3 ms·

What is it about six months that seems like it's an appropriate sentence? I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse. In this case (t

What is it about six months that seems like it's an appropriate sentence? I infer that you mean it's better that 1-3 years or something worse. In this case (the article didn't mention the individual's circumstances) six months will most likely have severe consequences to things like employment/education/child-care. These will have negative effects on the rest of the community in all likelyhood. As it sounds like no-one was harmed, would a fine, probation, and/or some form of required community service potentially have better overall outcomes?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
meowfly 5y ago
I think punishments need to have enough teeth to deter. Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
If someone fired a gun into a crowd, but no one was harmed, should that just be a fine? Why would doing something dangerous that could possibly damage a pilots eyes not be similar? Enough pilots have suffered eye damage (google it) from idiots with lasers. In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same. Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?
- bluejekyll 5y ago
  The fact that the person was caught makes this case probably a little different than most. Using analogies like yours can be helpful, but I have to wonder about the intent/knowledge of the dangers with those actions. Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc). Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    > possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead. Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead. If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct? >I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned. Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

meowfly 5y ago

I think punishments need to have enough teeth to deter. Six months seems like it could be enough to deter without it unnecessarily keeping someone who is normally harmless incarcerated. I'm not too dug-in on this point though, it really depends on how risky shooting a laser at an aircraft really is.

ChrisLomont 5y ago

If someone fired a gun into a crowd, but no one was harmed, should that just be a fine? Why would doing something dangerous that could possibly damage a pilots eyes not be similar? Enough pilots have suffered eye damage (google it) from idiots with lasers. In the US, a first time DUI with no one injured can get you 6 months jail in many states (some higher, some lower). This seems about the same. Maybe penalties are decided including factors such as possible outcomes for dangerous behavior and as a deterrence to others?

bluejekyll 5y ago
The fact that the person was caught makes this case probably a little different than most. Using analogies like yours can be helpful, but I have to wonder about the intent/knowledge of the dangers with those actions. Pointing a laser at anyone/anything is possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Ironically, your analogy is something that itself doesn't always have negative consequences related to it (ie how does that change when it's a police officer, or happens during a protest, etc). Anyway, I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome, it definitely will make it more visible how bad this type of action is through news and what-not which is a good thing.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  > possibly not as known to be potentially directly harmful as much as shooting a gun at someone. Shooting a gun at someone could lead to one person dead. Shooting a laser at a plane could lead to hundreds dead. If this is a metric, then 6 months is a great deal for the shooter, correct? >I am not sure it's cut-and-dry that a sentence like this is net better outcome It's probably impossible to measure that, since the factors are subjective. But it is in line with many punishments for similar action, as I mentioned. Also 6 months sentenced means much less served in most cases, the same way a 10 year sentence may get out in 5.