• tsonfeir
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s for the children though, think about the children!! /s

    The one thing I’ll disagree with is, if a kid murders their entire family, they should never be allowed to roam free. It’s perfectly acceptable to say “this person is broken and cannot ever exist in society” with a crime like murder.

    • Prompt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My take is that if a kid does something that extreme it has probably been forced to work from a very young age, beaten up at home and at school and raped from a very young age.Then been forcefully married and having the rapists child. Just taking some excerpts from the article. Where I live the scenario of a kid killing its own family who’s under the age of 18-20 is unthinkable. Kids must be protected at all costs. Both a good and a bad upbringing will stay with you all your life and shape you for better or worse. I’ve worked with addicts and kids in institutions for many years. There are almost no happy childhoods there.

      • tsonfeir
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I imagine that information would be considered during the trail and the charges would be decreased, given a history of abuse. But, in the case that it isn’t that…

            • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why are you so hung up on their being “a punishment”.

              You’re coming up with these outlandish hypotheticals to justify your seeming desire to see …children… retributively harmed.

              Do we not at least agree in theory the at least ostensibe purpose of corrections is …correction?

              Do we agree that is the goal and should be worked toward in all cases?

              Starting from the position a person CAN be rehabilitated, do you agree from the point a person is rehabilitated there is no reason to lock them up?

              Do you reject that notion and believe a person who no longer thinks nor acts the way that lead them to commit harmful acts—just presume momentarily that’s possible—should still remain locked up?

              If the second, would you mind explaining what utility you feel that serves.? Leaving reformed people locked up.

                • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’d be more than happy if you wouldn’t continue so don’t threaten me with a good time.

                  How is discussing hypotheticals you’ve provided no evidence of existing in any way discussing reality?

                  I asked you what you thought the purpose of corrections even was but you can’t even muster that much without blabbering on about Elijah Wood’s character in Sin City.

                  What is the utility incarcerating a reformed individual?
                  Save slave labor (which is fucked) what is gained by society by keeping a person locked up?

    • PersnickityPenguin
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That kind of extreme example is so rare that it’s not really worth basing policy off of.