lucg

I would expect that judges have a fine moral compass for which crimes are worse than others. Better if they don't need to follow some administration's counterscientific "tough on crime" whim

You make a compelling case for maximums though. I hadn't thought of it as being a way to reduce torture or death penalty in the countries where that's on the table in the first place

Then the prosecution brings case law where a person of color in a similar situation got a very different sentence, or someone without the rich parents etc.

I'm sure there'll be biases but minimum sentences won't undo those. I'd find minimum and maximum sentences very unfair for situations like described by the person you replied to. Case law and perhaps a blinding system (Justice is blindfolded after all) where at least one of the judges involved doesn't get to learn things like "white guy with rich parents" might be a better solution if that's the problem this is intended to solve

I'm not deep into this situation but my understanding is that no minimum sentence would have helped there. Nobody being above the law might have helped...

Why would a judge do that in the first place?

Or if they do, what prevents either side from going to the next court to get it overturned? And the next court after that

Idk if this is everywhere but the system I'm used to is this: the first two levels of court look at the case details in-depth, then there's a third 'last resort' court for if you think there was a mistrial (this usually gets rejected), and they can send it back to the second court to re-do if something crazy happened that's not in line with correct procedure as it sounds like it did in your example

If we don't trust a whole series of judges to pass judgment fairly, then I'm not sure we should have judges. Personally I trust these more to apply laws and case law than if we'd put elected politicians on the seat of judge, as basically happens with them choosing the sentence parameters (and as you see more and more often in my country; older judges also speak of higher and higher sentences being expected, makes me wonder if we'll go full-circle to medieval practices eventually)

Regarding the first paragraph, the way they measure this is observing the incidence in different circumstances. Similar country but higher punishment? See if fewer people do the crime. Oversimplified.

The research shows that the deterrence effect exists but, beyond a certain punishment level, it doesn't do much anymore. What helps is primarily the odds of being caught at all (and then an appropriate punishment) and secondarily the time between violation and punishment (I didn't realise this would matter for adults but apparently so)

Going to jail for two years, four years, or six years, either way you lose your social life, the roof over your head (once you get out), your job, everything. It's a doubling or tripling of the sentence but is it really that different? If I'm okay incurring 2y prison sentence... I'm probably not the target audience for this but I imagine such a person would also risk 6y if they want someone gone that badly and the odds of being caught are low enough

Prevention is golden, as you say. But then rehabilitation is silver imo: if they lose everything, feel thrown out by society, what still drives them to do good afterwards? I'm sure many of them will simply want to better their lives but external motivation must also help

So I see it like the people who I saw saying upthread that rehabilitation should be the goal: if they're a danger to society, idk, whatcha gonna do but control that? Need to lock them up or similar (ankle thingy, idk). But if there's a good chance they'll get back on their feet and become taxpayers instead of prisoners or crime group members, then that's what we should asap strive for

Thanks! Good system that you can't opt out imo, everyone needs to at least fund it even if (perhaps not good but idk) not everyone needs to also use it (thinking of rich people in power)

Oh, perfect!

Oh, bloemkool! I see now ^^

Global warming, inequality, bodily autonomy (euthanasia, abortion), healthcare accessibility, pay gaps... sitting in a room with sick people is not even the first trivially solvable issue on this list but it's definitely among them 😅. Wouldn't be the first time someone catches long covid from sitting at the doctor's where the other patient wasn't aware they were infected/infectious yet

If all the ppl. bitching about the phone lines just used the app. then the ppl that actually HAVE to use the phone lines (digitally excluded ppl) wouldn't have so long to wait \ phone back every day.

Is the app free of trackers and does it run on open operating systems like google-less Android? As in, no attempts at root detection, trying to use Google Play Services, etc.

I probably don't have to explain this viewpoint on Lemmy as much as to the general public but not everyone who could use a nice locked-down big tech phone that phones home to facebook wants to carry that around all day, nor buy two phones when the govt could also just make it a website that runs on any OS and any device because it's made of open standards

(If this sounds outlandish: this is pretty much what the government-funded public transport app for Germany is like. Want to buy a ticket? Better hope the algorithm likes your payment method, takes your money, and that you can run their software to display your ticket)

What sort of money does one need to spend in Sweden to get private health insurance? Can you stop paying the government one if you have that? (In Germany, I'm publicly insured so idk private prices, but you pay either one and not both, it's not like normal taxes that you always pay)

When you don't have health insurance, I'd assume? Because the tax system is basically the UK health insurance so I'm not sure if it's a fair comparison in that case (the amount you pay through taxes or to a private insurance company might be very different though, but then that'd imo be the number to compare)