6 ms·

This is so depressing. I really hate our punitive justice system. Punishing people for 15 years doesn't change drunk driving. If they were thinking before dr

This is so depressing. I really hate our punitive justice system. Punishing people for 15 years doesn't change drunk driving. If they were *thinking* before driving drunk, or contemplating the consequences, they wouldn't be driving drunk. Edit: I think this puts it far better than I can: http://www.cscsb.org/restorative_justice/retribution_vs_restoration.html http://www.cscsb.org/restorative_justice/retribution_vs_rest...

influx 6y ago
What would you rather do if someone drives drunk and kills two teenagers?
- aaomidi 6y ago
  I don't know, I just don't see the point of essentially killing another person. Is the point revenge? To make sure this doesn't happen again? Is justice = revenge? Questions... Like I guess my point is someone who is driving drunk is already not thinking logically. You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.
  - screamingninja 6y ago
    You can however stop punishing drunk driving and watch the number of drunk driving incidents skyrocket. The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      Again I don't think someone who is behind the wheel driving drunk is thinking about the consequences of their actions. I don't think the severity of the punishment changes that. I'd much rather see why drunk driving rates is far higher in the US than other countries with similar laws and transpiration systems.
      - screamingninja 6y ago
        I don't think I understand what alternative solution you are proposing here.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        1. Look at why drunk driving is a much larger problem in the US than other places. 2. Is there stuff we can do to fix the discrepancy in the US. 3. Can the perpetrator of harm in society be a part of fixing the harm they have done, and preventing more harm in society. I think punitive justice is just the easy way out and never addresses the roots of the problems. For example, imagine instead of jailing people for 15 years, we used that money to subsidize lyft/uber rides of 18-25 year olds when they were detected to be near bars. How much impact would that have compared to jailing?
      - mbrodersen 6y ago
        Right. So if somebody gets drunk and kills a school full of children with a machine gun then we should ask him/her nicely to not do it again and send him home in a Taxi?
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    It’s. ot for revenge. It’s to stop others from doing it I think.
  - JCharante 6y ago
    > To make sure this doesn't happen again? I have been informed of cases where drunk drivers get their licenses revoked yet continue to drive anyways. Should the system just continue to give this individual another slap on the wrist? The system should work to make the necessary adjusts to protect society from these individuals. For some, putting on a breathealyser is enough, while sometimes people start to have their friends breathe into it instead. If there is no other measure that can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming intoxicated and conducting heavy machinery, then I don't see another alternative. > You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change. I'm not sure how feasible it is to make this statement because I'm not aware of anyway we could test the accuracy of this statement. One field I'm interested in being developed is detecting cars whose drivers seem to be intoxicated with machine vision software. Some cities / countries have enough state-owned cameras in public for this, and you could combine this with IoT spikes in the road or state-controlled kill-switches to completely eradicate drunk driving.
  - walkedaway 6y ago
    For me I'm glad an irresponsible adult who made the choices that killed two innocent people can't do the same to others. Always amazing to me that people have more empathy for the criminals than the victims.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      I have empathy for both. You're not preventing this from happening again. I'm trying to root cause the issue and make sure it happens to no one.
- erdaniels 6y ago
  edit: this was a comment on what I would do but getting downvoted trying to have a conversation about this is demotivating
  - abnry 6y ago
    Or not being in prison could teach you that your actions don't have personal consequences. So why not continue drinking?
    - fitblipper 6y ago
      OR you could stop assuming criminals are different than you and realize they have the ability to learn from the mistakes themselves, especially heartbreaking ones where 2 people die. I am so sick of seeing people who feel that justice can only be served by destroying peoples lives and making them and their families suffer to the full extent of the law. Why do we keep electing prosecutors to the high offices? Why do so many prosecutors feel they are good if they can put away the baddies for a long time? I wish we would promote and elect more defenders because they seem like the only people who see that the people facing life in prison and a family thrown into poverty are not "they" but are "we".
