3 ms·
He empowered her to choose her own justice, her own restitution. On a related note, I'm reminded of an article that examined the effect choice has on us, and t
by deogeo 7y ago
He empowered her to choose her own justice, her own restitution.
On a related note, I'm reminded of an article that examined the effect choice has on us, and that often, we're happier without it. One of the examples was even, I believe, a study about major medical decisions, that showed patients were happier when doctors decided for them. But I forgot the exact scope of the medical decisions, and can't find the article or study - if anyone else can, I'd be very grateful.
In any case, this article serves as a fine example - the victim is unhappy about being given choice over the punishment.
- bllllrrrp 7y agoI think it's easy to see how the "choice" in this situation comes off as a request to "buy forgiveness" on behalf of the perpetrator. The harm that was done is not primarily financial, financial restitution would never "make it right" at an emotional level, and undermines the desire to quarantine individuals that have proven themselves to be a danger to others. The choice would be insulting to many people, and directly opposed to common ideals about justice. In light of that, calling it "empowerment" comes off as a little tone-deaf, and I doubt the response would be any different if the judge had unilaterally chosen X years + Y dollars, but it later came to light that X+N years and 0 dollars had been an equally valid option.