[worthless-trash]

I like how that sounds, so idealistic. I think that in some cases, the penalty can make the crime seem like a worthwhile financial transaction, I dont know about this specific case or how a disability relates to it.

There are many crimes that take peoples future and damage families for generations with only a slap on the wrist enabling them to repeat the crime. I don't think there is a good solution to keep everyone happy, the best solution is just to not be involved in crimes as either the perpetrator or victim, sadly perpetrators look like regular people.

[kube-system]

Yes, retributive justice is very popular among the general public, particularly those affected by crime who are often the loudest voices.

But it is a morally and functionally bankrupt theory of justice, which is why I will always point out that our legal system was also built on other more productive and more moral theories of justice.

[rnd0]

>Yes, retributive justice is very popular among the general public, particularly those affected by crime who are often the loudest voices.

I know right? What scumbags! Maybe those are the people who should be locked up instead of the people going out causing the pain and suffering.

/s

[kube-system]

No sarcasm necessary! Many extreme acts of retribution are illegal in the US, like crimes of passion, honor killings, lynching, torture, and cruel punishments.

There are places who agree with your sentiment and believe that there's nothing wrong with these acts... "because they deserved it"

Some say we have a "weak" justice system because we disallow these punishments. I suggest instead: two wrongs don't make a right.

A well functioning justice system is not an outlet for anyone's anger, it's a means of protecting people's rights.

[rnd0]

When you start trying to equate a legitimate aspect of the judicial system with honor killings and lynching then it becomes apparent that you are not coming from a place of good faith.

Yes, one aspect of the judicial system is the protection of rights but more-over it's also to protect the larger community from bad actors and to give victims a sense of closure. To do justice to those who have been wronged by those who lash out for any reason.

For the Judicial system to do its' legally appointed duty and punish those who cause deliberate and measurable harm is not a "wrong", though I'll grant that far too many people appear to feel that it is.

Nor is it equivalent to honor killings, lynching nor torture -to say it is is misguided at best.

[kube-system]

> When you start trying to equate a legitimate aspect of the judicial system with honor killings and lynching then it becomes apparent that you are not coming from a place of good faith.

I am not arguing that.

If you scroll back up and reread, I said that retribution that violates people’s human rights is not a legitimate form of retribution. Like my original argument, which was that it is wrong to throw autistic people in prison who do not have the mental capacity to have mens rea for their crimes, particularly when alternatives solutions are a better balance.

> Nor is it equivalent to honor killings, lynching nor torture -to say it is is misguided at best.

People argue for awful and inhumane forms of retribution all the time which are comparable to (or literally are) these, and is what I am referring to.

For example: the not uncommon sentiment that it’s okay or desirable for those convicted of certain crimes to be subjected to violence while in prison.

[worthless-trash]

Are you suggesting that deterrents should be lesser than the crimes perpetrated ? If so, do you believe that we should start "investing" in criminal behavior as its perceived payoff is larger than the cost ?