this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
611 points (97.2% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2691 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Darryl Anderson was drunk behind the wheel of his Audi SUV, had his accelerator pressed to the floor and was barreling toward a car ahead of him when he snapped a photo of his speedometer. The picture showed a car in the foreground, a collision warning light on his dashboard and a speed of 141 mph (227 kph).

An instant later, he slammed into the car in the photo. The driver, Shalorna Warner, was not seriously injured but her 8-month-old son and her sister were killed instantly, authorities said. Evidence showed Anderson never braked. 

Anderson, 38, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years in prison for the May 31 crash in northern England that killed little Zackary Blades and Karlene Warner. Anderson pleaded guilty last week in Durham Crown Court to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

I don't know that emotion is so easily divorced from justice. How do you define what a just punishment is for a crime? Or does the magnitude of the crime not matter?

[–] SreudianFlip 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

We learn over and over again from our various texts-of-wisdom, be it fables or scripture or novels or movies, that revenge is a primitive response to problems. It's the moral of so many stories, right?

Yet we organize society to satisfy these immature desires. Punishment, for the most part, is neither deterrent nor corrective, and a paltry form of redress.

Do you want justice? Start with redress. You can't fix the problem of a dead child but the victims need proper support, to alleviate all the other issues caused by the crime. In Canada the prison system is called "corrections" but it mostly fails at that... rehabilitation requires an evidence-based system to succeed, and ours is built on punishment, an emotional response.

If you want deterrence, well that requires eliminating poverty and supplying real education, backed by proactive and robust mental health services.

I define justice as the best possible outcome of a bad situation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

So the crime committed and the effect on the victims, if any, doesn't affect the sentencing?

[–] SreudianFlip 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Uh, sure it does, in the sense that if someone is unable to be rehabilitated, they should be kept away from the public? Not sure what you're asking except maybe "can I please just have a little revenge?"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm confused on how you quantify rehabilitation. How do you know someone has changed?

And yeah I guess I'm genuinely having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that first degree murder and shoplifting could result in the same sentence.

[–] SreudianFlip 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why would they result in the same sentence? That's a strange proposal that I have never heard before.

Regarding rehab, well that's a procedural question more than legislative. Ask experts in the field. It's not like the problem is new, even if it's evident we are going about it fundamentally wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Now I'm confused, I thought the premise of this thread is that jail time should be based not on the severity of the crime, but only how long it takes to rehabilitate the offender. Did I misunderstand that?

[–] SreudianFlip 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah I was pointing out that the prison system may be completely ineffective where it's based on punishment. It's a critical view, not prescriptive, and designing a new system requires a revolutionary approach, with consideration for the needs of the victims as well as the mental state of the perpetrators.

I wasn't proposing anything pat and simple like one-size-fits-all incarceration, completely the opposite, actually. Maybe forever in prison, maybe no jail time. Justice, in terms of repairing things for a victim, might mean a lifelong burden for the convicted, or something else entirely. It would necessarily be complex. More emotional, less rational people would have a problem with that since they can't see justice without punishment.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)