5 ms·

"The justice system should not be retributive" is a poor way to phrase it. I think what OP intended to say is that at least on paper, it is at about the right l

"The justice system should not be retributive" is a poor way to phrase it. I think what OP intended to say is that at least on paper, it is at about the right level of retribution right now, and that increasing it really isn't helpful. In the American justice system, you do the crime and then do the time, after which you are released and can live as a free man for the rest of your days. If the crime is especially unforgivable, you go in for life. There is a major disconnect in people's understanding of that. People disagree with the sentencing, but then fixate on the idea that somebody might be able to live a normal, pro-social life upon release and focus their anger on that instead of what they actually have an issue with. "Protect your perpetrator" is a really huge stretch. Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
> Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup. Yes, but some crimes hurt specific people, badly. Some victims seek a measure of retribution, and in a different place and time we all could agree that is "justice". Some other legal systems extricate themselves from this conflict by placing perpetrators at the mercy of their victims. The US system is not superior in its efforts to withhold from victims the satisfaction of appropriate retribution. In exactly the same way you think 5-10 years in the scenario above is unjust, I think a system that ignores the impact of crime on victims is worse than useless.
- seabird 2y ago
  The 5-10 years isn't unjust. Even them fucking up afterwards and going back in isn't necessarily unjust. It's just that recidivism in that case is an avoidable thing, but people would just let it happen because they can imagine some situation where some perpetrator deserves worse. It's frankly an incredibly stupid hill to die on, even if you completely discount the wellbeing of the person being incarcerated. The system isn't ignoring the impact of crime on victims, it just doesn't let victims completely run the show in sentencing/punishment. Sometimes there's bad outcomes, but that's fixable. You can never fix people that feel the death sentence is appropriate for even the slightest transgression, and if you add some sort of oversight to that you're right back where we are. You do not want street justice. I don't understand how one could possibly not understand how bad it would be. There's a reason we rag on societies that enable it.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

> Letting someone who is in for 5-10 years for pushing crack get a job they can work from their cell so they can potentially get right upon release is definitely preferable to ensuring the perpetrator turns into a career fuckup. Yes, but some crimes hurt specific people, badly. Some victims seek a measure of retribution, and in a different place and time we all could agree that is "justice". Some other legal systems extricate themselves from this conflict by placing perpetrators at the mercy of their victims. The US system is not superior in its efforts to withhold from victims the satisfaction of appropriate retribution. In exactly the same way you think 5-10 years in the scenario above is unjust, I think a system that ignores the impact of crime on victims is worse than useless.

seabird 2y ago
The 5-10 years isn't unjust. Even them fucking up afterwards and going back in isn't necessarily unjust. It's just that recidivism in that case is an avoidable thing, but people would just let it happen because they can imagine some situation where some perpetrator deserves worse. It's frankly an incredibly stupid hill to die on, even if you completely discount the wellbeing of the person being incarcerated. The system isn't ignoring the impact of crime on victims, it just doesn't let victims completely run the show in sentencing/punishment. Sometimes there's bad outcomes, but that's fixable. You can never fix people that feel the death sentence is appropriate for even the slightest transgression, and if you add some sort of oversight to that you're right back where we are. You do not want street justice. I don't understand how one could possibly not understand how bad it would be. There's a reason we rag on societies that enable it.