Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BWdem4life

(2,688 posts)
25. And yet
Wed Jul 30, 2025, 03:30 PM
Jul 30

I often see OPs on DU praising the criminal justice systems of other countries which are less focused on punitive measures and more focused on rehabilitation of the criminal.

If they had thrown the book at him, would it really have made it less likely that a similar crime would be later committed by someone else? Does NOT throwing the book at him make it MORE likely that someone else will commit the same crime? Is it likely that this particular individual will commit the same crime again in the future, having dodged a prison sentence this time but been given a chance to rehabilitate himself? I seem to recall reading about studies that show punitive measures don't really prevent crime, only create hardened criminals.

This "hard time for hard crime" stuff is really more of a conservative than liberal viewpoint, although I recognize there are exceptions to every rule. But I envision a society where people are more often given the chance to reform, rather than one where more are incarcerated here than in most other countries.

I think a lot of DUers and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Again, had he actually injured or killed someone, I'd probably be saying he needs to serve some time.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

We are too stupid to survive as a nation. NM Grins Jul 30 #1
Unfortunately, I think you're correct. AZ8theist Jul 30 #3
Or wait, .. Permanut Jul 30 #6
In Dumbfuckistan, it's OK to commit felonies RazorbackExpat Jul 30 #2
Better disturbing the peace and DUI PufPuf23 Jul 30 #4
God Bless America! Woodycall Jul 30 #5
Well BWdem4life Jul 30 #7
40 shots at innocent people? Hmmm. I hope he's being watched 24/7. C Moon Jul 30 #10
Did he lose the privilege of owning firearms? Hope22 Jul 30 #12
You completely ignore shooting 40 shots - I hope you don't condone that or ever did that! lark Jul 30 #19
Nope BWdem4life Jul 30 #22
Reckless endangerment is a serious felony and deserves jail time Mysterian Jul 30 #24
And yet BWdem4life Jul 30 #25
The motherfucker was shooting at cars Mysterian Jul 30 #28
I believe in what I believe in. And I am a liberal. nt BWdem4life Jul 31 #29
You just lost your precious boomsticks, dumbass. LudwigPastorius Jul 30 #8
Let me guess: white, a well-to-do family. C Moon Jul 30 #9
Doesn't always help, but doesn't ever hurt. BWdem4life Jul 30 #11
If you want consideration at all ya better be white! Hope22 Jul 30 #13
What's he get instead---a fucking marksmanship trophy? (nt) Paladin Jul 30 #14
The judge was going to hand him a cookie for being a good boy and not wasting the court's time with a trial. 3Hotdogs Jul 30 #15
I'm amazed that ANYTHING surprises me anymore... (nt) Paladin Jul 30 #16
Maybe Trump will hire him for his next phony assassination attempt. travelingthrulife Jul 30 #21
In Guns We Trust. Let's all bow down and prey. twodogsbarking Jul 30 #17
It's already started - a 2 tier legal system where rw's are free to do anything and liberals get jail for same thing. lark Jul 30 #18
Why? Is he related to the judge? sinkingfeeling Jul 30 #20
.13 isn't THAT drunk. maxsolomon Jul 30 #23
Someday he will be elected to Congress bucolic_frolic Jul 30 #26
Oh, look at that, I have finally discovered a crime for which I'd be fine with mandatory minimums existing. RockRaven Jul 30 #27
Tap-on-the-wrist penalty for the well connected. oasis Jul 31 #30
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Man who fired 40 rounds i...»Reply #25