5 ms·

The response would probably be that they can't fire him because he's a minority. But that doesn't make it right. It just means that minorities can get away wi

by Jiro 4y ago

The response would probably be that they can't fire him because he's a minority. But that doesn't make it right. It just means that minorities can get away with stuff that nobody should be able to get away with,

Barrin92 4y ago
if someone was found guilty, went to prison and served their sentence, I have trouble to characterize this as 'getting away with it' given that they, in the most literal sense imaginable, did not. This doesn't just do away with rehabilitation but even with punitive justice, because the punishment served is justified on the basis that the punished has afterwards repaid their debt to society. If not even prison is sufficient we're firmly in the realm of tribal outcasts and I don't think that's generally speaking a popular form of justice among liberally minded software developers at conferences.
- iroddis 4y ago
  I used to agree with your general statement, until I worked with some people who were victims of violent crimes. Their trauma did not go away with a set unit of time served, but follows them forever. The idea of neatly packaged-and-served justice doesn’t mesh with the reality of trauma inflicted by the crimes. Some stigma should remain with perpetrators, regardless of time served.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Not every crime can sufficiently be paid in the scope of one lifetime and more importantly not every person can be rendered safe for the rest of society in any finite term. I don't think its incompatible with the notion of justice to suppose that someone can represent an inextinguishable risk to society despite serving their sentence. Rather than questioning the entire concept of justice one can simply question whether the implementation of justice is in this instance sufficiently sound. To give an extreme example its probably best that the prolific serial killer Gary Ridgeway remain in prison until he's dead. If our justice system were dumb enough to release him one wouldn't be obliged to accept or reject the entire concept of justice as one piece. One could simply reject whether Gary was a safe fellow to be around. This isn't even hypothetical there are actually serial killers who are free men post conviction. https://www.ibtimes.com/brazils-most-notorious-serial-killer-free-man-despite-71-murders-out-prison-3335424 https://www.ibtimes.com/brazils-most-notorious-serial-killer...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 4y ago
  Completing a prison term (or being found "not guilty", for that matter) does not spare you from civil litigation; why would it spare you from ostracism?

by Jiro 4y ago

Barrin92 4y ago

if someone was found guilty, went to prison and served their sentence, I have trouble to characterize this as 'getting away with it' given that they, in the most literal sense imaginable, did not. This doesn't just do away with rehabilitation but even with punitive justice, because the punishment served is justified on the basis that the punished has afterwards repaid their debt to society. If not even prison is sufficient we're firmly in the realm of tribal outcasts and I don't think that's generally speaking a popular form of justice among liberally minded software developers at conferences.

iroddis 4y ago
I used to agree with your general statement, until I worked with some people who were victims of violent crimes. Their trauma did not go away with a set unit of time served, but follows them forever. The idea of neatly packaged-and-served justice doesn’t mesh with the reality of trauma inflicted by the crimes. Some stigma should remain with perpetrators, regardless of time served.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Not every crime can sufficiently be paid in the scope of one lifetime and more importantly not every person can be rendered safe for the rest of society in any finite term. I don't think its incompatible with the notion of justice to suppose that someone can represent an inextinguishable risk to society despite serving their sentence. Rather than questioning the entire concept of justice one can simply question whether the implementation of justice is in this instance sufficiently sound. To give an extreme example its probably best that the prolific serial killer Gary Ridgeway remain in prison until he's dead. If our justice system were dumb enough to release him one wouldn't be obliged to accept or reject the entire concept of justice as one piece. One could simply reject whether Gary was a safe fellow to be around. This isn't even hypothetical there are actually serial killers who are free men post conviction. https://www.ibtimes.com/brazils-most-notorious-serial-killer-free-man-despite-71-murders-out-prison-3335424 https://www.ibtimes.com/brazils-most-notorious-serial-killer...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kazinator 4y ago
Completing a prison term (or being found "not guilty", for that matter) does not spare you from civil litigation; why would it spare you from ostracism?