[psychedelican]

The point is we're now at the point of jailing people based on conjecture and projection and statistics instead of them committing an actual crime.

What is the statistical likelihood that any person of a specific religious group will commit an act of terrorism? Should we find that number and then jail a random swath of their population?

[kadoban]

It is an actual crime. This person risked many people's lives for their own convenience. He did actual actions, not possible future activity.

If I fire a gun into a building blindly, the chance I kill anyone is low. Should that be legal?

[throwaway894345]

I think we're all arguing for sentencing in proportion to risk; we differ in our relative risk assessments. You mention that you think being near someone (presumably while masked?) is at least 5x more dangerous than drunk driving (per your comment upthread) while I (and presumably the parent) disagree.

[kadoban]

I don't know about that. Ggp seems to be arguing that any crime based on risk (and not outcome) should not be a crime, though their possibly forthcoming reply may clarify.

If we agree it should be a crime and just disagree on severity, that seems fair enough and (at least to me) not worth any further discussion than I already engaged in on it.

[throwaway894345]

Yeah, I can't speak for him. We definitely outlaw things that are simply very risky (e.g., drunk driving) whether or not anyone is actually injured. I don't have a problem with prohibiting unnecessary social gatherings, but this feels like it should be a $200 USD fine--certainly not 5 times the max drunk driving sentence.