3 ms·
> I don’t have much sympathy for people that commit actual crimes. Even when the "crime" doesn't hurt anybody except the "offender?" GP post strongly implies
by actually_a_dog 5y ago
> I don’t have much sympathy for people that commit actual crimes.
Even when the "crime" doesn't hurt anybody except the "offender?" GP post strongly implies the charge was some sort of possession charge. Drug addicts do not need to be punished any more than they punish themselves.
- plank_time 5y agoGP did not strongly imply it was possession. They said the guy “definitely did something bad”. So it sounds like to me it’s something more than just simple possession. That’s what I’m going with.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoYou know, you didn't actually answer the question I asked....
- shard 5y agoI don't think every person who replies to you needs to answer the exact question you asked. This is a general conversation, and people can talk about any interesting point in any part of the preceding text. Tangent conversations are just fine here.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoI don't think me writing a comment compels anyone to do anything about it, so, what's the problem? This is also the specific person I asked the question of originally to whom I am replying. I think when I ask a specific person a question and get a reply from that person, it's fair to expect that the reply answer the question. Wouldn't you agree?
- silly-silly 5y agoYou'd hope, but people gotta peep.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- shard 5y agoYou also can't expect people to bother checking whether you are asking the question of the person you originally replied to. I actually thought about it myself for a second, and decided not to.
- moshmosh 5y agoYeah, it was worse than that, but waaaaaay under something that would get people to say "lock them up and throw away the key!" Also wasn't any kind of hate-related or vulnerable-group-targeting thing, of the kind that would get a person a torrent of death threats on twitter. 100% the kind of thing someone ought to be punished for (unlike simple possession, certainly). The main thing I find objectionable is that one must pay a flat-fee ransom to an assuredly-connected-to-important-people-and-overcharging commercial entity to get one's children out of jail. There are a few things wrong with that, but fundamentally it sucks that how much money you (or your family) have determines so much about how harsh a punishment is. It can be anywhere from "a little annoying but no lasting harm done to anyone" to "everyone in your immediate family's quality of life is now 10-80% worse, measured over a lifetime", for exactly the same crime. [EDIT] and on a less personal level, the thing that bothers me about it is that a justice system that intends to reduce crime rates should avoid at all costs being a driver of poverty.
- meowface 5y agoI read the GP post as suggesting an actual crime likely occurred. You, I, and many others (especially people who tend to use HN) don't consider drug use an actual crime. Judges sometimes sentence (actual) criminals to drug rehab programs as an alternative to jail for certain things, e.g. if perhaps someone burglarized homes to fund a drug addiction. I have no idea, though. It would've been better if they gave a little more detail about the nature of the crime.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoSure, that's possible. But, even if it were some sort of other crime that was exacerbated or precipitated by a drug addiction, the fact that the sentence included the option of rehab + probation seriously limits the badness of that crime. If this were the scenario, and I had to guess, I would say it probably was some sort of property crime. People other than the perpetrator tend not to get seriously (physically) injured in most property crimes, and insurance often covers the damages. In any case, monetary restitution to cover the damage plus rehab. should be a sufficient sentence.