- stickfigure 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is suggesting that the guy should just be allowed to sleep it off. But 15 years? Wouldn't 5 years get the point across?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I personally think it should be longer than 15 years. Taking away 2 lives (which would have lived much longer) should have a retribution of more than 15 years. Have you contemplated the insufferable loss of the two people's families? For no fault of their own, their child gets swiped away by some drunk driver who happens to be smart at math?
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      And what does this accomplish?
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
        For one, it would provide justice to those who suffered. You can argue an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to disputes amongst humans - logic says, let go. It's past us. Emotions and life long suffering of a lost child says I want revenge. Justice system also prevents escalations from other avenues - like societal violence since "Justice was not served". You really don't want to live in a society where people take up arms for retribution. It's arguable whether it prevents others from committing similar crimes - I don't think it makes much difference if its 15 years or 30 years to make a drunk person avoid driving. Also keep in mind, the cost-benefit of the Justice system is highly dependent on the socio-economic conditions of the city or neighborhood. Living in Geneva vs. Guadalajahara, you're going to get different answers.
        stickfigure 6y ago
        Hmmm. What if instead of drunk driving, the accident that killed your kids involved distracted driving? Say, driver was texting? Eating a hamburger? What if the driver was just driving 10mph over the speed limit? 15mph? What if the driver fell asleep at the wheel? What if the driver was driving on bald tires and a blowout precipitated the accident? What if they were only 95% worn out? 80%? ----- There are different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is negligent and bad, but I hope we can all agree it is not as bad as willful murder. Five years in jail is an incredibly severe punishment already - that's a quarter of this kid's life to that point. I don't buy the revenge angle. We can expect more from people.
- runarberg 6y ago
  idk. I’m sure there are better methods of preventing drunk driving then punishing people after the fact. Measures include: * Better party hour transport availability * Better driver awareness, education, and propaganda * More enforcement of drunk suspects before an accident * Police cooperation with bars, i.e. tattle-tail programs Moving to America I’m astonished how much drunk driving goes unpunished here. In rural areas there people often go a few dozen km to the next bar, and there is no alternative to get home except to drive. When there is enforcement it seems like it is only over the top punishment. Bartenders seem to be fine with people having a few beers and driving home (as long as they are not “too drunk”). I think America is failing spectacularly in preventing drunk driving, and I think the main reason is that this over reliance of punitive measures that simply don’t work.
  - tedk-42 6y ago
    People should be responsible for their actions and held accountable when they do wrong. America is not failing to prevent drink/drunk driving. Many places allow you to drive with a bit of alcohol in your system. It's up to the individual to be an 'adult' about their decision making/risk assessment. No point wrapping everything in bubble wrap to keep everyone safe. Accidents happen and people selfishly go against what they should do
    - mbrodersen 6y ago
      Right. So you have no problem with private citizens owning nukes for example? Since they just have to be adults and we can always punish them if they kill a few million people? Also, I hope that you realise that it is adults that murder, rape, torture, beat up their wife’s/kids etc. So are you sure being an “adult” is enough?
throwaway894345 6y ago
To be clear, he was sentenced to 15 years because he killed two kids.
- gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  Not to mention the armed robbery after the drunk driving occurred... I think the punishment system we almost hilariously call a justice system needs a lot of help but this seems like a young man who was a real danger to society. A lost decade should take the wind out of his dangerously murderous antics.
  - jvzr 6y ago
    Will prison really do that? Would any other way not do that? Like helping him with his addiction, etc.
  - jjj1232 6y ago
    In what way would a long prison sentence make someone less violent or more able to integrate into society?
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      In the worst case, it at least protects society from the person, but I'm optimistic that there are more humane policies that can accomplish all of the above. Imprisonment is about ensuring public safety, to the extent that we can make it humane for the prisoners as well, we ought to do so, but failing that the alternative isn't to release dangerous criminals to reoffend--that's inhumane to their communities (and while some are particularly keen to note that prisoners are more likely to be marginalized minorities, those same people frequently fail to note that the communities that we release these unrehabilitated prisoners back into are also largely marginalized minority communities).
abnry 6y ago
