4 ms·
I don't understand. Its only 8 months. While i don't agree with the verdict, his peers found him guilty. "I can't go to prison because my new company needs me.
by bobsy 14y ago
I don't understand. Its only 8 months. While i don't agree with the verdict, his peers found him guilty.
"I can't go to prison because my new company needs me." is surely not a reason to avoid prison. I am sure the prison has doctors and can treat the majority of ailments and illnesses.
- sohn 14y ago"It's only 8 months" Yes I'd like to see you in prison for 8 months
- yummybear 14y agoI think his point is not that prison is nice, but that 8 months away from a company is survivable for the company. Mothers do it all the time with maternaty leave (and fathers as well).
- bluedanieru 14y agoIn Sweden? Not saying I would want to go either, but if I had to do eight months in prison in a country of my choosing Sweden would top the list.
- iso8859-1 14y agohttp://www.vice.com/vice-news/norwegian-prisons http://www.vice.com/vice-news/norwegian-prisons
- kahawe 14y agoI cannot speak specifically for Sweden but there are definitely different kinds of prison in other European countries and within the legal system it is sort-of common knowledge which ones are for white-collar crime and which ones are for the really tough guys - and prisoners get sent to the "right place" accordingly.
- hej 14y agoNo idiotic juries in Sweden. Get out of your bubble.
- corin_ 14y agoWhat exactly don't you understand? If you had an option, no matter how unlikely to succeed it might be, to avoid going to prison would you not at least attempt it? No ruling has been made, just a request - why would he ever not make that request?
- danssig 14y agoI find locking people away from their life for more than a day or two absolutely barbaric. I'm surprised a country often rated most democratic in the world locks people away for non-violent offenses.
- dagw 14y agoSo what should the punishment be for non-violent offenses?
- mikehuffman 14y agoForced public service.
- danssig 14y agoThere are many options. Charge them money (and ensure you can force them to pay it back, e.g. wage garnishing), public service was suggested, etc. Looking them away from their life seems incredibly excessive.
- hej 14y agoI’m totally in favor of mild punishments and I do think that imprisonment is barbaric and should be avoided if at all possible, but money as a punishment, for example, is not without problems. It basically gets rich people of the hook. If there is a flat rate to pay, that’s the case anyway, but even if the punishment is a percentage of someone’s income, this disproportionally hits poor people. Poor people need all their money to survive – pay rent, pay heating, pay food – there is nothing extra, no money to save. Once you are making several dozen times that money, a monetary punishment hits you disproportionally milder. It’s funny that you seem to be worried about the poor for which this type of punishment is probably absolutely devastating and not very likely to have any positive results at all. The poor are a problem, not because they might not pay, but because the punishment might be excessive and not lead to a positive outcome for them (i.e. it doesn’t prevent repeat offenses). Preventing repeat offenses and being a deterrent seem like the only two legitimate justifications for punishment to me, and I’m not sure whether money can do that.
- loceng 14y agoI believe the value of a person to a society can come into account in rulings, mostly with non-violent offences.