71–80 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No jail time for non violent crime? I presume you've never been defrauded, burgled, etc.
I've been defrauded and burgled for substantial amounts. I've also been mugged at gunpoint. Only for the latter violent crime would I suggest jail time.
What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when…
Everything about this is ridiculous, but this especially so: "Johnson’s release date was originally scheduled for earlier, but he ended up serving an additional eight months at the age of 69 for a juvenile shoplifting charge he received when he was 17." How in any reasonable society is this justifiable? I re-read the sentence probably five times because I simply couldn't believe it.
I'm surprised the sentences stack, I would have expected that if you have 5 jail-terms assigned to you, you would serve until the longest one. American law sure favours punishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society. That probably depends on how reckless you were. Stupidity combined with fondness for dangerous objects can be dangerous to society. Jail-time might be good idea. > If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you from death, how is society b…
> That probably depends on how reckless you were. Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reasonable definition and pose no future risk to society. My point is that most people do recognize the importance of intent and future outcomes. > Results surely must play some role. The more I think about it I don't think they should. Why do we put people in pris…
Which is a valid form of argument. He's showing you how absurd what you're saying is if applied literally. You don't get to duck out and claim he's off topic, you need to address his point which is perfectly valid. If intent is all that matters, then a superstitious person who believes voodoo works should according to you be charged with attempted murder; that's the logical outcome of your position, you owe him a real answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I shoot you purely by accident most people will agree that I shouldn't go to prison. It was an accident, I'm not a danger to society. That probably depends on how reckless you were. Stupidity combined with fondness for dangerous objects can be dangerous to society. Jail-time might be good idea. > If I mean to murder you but my aim is off, or modern medical science manages to keep you from death, how is society b…
> That probably depends on how reckless you were. Let's assume the most generous interpretation possible. I.e. one where I'm at no fault whatsoever by any reasonable definition and pose no future risk to society. My point is that most people do recognize the importance of intent and future outcomes. > Results surely must play some role. The more I think about it I don't think they should. Why do we put people in pris…
> The more I think about it I don't think they should.
Murder is very extreme example because it's very easy to kill a human if you decide to do it and even if you fail with a bit of luck things might have played out differently. Also murder is sharp. You can't kill a person just a little.
But consider theft. Someone who stole your insulin pump should be treated differently from someone who took some money or someone who tried to enter your house but couldn't open the lock and gave up. Or consider assault. Trying to hit someone shouldn't be punished same as hitting. I think mostly because you can hit someone to no effect (should be punished somewhat anyway) or you can kill with one hit. You'd have a problem to estimate what was attempted and what the punishment for attempt should be. ... you could have a rule that attempt is punished same as most harmless possible outcome.
...unless you are making a point just about murder and attempted murder. Then I'm inclined to agree that serious attempt and murder should be treated same if you can show that the attempt was to murder not just wound.
At least until we have technology that will make most deaths just temporary nuisances and there will be spectrum of how much you can murder someone.
>> if he was trying to kill you using voodoo magic
>Now you're just entering the realm of the absurd.
You are right. I just wanted to bring into focus some (very small fraction) of murderers that are so stupid that they attempt to use methods that couldn't possibly kill anyone and suggest that as technology progresses there might be more such people.
> Why do we put people in prison at all? Revenge is not an actual reason
That's the actual reason we put imprisoned people to death.
What I've started to realize about people is that you can't influence them all with deterrents. No matter how long the sentence, or how permanent the memory of the justice system (8 months in prison for robbery, 50 years later), none of that is bad enough to actually stop people committing crimes in the first place. Essentially, people aren't rational. They don't act in their own self interests. I saw this also when…
> Essentially, people aren't rational. To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational. Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.
For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent as well, but one with a guarantee, because if they are in jail they are not going to be committing more crimes that are disruptive to society.
So the criminal justice system still serves a purpose. If the prospect of jail, or just the desire to be a good human didn't stop someone from impulsively raping or murdering someone, then they belong in jail where they can't act out their impulsive rapes or murders on society at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think someone pointing a gun at you and threatening your life is a big difference. Don't you?
I think it makes it worse , because of the physical endangerment involved. But in both cases the theft of property is morally equivalent to the thief enslaving me to produce the stolen items for him. If it took me a day to work to earn the money to buy my phone, and you steal it, you've just stolen a day of my life.
44 years for attempted murder of a police officer, I guess with such a benchmark the next police officer murdering a civilian will be sentenced to at least double that given that they're supposed to set an example. Incredible. What standard of sentencing would essentially take someone's life away for an attempt . Makes you wonder how big a sentence you'd get if you succeeded, more than a lifetime?
His time served is actually twice as long as the average life sentence served for actual murder in the UK. (Some murderers are in for a "whole life" tariff -- ineligible for release on license -- but in general most are eligible for parole hearings after between 8 and 12 years and on average they serve roughly 20 years.) Just in case anyone was thinking that 44 years for attempted murder is a light sentence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Essentially, people aren't rational. To expand on this, people with proclivities towards committing serious crimes tend to be highly irrational. Thus, employing a deterrent that relies upon the rationality of such individuals makes about as much sense as using a flamethrower to mow the lawn.
I don't know if your meaning to say we should do away with criminal sentencing? I would think your not saying that, but just so no one gets the wrong idea. For people that commit crimes that are highly disruptive to society, on any level, from assaults to massive ponzi schemes, be these 'not particularly rational' individuals or otherwise, the sentence is a deterrent on the one hand, and on the other hand a deterrent…