What do you think about how members of the last US executive administration should be treated? Should people give them jobs? Most people are in favor of punitive justice, but for the "right" wrongs.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Personally I'd want them to not have executive jobs where they have influence over peoples lives. Not as a punishment, but as an actual deterrent. However I'd personally prefer to root out why right-wing extremism is on the rise. I had this discussion a few days ago about what should be done about the capitol terrorists, and I don't think they should face severe jail/policing. I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    > I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease. Arguably leniency is precisely why the problem is what it is today. Laws are laws, the only reason why the Capitol incident happened is that the American far-right is in Q-induced fever dream completely unchecked by any feedback.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      > Arguably leniency is precisely why the problem is what it is today. I don't think that's true. I don't think lack of policing and enforcement of laws is why white supremacy is on the rise.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        When the president is cheering you on why would you stop
- mhh__ 6y ago
nogridbag 6y ago
I have no opinion on the length of the sentence, but reading the linked news article does change my opinion on this: "While he's on bond, he commits a strong-arm robbery down in Monroe stealing a fifth of whiskey"
ilammy 6y ago
> or contemplating the consequences What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that? (where “punishment” isn’t necessarily prison time) You can’t bring back dead people to life, unfortunately. For some other crimes you can be fined, make amendments in other ways, having your license revoked, etc. But not for manslaughter. For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that? Given the state of most prisons in the west (Especially in the US), we are often sending people to effectively rot and even if they get out they might as well be dead they're so stunted. Indeed, you can't bring dead people back to life. Judicial systems should not be based off of the emotions of people affected by crimes - it's not a nice thing to say but it just empirically doesn't work. > For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you. Not only is deterrent-policy usually very expensive both directly and in the aforementioned tendency to shit out people who go straight back into crime, I'm not aware of any studies that manage to disprove their null. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence In the extreme "capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment.".
  - 3131s 6y ago
    Sure, but that's not what any of us are arguing. I want radical reform of the prison system and the judicial system, but after we've made our prisons as humane as possible then I want to put this guy in there for at least 20 years. They should tie the penalty to blood alcohol concentration and it should be substantial for anyone driving in the higher ranges.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      What are you accomplishing by doing that?
koolba 6y ago
If there weren’t stiff penalties for drunk driving it’d be rampant. The fear of being locked away for 20 years most definitely acts as a preventative measure.
- alphabettsy 6y ago
  It is rampant. 1.4 million DUI arrests in 2010 and that’s just the people who got caught. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/drun...
hu3 6y ago
You'd think very differently if those two kids were yours. That family is done. There wont be a single day in their lives that they wont suffer. If these crimes were handled lightly, they would occur more often.
- crenstrope 6y ago
  Yes but the killer was a math nerd, so clearly a better class of person in the minds of some of these commenters. A budding math genius should be allowed to drunkenly kill as many kids as they please and only get a minor scolding, apparently.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Of course I would. There's a reason we don't want mob justice. And there's a reason families aren't really involved in prosecution.
  - hu3 6y ago
    Yea of course but that's a tangent. The point is if these crimes were handled lightly, they would occur more often. We can go all the way down to the animal kingdom. Lions don't usually attack hippos because they know there can be harsh punishment in failure. Otherwise said attacks would be frequent. Just as I don't drink and drive recklessly because I know there can be severe consequences. Frankly I believe the only way to reduce prison population is through education and opportunity BEFORE crimes happen but keep current punitive laws because they serve to protect the law abiding hard working citizen and to disincentivize crimes.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Punishing people for 15 years doesn’t change drunk driving. It absolutely prevents the particular actor from driving drunk for the period of actual incarceration. It may even make it more likely that they will think before doing it again, even if they did not think the first time; and if you argue that the people who would do it once aren’t rationally deterrable even by adverse experience, that makes long-duration incapacitation such as by incarceration even more critical.
mbrodersen 6y ago
So how many people will somebody have to kill before you consider them dangerous enough to lock up? Also, do you realise that some people are too damaged/dangerous/psychopathic to ever be “fixed” enough to live in society?

