Originally Posted by
Sidney
Yeah I understand why you want to think like that.... its simpler, but your version of fair is no more relavent than mine. I am pretty sure the judge wouldn't even say it was fair... he hopefully would say that it was appropriate given all the circumstances, otherwise he shouldn't have given it.
I'm pretty sure that we have already had considerable discussion on the lack of deterant value around punative response to intentional crime and its a bigger reach to claim deterent value on unintentional outcome. Who are you deterring? The offender....? well you just but him into prison to train him to be an intentional criminal so clearly thats not the focus...
Other general members of the public? Does your target audience (18 yr old testosterone filled, low empathy scoring individuals) actually read the newspaper so that they can be informed?? Deterrant?
Sorry but this sort of sentencing is only designed to pacify the gen pop.... and its not very intelligent..
Fear of getting caught is the deterrant that actually works, not fear of consequences. 18yr olds with poor upbringings, testosterone and low perceptive development have no regard for consequences, if they are not concerned about getting caught. Punative sentences have little to no value in that respect. Thats why speeding policing works.... the money isn't that significant..