Sure, but that’s just vengeance.
Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man
booly@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoI’d argue that emotions are a legitimate factor to consider in sentencing.
It’s a bit more obvious with living victims of non-homicide crimes, but the emotional impact of crime is itself a cost borne by society. A victim of a romance scam having trouble trusting again, a victim of a shooting having PTSD with episodes triggered by loud noises, a victim of sexual assault dealing with anxiety or depression after, etc.
It’s a legitimate position to say that punishment shouldn’t be a goal of criminal sentencing (focusing instead of deterrence and rehabilitation), or that punishment should be some sort of goal based entirely on the criminal’s state of mind and not the factors out of their own control, but I’d disagree. The emotional aftermath of a crime is part of the crime, and although there’s some unpredictable variance involved, we already tolerate that in other contexts, like punishing a successful murder more than an attempted murder.
catloaf@lemm.ee 2 days ago
booly@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Why do we punish based on consequences caused by the crime, then?
A drunk driver is punished much more severely if they hit and kill a person, than if they hit and hurt a person, than if they hit a tree, than if they don’t crash at all.
As long as we’re punishing people based on the actual impact of their crimes, then emotional impact should count.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
You’re right, we should change that too. Imprisoning a drunk driver for longer doesn’t fix anything. Mandate treatment, put a breathalyzer in their car, or revoke their license and give them probation. If they violate probation, then imprison them until they are rehabilitated.
joshchandra@midwest.social 1 day ago
I’m pretty sure @booly@sh.itjust.works was meaning the exact opposite, that it’s more about educating perpetrators than taking vengeance or merely dishing out old-fashioned justice on them.
booly@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s complicated, and people can have different philosophical approaches to the goals and purposes of criminal punishment. But my argument is that people should be internally consistent in their views. If people believe that the consequences of a crime should be considered when sentencing for that crime, then emotional consequences should count, too, because emotional harm is real harm.
joshchandra@midwest.social 1 day ago
Absolutely!
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 17 hours ago
So a murderer should get a different sentence if the victim had a family and wasn’t a homeless person on the street?
InputZero@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
No, justice should be blind. However those hurt most from the guilty parties actions also deserve to have their voices heard in court. Hot take, victim impact statements should come after the sentence is delivered. Depending on a whole lot of stuff, which I am not smart enough to figure out. Lawyers and judges should probably do that. Perhaps it is in other countries VISs are?
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 11 hours ago
That should be irrelevant to the crime. The sentencing shouldn’t be effected by factors such as that.