2 ms·
One possible hack you could try is defining three categories: 1. Definitely violent crimes, like stabbing someone and taking his wallet. 2. Definitely non-vio
by pjscott 16y ago
One possible hack you could try is defining three categories:
1. Definitely violent crimes, like stabbing someone and taking his wallet.
2. Definitely non-violent crimes, like selling illegal drugs.
3. Crimes we're not entirely sure about. If you imprison people whose crimes fall in this category, they should only go to prisons with other people in this category.
Of course nothing is a perfect solution here, but I think this might be a helpful way of thinking about it.
- baddox 16y agoPerhaps it's best to say we shouldn't have prison sentences for victim-less crimes. That way, we can clearly identify drug possession or dealing as victim-less, and fraud clearly has victims. Of course, at that point, you can easily argue that "victim-less crimes" shouldn't be crimes at all. Some sort of exception would have to be made for simple stuff like traffic/parking violations.
- wtallis 16y agoTraffic and parking crimes have victims, they're just not easy to identify. When you make crazy maneuvers on a highway without signalling and trigger a traffic jam that persists for two hours, you have quite a few victims, all affected in minor ways, but it adds up. Parking violations do not always have victims, but clearly you shouldn't be off the hook just because you got lucky that nobody handicapped showed up to find you had taken the spot reserved for people like them. We don't need any special exceptions in order to keep those violations in the same category as fraud.