicted for second-degree murder because they had a hot-tempered friend in college who started a fight, they tried to held, and then the friend pulled a gun and shot someone. That's the kind of mistake some (many?) people are not likely to make again. But the record is permanent. And due to Fundamental Attribution Error, the world is inclined to believe that they were involved and did what they did with intent because they had and continue to have a flawed character.