This is so depressing. I really hate our punitive justice system. Punishing people for 15 years doesn't change drunk driving. If they were *thinking* before dr

influx 6y ago

What would you rather do if someone drives drunk and kills two teenagers?

aaomidi 6y ago
I don't know, I just don't see the point of essentially killing another person. Is the point revenge? To make sure this doesn't happen again? Is justice = revenge? Questions... Like I guess my point is someone who is driving drunk is already not thinking logically. You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change.
- screamingninja 6y ago
  You can however stop punishing drunk driving and watch the number of drunk driving incidents skyrocket. The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Again I don't think someone who is behind the wheel driving drunk is thinking about the consequences of their actions. I don't think the severity of the punishment changes that. I'd much rather see why drunk driving rates is far higher in the US than other countries with similar laws and transpiration systems.
    - screamingninja 6y ago
      I don't think I understand what alternative solution you are proposing here.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        1. Look at why drunk driving is a much larger problem in the US than other places. 2. Is there stuff we can do to fix the discrepancy in the US. 3. Can the perpetrator of harm in society be a part of fixing the harm they have done, and preventing more harm in society. I think punitive justice is just the easy way out and never addresses the roots of the problems. For example, imagine instead of jailing people for 15 years, we used that money to subsidize lyft/uber rides of 18-25 year olds when they were detected to be near bars. How much impact would that have compared to jailing?
    - mbrodersen 6y ago
      Right. So if somebody gets drunk and kills a school full of children with a machine gun then we should ask him/her nicely to not do it again and send him home in a Taxi?
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It’s. ot for revenge. It’s to stop others from doing it I think.
- JCharante 6y ago
  > To make sure this doesn't happen again? I have been informed of cases where drunk drivers get their licenses revoked yet continue to drive anyways. Should the system just continue to give this individual another slap on the wrist? The system should work to make the necessary adjusts to protect society from these individuals. For some, putting on a breathealyser is enough, while sometimes people start to have their friends breathe into it instead. If there is no other measure that can be taken to prevent an individual from becoming intoxicated and conducting heavy machinery, then I don't see another alternative. > You could execute drunk drivers and the rate of new drunk drivers wouldn't change. I'm not sure how feasible it is to make this statement because I'm not aware of anyway we could test the accuracy of this statement. One field I'm interested in being developed is detecting cars whose drivers seem to be intoxicated with machine vision software. Some cities / countries have enough state-owned cameras in public for this, and you could combine this with IoT spikes in the road or state-controlled kill-switches to completely eradicate drunk driving.
- walkedaway 6y ago
  For me I'm glad an irresponsible adult who made the choices that killed two innocent people can't do the same to others. Always amazing to me that people have more empathy for the criminals than the victims.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    I have empathy for both. You're not preventing this from happening again. I'm trying to root cause the issue and make sure it happens to no one.
erdaniels 6y ago
edit: this was a comment on what I would do but getting downvoted trying to have a conversation about this is demotivating
- abnry 6y ago
  Or not being in prison could teach you that your actions don't have personal consequences. So why not continue drinking?
  - fitblipper 6y ago
