[shittyanalogy]

You know what I never understood? The concept of "making an example" out of someone in the justice system. How can we give one individual a sentence that is exceptionally harsher than the norm and not have that sentence be considered unusual as in cruel and unusual? The whole point is that their sentence is unusual for the circumstance. How is this in any way a just and equal, and legal for that matter, application of the law?

[tptacek]

It really depends on what you're "making an example of".

The words "making an example" are just a way of describing deterrence, which is a core function of the criminal justice system.

Deterrence is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It depends on what you're deterring. If it's arson, deterrence makes a lot of sense: it's fun and easy to set fires, and very easy to underestimate or disregard the harm those fires will do to others. If it's political tagging, deterrence makes much less sense. The justice system needs to extract a penalty for damaging people's property, but politically-motivated tags are a low-intensity problem.

Beyond deterrence, criminal penalties must account for the inefficiency of policing and the rewards to crime. A 1:1 damage/penalty system is intrinsically ineffective; it makes crime a rational decision.

It's easy to agree here that 3 years of probation for tagging in a deliberate attempt to get arrested to make a political point is abusive.

[gtz59]

This describes how deterrence is justifiable, not how it is fair.

[tptacek]

What is the difference between justice and fairness?

[gtz59]

"justifiable" - defensible, makes sense

"fair" - treating people equally

In other words, I interpret the original question as: "how is making an example not considered unusual?".

[hmsimha]

I don't know that the justice system as a whole has to account to anyone for handing out cruel and unusual punishments. I imagine in this case, they knew at the time of sentencing that the defendant was practically live tweeting his experience, and that a light sentence would be more likely to encourage others to disobey in a similar manner. It's not a justification, but 'making an example' is probably intended to serve as a deterrent to copycat criminals.

[SilasX]

Because you can't catch everyone. So the severity of the punishment has to make up for the improbability of getting caught

(Not defending the specific magnitude, just the principle.)

[mindcrime]

(Not defending the specific magnitude, just the principle.)

It's a stupid principle. It totally fucking distorts the most basic idea behind a system of equal "justice".

[SilasX]

So, in the 5% of cases where you get caught, you just have to give back what you stole?

[mindcrime]

Sure, if you get caught, you compensate / reimburse the victim. If you don't get caught... well, sometimes you get lucky. But that's no different than how we do things now. Not everybody gets caught. It sucks, but it's reality.

But the idea that we're going to "extra punish" a handful of people here and there to "make an example out of them" is totally incompatible with any reasonable notion of "justice" .

[rayiner]

That's not "justice." That's blanket license for a violent minority to prey upon a law-abiding majority.

[nitrogen]

How so? And couldn't we make crime less profitable than not-crime by making not-crime more profitable and more accessible, instead of ruining the lives of the unlucky few who get caught?

[mindcrime]

So you don't think criminals should have to reimburse their victims, or make some appropriate restitution? Just lock 'em in cells and make them suffer until they've paid their dues, or maybe put them on a chain gang? Gotcha.

I don't want anything to do with it. Locking people in cells, forced labor, etc. are for the (few) people who are simply so dangerous that they can't roam the world without representing an imminent threat to others.

[SilasX]

So, law-breaking should be profitable. Got it.

[mindcrime]

It already is. It probably always will be. So we can ignore reality and live in some fantasy-land where everything is perfect and none suffer and everybody walks on gilded streets and has a pony... or we can accept reality for what it is. But if attempting to build this polly-anna'ish dream world involves violating the fundamental essence of what justice and equality under the law mean, then I - for one - want no part of it.