436
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
436 points (94.1% liked)
News
23274 readers
3201 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The main thing is to dissuade people from doing what he did, right?
Fuck around and find out and all that.
If it has any actual use for anyone (e.g. separating dangerous people from society, taking stolen property/money back, preventing them from committing more crimes etc), that's entirely unintentional.
It's more about isolating him so he can't do more harm.
shouldn't those sorts of things be the actual goal of any "justice system"?
Of course, but we all know that's not how it works out in practice (especially in America).
but that doesn't work.
Of course it works. If you threaten someone with jail when they do X, then they are less likely to do X.
To take one example, several states have recently threatened doctors with jail if they perform abortions. As a result, obstetricians are now fleeing those states to avoid being prosecuted for performing their normal medical duties. If jail had no deterrent effect, then obstetricians would stay put and keep doing what they've always been doing, including performing safe abortions.
To take another example, several state have recently decriminalized marijuana, thus reduces the risk of jail for sale and possession. As a result, marijuana is more commonly consumed in public and far more commonly sold in public. If jail had no deterrent effect, there would be no change in the number of businesses selling marijuana.
if it worked then he wouldn't have done it.
Something doesn't have to be 100% effective to work.
Quitting smoking works to prevent cancer. That doesn't mean it is 100% effective in preventing cancer.
so you think the solution to stop someone from doing something you don't like is to put someone else in a cage. i just can't do that. that's wrong.
I can't stop anyone from doing something I don't like.
But historically, there have been plenty of solutions to stop someone from doing something society doesn't like. For example, execution. Torture. Punishing their relatives. Exile. Prison. And asking them nicely to please stop.
Of those, I think prison is the best option. Putting someone in a cage may seem wrong, but letting them freely murder and rape innocent people is more wrong.
i prefer asking them nicely to please stop. i also think exile is fine, but we should try shunning first.
no one was murdered or raped here, and i'm not saying to let people murder or rape.
So you're fine with seeing some people in cages. You just don't want to see SBF in a cage.
no. who did i say should be caged?
What do you plan to do with murderers and rapists?
Exile is no longer an option, because no other country will allow them in. And everyone has already been told from a young age that murder and rape are unacceptable.
I don't have a one size fits all solution, and I don't believe any such solution can possibly be just in every circumstance.
How about a one size fits one solution?
Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven infants. Would you send her to prison?
no.
Would you punish her or sentence her at all? If so, how?
I honestly don't know enough about the situation.
She murdered seven infants. What more information would you need in this case?
motive? mental state? all kinds of other factors might be at play.
Her diary said that she enjoyed watching parents suffer and that she knew she was evil.
What other factors would be relevant?
i don't know: i don't know the case. im not trying to litigate it in the comment section about sam bankman-fried, either. you asked, i answered. you just don't like my answer. i don't care to be interrogated any more.
You said you would not send anyone to prison but cannot offer any alternatives.
Now let me tell you why a policy of not punishing people like Lucy Letby is a terrible idea. She would become a target of revenge-minded people, possibly even the parents of the infants she killed.
She would be tortured and/or killed by individuals who felt justice hadn't been done. After all, if Lucy Letby doesn't face serious repercussions for her actions, then her killer has no reason to worry either.
For better or worse, people demand retribution. Government must provide it, otherwise people will take matters into their own hands.
i think i prefer taking matters into my own hands.
You may trust your own judgement, but do you trust the judgment of literally everyone in the world?
Recently a woman was killed by someone who was offended by her rainbow flag. Last year, a teenager killed a boyfriend who wanted to break up with her.
Today, those are the actions only of unstable people. But they would become the norm if you allow everyone to be judge, jury, and executioner. How long do you suppose an LGBTQ person would survive in Idaho?
laws don't stop people who want to do bad things. if vigilantism were normalized, mores would form around it, and there would be no need for laws or government.
that's far off. we need to liberate people from the material conditions that keep them in bondage to the capitalist class before we can start figuring out what the world will look like after teh revolution. in the mean time, i still don't think it does us any good to pay to jail these people.
Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.
So I don't see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.
And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That's why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.
vigilantes don't have a monopoly on violence and a labyrinthine bureaucracy preventing policy change
A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war, either on a local level (gang wars) or national (civil war). Wars are generally to be avoided.
And policy change may be hard, but changing the attitudes of a mob is much harder. We passed laws against racism in the 1960s, we still haven't eliminated racist mobs.
that's a false dichotomy
Well, at least one alternative is war. Which I prefer to avoid, even if it requires a monopoly on violence.
And I will always prefer one group threatening violence to rule-breakers to multiple groups threatening violence to rule-breakers. Especially since multiple sets of rules are more likely to be contradictory.
How far do you take this philosophy? Do you feel people who sexually abuse children should stay free?
I don't see how locking someone in a cage benefits anymore.
Yeh, fuck that. I'm a survivor of CSA, people who do that deserve life in prison at the very least.