    OR you could stop assuming criminals are different than you and realize they have the ability to learn from the mistakes themselves, especially heartbreaking ones where 2 people die. I am so sick of seeing people who feel that justice can only be served by destroying peoples lives and making them and their families suffer to the full extent of the law. Why do we keep electing prosecutors to the high offices? Why do so many prosecutors feel they are good if they can put away the baddies for a long time? I wish we would promote and elect more defenders because they seem like the only people who see that the people facing life in prison and a family thrown into poverty are not "they" but are "we".
stickfigure 6y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the guy should just be allowed to sleep it off. But 15 years? Wouldn't 5 years get the point across?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I personally think it should be longer than 15 years. Taking away 2 lives (which would have lived much longer) should have a retribution of more than 15 years. Have you contemplated the insufferable loss of the two people's families? For no fault of their own, their child gets swiped away by some drunk driver who happens to be smart at math?
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    And what does this accomplish?
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      For one, it would provide justice to those who suffered. You can argue an "eye-for-an-eye" approach to disputes amongst humans - logic says, let go. It's past us. Emotions and life long suffering of a lost child says I want revenge. Justice system also prevents escalations from other avenues - like societal violence since "Justice was not served". You really don't want to live in a society where people take up arms for retribution. It's arguable whether it prevents others from committing similar crimes - I don't think it makes much difference if its 15 years or 30 years to make a drunk person avoid driving. Also keep in mind, the cost-benefit of the Justice system is highly dependent on the socio-economic conditions of the city or neighborhood. Living in Geneva vs. Guadalajahara, you're going to get different answers.
      - stickfigure 6y ago
        Hmmm. What if instead of drunk driving, the accident that killed your kids involved distracted driving? Say, driver was texting? Eating a hamburger? What if the driver was just driving 10mph over the speed limit? 15mph? What if the driver fell asleep at the wheel? What if the driver was driving on bald tires and a blowout precipitated the accident? What if they were only 95% worn out? 80%? ----- There are different levels of culpability. Drunk driving is negligent and bad, but I hope we can all agree it is not as bad as willful murder. Five years in jail is an incredibly severe punishment already - that's a quarter of this kid's life to that point. I don't buy the revenge angle. We can expect more from people.
runarberg 6y ago
idk. I’m sure there are better methods of preventing drunk driving then punishing people after the fact. Measures include: * Better party hour transport availability * Better driver awareness, education, and propaganda * More enforcement of drunk suspects before an accident * Police cooperation with bars, i.e. tattle-tail programs Moving to America I’m astonished how much drunk driving goes unpunished here. In rural areas there people often go a few dozen km to the next bar, and there is no alternative to get home except to drive. When there is enforcement it seems like it is only over the top punishment. Bartenders seem to be fine with people having a few beers and driving home (as long as they are not “too drunk”). I think America is failing spectacularly in preventing drunk driving, and I think the main reason is that this over reliance of punitive measures that simply don’t work.
- tedk-42 6y ago
  People should be responsible for their actions and held accountable when they do wrong. America is not failing to prevent drink/drunk driving. Many places allow you to drive with a bit of alcohol in your system. It's up to the individual to be an 'adult' about their decision making/risk assessment. No point wrapping everything in bubble wrap to keep everyone safe. Accidents happen and people selfishly go against what they should do
  - mbrodersen 6y ago
    Right. So you have no problem with private citizens owning nukes for example? Since they just have to be adults and we can always punish them if they kill a few million people? Also, I hope that you realise that it is adults that murder, rape, torture, beat up their wife’s/kids etc. So are you sure being an “adult” is enough?

