3 ms·

That is not justice, that is revenge. A base desire that civilized persons should attempt to overcome. A person should be in jail if they are proven to be a c

That is not justice, that is revenge. A base desire that civilized persons should attempt to overcome. A person should be in jail if they are proven to be a continuing danger to others. A person should not be put in a cage simply to give the victim an emotional release under the "Eye for an Eye" doctrine. Monetary compensation to victims is an attempt to make a person whole. Victims of all types of crime suffer actual damages such as medical bills, lost wages, damage to property. There is there are indirect damages for things like victim counseling. Often times it is simply not possible to fully make a person "whole" again after a crime, however monetary compensation is the best option we have today to ensure the victim can get the needed treatment, or aid they need to at-least move forward with their lives Locking persons in a cage does not help the victim, or the criminal. Prison should be used to separate persons from society to dangerous to be allowed to walk free... Nothing else.

katbyte 11y ago
>A person should be in jail if they are proven to be a continuing danger to others no. i'm sorry but just no. People are in prison because their actions have proven they are a danger to others and should only be released then they have PROVEN THEY ARE NOT a danger to others.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  How do you prove a negative? Do you believe people should be guilty until proven innocent as well? Functionally that is what you are saying
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Imagine yourself being arrested and convicted by mistake (eg due to mistaken identity or prosecutorial shenanigans) and now figure out how you would go about proving your non-dangerous status.
  - Asbostos 11y ago
    We have to assume the conviction is correct. Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent. So once we're sure somebody did a crime, I would say we don't give the criminal the benefit of the doubt that they're probably safe. Rather we somehow find out that they're safe enough before releasing them. Erring on the side of "not safe".
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      We have an appeals process precisely because such assumptions are unreliable. The GP is essentially proposing we hand everyone a life sentence by default, which is hardly an improvement on the status quo.
    - msandford 11y ago
      > We have to assume the conviction is correct. That's a pretty big assumption given that prosecutors face no professional or personal consequences for wrongful convictions, even if they are particularly egregious.
    - fsloth 11y ago
      "We have to assume the conviction is correct." That takes quite a faith in process that has little remedial feedback. Unlike say engineering or medicine where there can be a said to be an objectively observable system where all strive towards similar outcomes - and even those disciplines screw up constantly. "Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent" There is a huge category of crime where long term incarceration absolutely does no help to anyone whatsoever.
- vidarh 11y ago
  A substantial proportion of people in prison are not there for doing anything that endangered or harmed others.

katbyte 11y ago

>A person should be in jail if they are proven to be a continuing danger to others no. i'm sorry but just no. People are in prison because their actions have proven they are a danger to others and should only be released then they have PROVEN THEY ARE NOT a danger to others.

the_ancient 11y ago
How do you prove a negative? Do you believe people should be guilty until proven innocent as well? Functionally that is what you are saying
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 11y ago
Imagine yourself being arrested and convicted by mistake (eg due to mistaken identity or prosecutorial shenanigans) and now figure out how you would go about proving your non-dangerous status.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  We have to assume the conviction is correct. Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent. So once we're sure somebody did a crime, I would say we don't give the criminal the benefit of the doubt that they're probably safe. Rather we somehow find out that they're safe enough before releasing them. Erring on the side of "not safe".
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    We have an appeals process precisely because such assumptions are unreliable. The GP is essentially proposing we hand everyone a life sentence by default, which is hardly an improvement on the status quo.
  - msandford 11y ago
    > We have to assume the conviction is correct. That's a pretty big assumption given that prosecutors face no professional or personal consequences for wrongful convictions, even if they are particularly egregious.
  - fsloth 11y ago
    "We have to assume the conviction is correct." That takes quite a faith in process that has little remedial feedback. Unlike say engineering or medicine where there can be a said to be an objectively observable system where all strive towards similar outcomes - and even those disciplines screw up constantly. "Otherwise that leads to basically letting everyone go free just in case they're actually innocent" There is a huge category of crime where long term incarceration absolutely does no help to anyone whatsoever.
vidarh 11y ago
A substantial proportion of people in prison are not there for doing anything that endangered or harmed others.