How much time should that woman serve for a double 2nd-degree murder? (Or possibly "involuntary manslaughter" if the defense can prove the circumstances made her "emotionally disturbed.") There's a high degree of statistical certainty that she won't offend again. How does it "protect the public" to incarcerate her for any length of time?
It doesn't but at the same time... should one go after someone for the sake of revenge of a death or anything else? When does it stop? Why is doing it through the government different?
the crime with the highest rate of recidivism is grand theft; thieves almost always return to a life of crime after serving their sentences because big-ticket theft makes a lot of money in a short period of time with relatively low personal risk, the crime is a particular warning flag for employers (who don't want their stuff stolen) and therefore thieves in particular have a hard time integrating into lawful society, and it's a "high skill" type of crime that thieves become invested in because of their training. Under your "protect the public" rubric it seems like we should give car thieves life sentences - or even the death penalty - because of the statistical surety that a car thief will steal more cars after we let him
perhaps? It would indeed be about the threat to majority of society. I'm not sure one crime is "worse" than the other...
This also could be because I tend not to think with emotion... I'm rather "cold"
I think the the government would find it in it's best interest to prevent the crime by investing in low income schools and getting people on their feet. The truth is the vast majority of these crimes happen in and with "hopeless" people who think that is the only way to get ahead.
Punishing people for doing "bad things" seems like a pointless practice to me.
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