throwaway894345 6y ago

To be clear, he was sentenced to 15 years because he killed two kids.

gogopuppygogo 6y ago
Not to mention the armed robbery after the drunk driving occurred... I think the punishment system we almost hilariously call a justice system needs a lot of help but this seems like a young man who was a real danger to society. A lost decade should take the wind out of his dangerously murderous antics.
- jvzr 6y ago
  Will prison really do that? Would any other way not do that? Like helping him with his addiction, etc.
- jjj1232 6y ago
  In what way would a long prison sentence make someone less violent or more able to integrate into society?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    In the worst case, it at least protects society from the person, but I'm optimistic that there are more humane policies that can accomplish all of the above. Imprisonment is about ensuring public safety, to the extent that we can make it humane for the prisoners as well, we ought to do so, but failing that the alternative isn't to release dangerous criminals to reoffend--that's inhumane to their communities (and while some are particularly keen to note that prisoners are more likely to be marginalized minorities, those same people frequently fail to note that the communities that we release these unrehabilitated prisoners back into are also largely marginalized minority communities).

abnry 6y ago

What do you think about how members of the last US executive administration should be treated? Should people give them jobs? Most people are in favor of punitive justice, but for the "right" wrongs.

aaomidi 6y ago
Personally I'd want them to not have executive jobs where they have influence over peoples lives. Not as a punishment, but as an actual deterrent. However I'd personally prefer to root out why right-wing extremism is on the rise. I had this discussion a few days ago about what should be done about the capitol terrorists, and I don't think they should face severe jail/policing. I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  > I know of a few leftist circles that also banned any mention of FBI tiplines etc, because those individuals were just a symptom of a problem. And punishing the symptom does nothing to the disease. Arguably leniency is precisely why the problem is what it is today. Laws are laws, the only reason why the Capitol incident happened is that the American far-right is in Q-induced fever dream completely unchecked by any feedback.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    > Arguably leniency is precisely why the problem is what it is today. I don't think that's true. I don't think lack of policing and enforcement of laws is why white supremacy is on the rise.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      When the president is cheering you on why would you stop
mhh__ 6y ago

nogridbag 6y ago

I have no opinion on the length of the sentence, but reading the linked news article does change my opinion on this: "While he's on bond, he commits a strong-arm robbery down in Monroe stealing a fifth of whiskey"

ilammy 6y ago

> or contemplating the consequences What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that? (where “punishment” isn’t necessarily prison time) You can’t bring back dead people to life, unfortunately. For some other crimes you can be fined, make amendments in other ways, having your license revoked, etc. But not for manslaughter. For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you.

mhh__ 6y ago
> What those consequences be if the society does not punish people for that? Given the state of most prisons in the west (Especially in the US), we are often sending people to effectively rot and even if they get out they might as well be dead they're so stunted. Indeed, you can't bring dead people back to life. Judicial systems should not be based off of the emotions of people affected by crimes - it's not a nice thing to say but it just empirically doesn't work. > For this crime any punishment is exerted only as a message to other people: don’t kill people or else those bad things will happen to you. Not only is deterrent-policy usually very expensive both directly and in the aforementioned tendency to shit out people who go straight back into crime, I'm not aware of any studies that manage to disprove their null. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/deterrence In the extreme "capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment.".
- 3131s 6y ago
  Sure, but that's not what any of us are arguing. I want radical reform of the prison system and the judicial system, but after we've made our prisons as humane as possible then I want to put this guy in there for at least 20 years. They should tie the penalty to blood alcohol concentration and it should be substantial for anyone driving in the higher ranges.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    What are you accomplishing by doing that?

koolba 6y ago

If there weren’t stiff penalties for drunk driving it’d be rampant. The fear of being locked away for 20 years most definitely acts as a preventative measure.

alphabettsy 6y ago
It is rampant. 1.4 million DUI arrests in 2010 and that’s just the people who got caught. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/by_the_numbers/drun...

hu3 6y ago

You'd think very differently if those two kids were yours. That family is done. There wont be a single day in their lives that they wont suffer. If these crimes were handled lightly, they would occur more often.

crenstrope 6y ago
Yes but the killer was a math nerd, so clearly a better class of person in the minds of some of these commenters. A budding math genius should be allowed to drunkenly kill as many kids as they please and only get a minor scolding, apparently.
aaomidi 6y ago
Of course I would. There's a reason we don't want mob justice. And there's a reason families aren't really involved in prosecution.
- hu3 6y ago
  Yea of course but that's a tangent. The point is if these crimes were handled lightly, they would occur more often. We can go all the way down to the animal kingdom. Lions don't usually attack hippos because they know there can be harsh punishment in failure. Otherwise said attacks would be frequent. Just as I don't drink and drive recklessly because I know there can be severe consequences. Frankly I believe the only way to reduce prison population is through education and opportunity BEFORE crimes happen but keep current punitive laws because they serve to protect the law abiding hard working citizen and to disincentivize crimes.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Punishing people for 15 years doesn’t change drunk driving. It absolutely prevents the particular actor from driving drunk for the period of actual incarceration. It may even make it more likely that they will think before doing it again, even if they did not think the first time; and if you argue that the people who would do it once aren’t rationally deterrable even by adverse experience, that makes long-duration incapacitation such as by incarceration even more critical.

mbrodersen 6y ago

So how many people will somebody have to kill before you consider them dangerous enough to lock up? Also, do you realise that some people are too damaged/dangerous/psychopathic to ever be “fixed” enough to live in society?