4 ms·

I don't see how it matters. In no world is the hacker doing something worse than the rapists no matter the age. This does quite clearly show what the people in

by Dah00n 5y ago

I don't see how it matters. In no world is the hacker doing something worse than the rapists no matter the age. This does quite clearly show what the people in the justice system think is worse: an adult hacker vigilante is worse than a 16 yo rapist. I doubt you would get the same result if civilians were asked.

lelanthran 5y ago
TLDR; We don't determine sentencing lengths based on the crime alone, we determine sentencing lengths based on the expected duration required to ensure that society is safe. With kids we expect to rehabilitate them faster. The long version: You may no see how it matters, but the reasoning is sound: If you are going to be lenient on juveniles because they are not fully mature enough mentally to contemplate the full effect of their actions, why make certain actions exempt from contemplation? > This does quite clearly show what the people in the justice system think is worse: an adult hacker vigilante is worse than a 16 yo rapist. The criminal justice system does not evaluate the actions of a criminal in isolation, they largely take into account the intention behind the action (Look up Mens Rea). You are just putting two outcomes next to each other for comparison, while the reality is that the intention and maturity of the mind behind those actions are what decides the judgment. Should someone with the mental capacity of a 5 year old commit some violent crime, do you still think we should judge them as we do with a normal adult? The ultimate problem with your argument is that the justice system is not about getting revenge on criminals. It's about making society safer. When someone commits a crime we remove them from society for the period we think it will take to rehabilitate them[1], and ensure that they aren't able to harm society further during the time they are not rehabilitated. The reasoning for juveniles to get a lower sentence is because we, collectively, think that it will be faster to rehabilitate a minor than an adult. > I doubt you would get the same result if civilians were asked. You'd be surprised: leave gender out of it and ask about "violent crime" and most parents would agree that the court should be more lenient on kids. That's because, as parents (and former kids) we know that kids make incredibly poor decisions. Phrasing the question as "would you prefer your kids rapist to get off with a slap on the wrist" would get the response you want. [1] Whether or not this is successful is irrelevant as we cannot know the success at the time of sentencing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JohnWhigham 5y ago
>In no world is the hacker doing something worse than the rapists no matter the age. You really want to go down that shaky rabbit hole? What if a hacker deliberately caused the collision of 2 subway trains, killing everyone on both trains? Is he still going to jail for only a year because he didn't actually physically harm someone?
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  How is that analogy remotely relevant to this discussion?
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    They said there's no way a hacker's crime can be worse than a rapist's. And that's just an absurd statement to make; comparing them in general for which is "worse" is already an exercise in futility.
- bena 5y ago
  So he harmlessly killed those people. How? And if you're going to say he didn't physically drive the trains into each other, how far does that rabbit hole go? Can anyone be held responsible for any action performed with a tool at that point? "Your honor, I just caused a collision of his head with this hammer, it was the hammer that killed him, not me." Oh, he swung the hammer, so that counts as "physical harm". What about guns? "I just caused a collision of his head with the bullet, the bullet killed him, not me." Yes, he would have pulled the trigger, but he didn't physically shove the bullet into the guy (by your definition). Or if pulling the trigger makes him liable, then the guy pressing the keys to run the programs blah blah blah that cause the trains to collide means he caused it. In your case, he engineered the deaths of the people on those trains, he's liable for them. This ain't hard.
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    Yeah, I know all this. Tell that to the guy who I'm replying to who said that a rapist's crime is always worse than a hacker's no matter what the hacker did.

by Dah00n 5y ago

lelanthran 5y ago

TLDR; We don't determine sentencing lengths based on the crime alone, we determine sentencing lengths based on the expected duration required to ensure that society is safe. With kids we expect to rehabilitate them faster. The long version: You may no see how it matters, but the reasoning is sound: If you are going to be lenient on juveniles because they are not fully mature enough mentally to contemplate the full effect of their actions, why make certain actions exempt from contemplation? > This does quite clearly show what the people in the justice system think is worse: an adult hacker vigilante is worse than a 16 yo rapist. The criminal justice system does not evaluate the actions of a criminal in isolation, they largely take into account the intention behind the action (Look up Mens Rea). You are just putting two outcomes next to each other for comparison, while the reality is that the intention and maturity of the mind behind those actions are what decides the judgment. Should someone with the mental capacity of a 5 year old commit some violent crime, do you still think we should judge them as we do with a normal adult? The ultimate problem with your argument is that the justice system is not about getting revenge on criminals. It's about making society safer. When someone commits a crime we remove them from society for the period we think it will take to rehabilitate them[1], and ensure that they aren't able to harm society further during the time they are not rehabilitated. The reasoning for juveniles to get a lower sentence is because we, collectively, think that it will be faster to rehabilitate a minor than an adult. > I doubt you would get the same result if civilians were asked. You'd be surprised: leave gender out of it and ask about "violent crime" and most parents would agree that the court should be more lenient on kids. That's because, as parents (and former kids) we know that kids make incredibly poor decisions. Phrasing the question as "would you prefer your kids rapist to get off with a slap on the wrist" would get the response you want. [1] Whether or not this is successful is irrelevant as we cannot know the success at the time of sentencing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JohnWhigham 5y ago

>In no world is the hacker doing something worse than the rapists no matter the age. You really want to go down that shaky rabbit hole? What if a hacker deliberately caused the collision of 2 subway trains, killing everyone on both trains? Is he still going to jail for only a year because he didn't actually physically harm someone?

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
How is that analogy remotely relevant to this discussion?
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  They said there's no way a hacker's crime can be worse than a rapist's. And that's just an absurd statement to make; comparing them in general for which is "worse" is already an exercise in futility.
bena 5y ago
So he harmlessly killed those people. How? And if you're going to say he didn't physically drive the trains into each other, how far does that rabbit hole go? Can anyone be held responsible for any action performed with a tool at that point? "Your honor, I just caused a collision of his head with this hammer, it was the hammer that killed him, not me." Oh, he swung the hammer, so that counts as "physical harm". What about guns? "I just caused a collision of his head with the bullet, the bullet killed him, not me." Yes, he would have pulled the trigger, but he didn't physically shove the bullet into the guy (by your definition). Or if pulling the trigger makes him liable, then the guy pressing the keys to run the programs blah blah blah that cause the trains to collide means he caused it. In your case, he engineered the deaths of the people on those trains, he's liable for them. This ain't hard.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Yeah, I know all this. Tell that to the guy who I'm replying to who said that a rapist's crime is always worse than a hacker's no matter what the hacker did.