4 ms·

Have you ever been wronged in a substantial way? Something that shook you so much, that you carried it with you for months or years afterwards? It's the kind of

by dolni 4y ago

Have you ever been wronged in a substantial way? Something that shook you so much, that you carried it with you for months or years afterwards? It's the kind of thing that when it happens, you think: "I wish nobody else had to go through what I did". If you haven't, consider yourself lucky. Some of us aren't so.

57457802 4y ago
Yes, I would say I have. I have been sexually assaulted for example, but that doesn't mean I want the person who did it to suffer as well. That would just mean more suffering.
- dolni 4y ago
  So you would be okay with the person you assaulted you not facing consequences, like prison?
  - 57457802 4y ago
    I am okay with that. I don't gain anything by another person's suffering. It would make me feel worse, not better, and it would make the world a worse place because prison generally makes people worse. It would also expose other prisoners to a predator they can't avoid as easily as someone on the outside can. It would be a lose-lose for everyone.
    - dolni 4y ago
      Honestly, that sounds selfish. Plenty of others gain from a system of justice where heinous acts are deterred. And you do too, even if you don't acknowledge it. Prisons can and should do better. But you are incredibly naive if you think there aren't people in the world whose only deterrence is prison or violent retribution.
      - 57457802 4y ago
        I disagree. There is no evidence deterrence works, and I think it's very unlikely that there are people who want to commit sexual assault who would decide that it's not worth the risk if more people were punished. I don't think people work that way. If you are thinking about citing the Italian study[0] that people always cite in respond arguments against deterrence. My response is that it's way more likely that 1 month less in prison is what caused the lower re-offending rare, not the threat of 1 month more in prison if they re-offend. [0]: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599286 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599286

by dolni 4y ago

57457802 4y ago

Yes, I would say I have. I have been sexually assaulted for example, but that doesn't mean I want the person who did it to suffer as well. That would just mean more suffering.

dolni 4y ago
So you would be okay with the person you assaulted you not facing consequences, like prison?
- 57457802 4y ago
  I am okay with that. I don't gain anything by another person's suffering. It would make me feel worse, not better, and it would make the world a worse place because prison generally makes people worse. It would also expose other prisoners to a predator they can't avoid as easily as someone on the outside can. It would be a lose-lose for everyone.
  - dolni 4y ago
    Honestly, that sounds selfish. Plenty of others gain from a system of justice where heinous acts are deterred. And you do too, even if you don't acknowledge it. Prisons can and should do better. But you are incredibly naive if you think there aren't people in the world whose only deterrence is prison or violent retribution.
    - 57457802 4y ago
      I disagree. There is no evidence deterrence works, and I think it's very unlikely that there are people who want to commit sexual assault who would decide that it's not worth the risk if more people were punished. I don't think people work that way. If you are thinking about citing the Italian study[0] that people always cite in respond arguments against deterrence. My response is that it's way more likely that 1 month less in prison is what caused the lower re-offending rare, not the threat of 1 month more in prison if they re-offend. [0]: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599286 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/599286