3 ms·
As a victim of two violent crimes during the last 15 years, and the target of a vindictive civil tort by a person that had been declared insane in both legal an
by BJBBB 6y ago
As a victim of two violent crimes during the last 15 years, and the target of a vindictive civil tort by a person that had been declared insane in both legal and clinical terms, to me the sense of 'morality' as rationale does not seem reasonable.
There are many people that make, and continue to make, a series of poor choices. Some of these choices, while seemingly innocent and benign, can affect other people and make their lives not worth living (as mine has become). Lack of of an malevolent intent may not always be an indicator for punishment of criminal acts. Negative societal effects, victims' personal tragedies, and other stuff must be considered for determination of punishment.
That said, there are some that have been swept up by the legal system that may not have received an appropriate punishment in moral terms. But I have no solution to this mess that lies at the intersection of legal, societal, moral, and ethical domains.
- notmadnomad 6y agoSorry, but anecdotal experiences does not justify "tough on crime" brutal, disproportionate retribution when there are greater systematic forces at work that merely looking at individual cases and greater-good issues like reform as in most other civilized countries. For minor crimes, eventually that convicted criminal will have served their time and be someone's neighbor. To selfishly discard people and throw away the key is not a criminal justice system, but a punitive hell that will not rehabilitate anyone. For one, mens rea is essential because there is a difference between sociopathic and unintentional harm. Without nuance, there is no need for a judge or DA. Mandatory minimums are complete BS.