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.
Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man
catloaf@lemm.ee 5 months agoSure, but that’s just vengeance.
joshchandra@midwest.social 5 months ago
booly@sh.itjust.works 5 months 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 5 months ago
Absolutely!
booly@sh.itjust.works 5 months 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 5 months 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.
futatorius@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Your drunk-driver example is based on consequences, not the performative portrayal of consequences.