 |
|
Some problems with your reply:
Posted on: November 28, 2023 at 12:19:15 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
70265
Member For:
21.01 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
1. Your 'solution' begs the question.
A. Will the perpetrator willingly pay 'restitution' for harm that he intentionally caused?
In the original case from which this discussion arose some years ago the issue at hand was Youtube yanking down the video of the crime to prevent the public from helping the police to even identify the violent perpetrators. pickle cheered Youtube for doing so. That in itself was an impediment to justice and to getting restitution for the victims.
B. Will the perpetrator(s) have the capability of making restitution even if they wanted to do so? In the case from a day or two ago which was the more proximate impetus for this discussion an immigrant broke into the home and stabbed the victim in his neck, apparently trying to kill him. Hospital stays can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, the victims may not always recover, and even if they do, they have suffered and may continue to suffer additional financial losses. There is rehab, time off of work and even the potential for losing one's job, for instance. What happens for those perpetrators who do not have the financial wherewithal to make restitution for that, as well as the pain and suffering involved and the hardship imposed upon family members and friends?
2. If the only penalty for a crime is restitution, it can be an incentive for committing crime. If someone can rob someone and only has to pay back the money if he gets caught, why not rob a bunch of people? If you get caught 10% of the time you get to keep the proceeds of all those crimes where you didn't get caught.
3. You are an enabler of pickle's dishonesty and hypocrisy in avoiding answering the simple question in the original post. Your are taking a thread asking a simple question into yet more rabbit holes to address. Those discussions would be appropriate in their own threads, but not in this one.
Edited by JeffB at 12:21:35 on 11/28/23
A. Will the perpetrator willingly pay 'restitution' for harm that he intentionally caused?
In the original case from which this discussion arose some years ago the issue at hand was Youtube yanking down the video of the crime to prevent the public from helping the police to even identify the violent perpetrators. pickle cheered Youtube for doing so. That in itself was an impediment to justice and to getting restitution for the victims.
B. Will the perpetrator(s) have the capability of making restitution even if they wanted to do so? In the case from a day or two ago which was the more proximate impetus for this discussion an immigrant broke into the home and stabbed the victim in his neck, apparently trying to kill him. Hospital stays can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, the victims may not always recover, and even if they do, they have suffered and may continue to suffer additional financial losses. There is rehab, time off of work and even the potential for losing one's job, for instance. What happens for those perpetrators who do not have the financial wherewithal to make restitution for that, as well as the pain and suffering involved and the hardship imposed upon family members and friends?
2. If the only penalty for a crime is restitution, it can be an incentive for committing crime. If someone can rob someone and only has to pay back the money if he gets caught, why not rob a bunch of people? If you get caught 10% of the time you get to keep the proceeds of all those crimes where you didn't get caught.
3. You are an enabler of pickle's dishonesty and hypocrisy in avoiding answering the simple question in the original post. Your are taking a thread asking a simple question into yet more rabbit holes to address. Those discussions would be appropriate in their own threads, but not in this one.
Edited by JeffB at 12:21:35 on 11/28/23
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Some problems with your reply: - JeffB MU - 11/28 12:19:15