3 ms·

I agree that a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone doesn't warrant locking someone away forever. But the comment you're replying to is also mentioni

I agree that a fight in McDonald's and hurling poo at someone doesn't warrant locking someone away forever. But the comment you're replying to is also mentioning seven robberies and several other assaults, which you conveniently ignore just like the biased article that makes it sound like he's in prison only for a fight in McDonald's. He's in prison to keep him from victimizing more people, and I think there's a huge difference whether that is done after one fight, or a history of crime after crime after crime. Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them?

freeopinion 2y ago
I'm not defending any specifics of this case. I would like to mention, though, that somebody who got in fights when they were 15 is less likely to do so when they are 30. And somebody who committed robberies when they were 22 is less likely to do so when they are 40. If your argument is that they have a criminal nature and will therefore commit some other crime because it is in their nature, that's a bit hard to accept. If your argument is that they are acting out against their prison environment and therefore can't be trusted in a completely different environment, that is also hard for me to accept. If your argument is that they have been moved into a halfway house but don't seem to be able to cope with normal society, I would probably probe that. Have they committed robberies while in the halfway house? Have they assaulted someone there? I hate to paint all prison guards with a giant brush, but I have experienced first hand how normal people act out against mild authority like parents or teachers or coaches. I think many non-criminal people would fare very poorly in an environment of prison-style authority. Activists are often viewed poorly in regular society. In more authoritarian climates they become indistinguishable from criminals. That is not a good indicator of their expected behavior in less authoritarian climates.
komali2 2y ago
> Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them? No, I don't, because that's a false assurance. Governments, and especially the American and British governments, don't lock away sociopathic murderers, they lock away weed dealers and kids who make mistakes, mostly. Plenty of those mistakes have victims and those victims deserve justice - but locking up someone for 20 years and turning them into a hardened convict in torturous conditions isn't justice. Last I read, something like 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Similar to kidnappings (it's usually one of the parents). It would be incorrect to believe you're safe, or safer, from harm because people are being locked in prisons. If anything, this system creates more harm. If you're not British or American maybe it doesn't apply to you, but I think people seriously underestimate how life-ruining a chance encounter with the justice system of those countries can be, for things that "everyone" does, or for things that genuinely could happen to anyone. It's a common misconception that these justice systems are keeping people safe from, idk, roving bands of criminal drug pushing rapists or whatever.

freeopinion 2y ago

I'm not defending any specifics of this case. I would like to mention, though, that somebody who got in fights when they were 15 is less likely to do so when they are 30. And somebody who committed robberies when they were 22 is less likely to do so when they are 40. If your argument is that they have a criminal nature and will therefore commit some other crime because it is in their nature, that's a bit hard to accept. If your argument is that they are acting out against their prison environment and therefore can't be trusted in a completely different environment, that is also hard for me to accept. If your argument is that they have been moved into a halfway house but don't seem to be able to cope with normal society, I would probably probe that. Have they committed robberies while in the halfway house? Have they assaulted someone there? I hate to paint all prison guards with a giant brush, but I have experienced first hand how normal people act out against mild authority like parents or teachers or coaches. I think many non-criminal people would fare very poorly in an environment of prison-style authority. Activists are often viewed poorly in regular society. In more authoritarian climates they become indistinguishable from criminals. That is not a good indicator of their expected behavior in less authoritarian climates.

komali2 2y ago

> Don't you think at some point ordinary non-criminal people deserve an assurance that this person won't be allowed to hurt them? No, I don't, because that's a false assurance. Governments, and especially the American and British governments, don't lock away sociopathic murderers, they lock away weed dealers and kids who make mistakes, mostly. Plenty of those mistakes have victims and those victims deserve justice - but locking up someone for 20 years and turning them into a hardened convict in torturous conditions isn't justice. Last I read, something like 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim. Similar to kidnappings (it's usually one of the parents). It would be incorrect to believe you're safe, or safer, from harm because people are being locked in prisons. If anything, this system creates more harm. If you're not British or American maybe it doesn't apply to you, but I think people seriously underestimate how life-ruining a chance encounter with the justice system of those countries can be, for things that "everyone" does, or for things that genuinely could happen to anyone. It's a common misconception that these justice systems are keeping people safe from, idk, roving bands of criminal drug pushing rapists or whatever.