Fighting is something that can cause lasting damage, so it should be treated seriously.
When someone is found guilty of an offense, its based on intent, not the outcome. Judging people based on outcome would lead to people thinking they can get away with crime if nobody gets hurt, which you don't want because people make bad choices all the time.
As such, if someone is found guilty of fighting, or otherwise any action that could result in life lasting injury to someone, regardless of outcome, its absolutely reasonable to expect that the punishment should be prison for life, both as a deterrent, and as a way to keep that person permanently out of society.
The solution to not being in that situation is simple, don't assault people. Its not that hard.
There is a saying eye for eye and tooth for tooth. It is just disproportionate to lock someone up 20 years for a brawl and misdemeanour. Also there is a big difference between thinking and saying, saying and doing. What you are talking about is Deterrence Theory. If people escalate violence immediately the outcome will be bad, similarly the state shouldn't escalate violence. I mean to say that if you said something mean to me, I would escalate the situation if I hit you in response. Being mean back to you would keep it down or better yet I don't engage.
Similarly I could argue all car drivers should expect prison for life, because their driving could result in life lasting injury or even death.
The state has self interests in that manner and its subjects are a tool for self-preservation. We have a social contract with the state where the state exhibits socially accepted violence/force/power in exchange for order and security.
So you believe the justice system didn't deliver justice and Chauvin received the wrong sentence?
If that's the case, we clearly can't trust the justice system, so my question on how we determine whether the State is issuing violence or force is the same.
By locking up Chauvin unjustly, has the State used force, or violence?
You seem to think that when someone is assaulting someone, it somehow turns into a mutual MMA match where both fighter are trained enough to to harm each other permanently. I hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds. And even in actual MMA, strikes to the head can make you concussed, which carries an increased risk of dementia and other ailments.
So fighting is still the "eye" no matter which way you look at it, and should be punished accordingly, no matter what the actual outcome is. "Tooth" would be yelling and shouting, which is how normal adults should express anger
It doesn't matter if this type of punishment is a deterrent or not, the most important thing is to remove people like that from society, permanently.
Is not fun talking with you. Say a parent hits his child of course the child can't hit the same way back but thats another story. The point is violence has different degrees and can escalate.
Eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth is to say that if you hit my eye black or if I lose a teeth, its not enough to apologise.
I mean on paper it sounds reasonable but in the context of this story its wrong to jail someone infinitelly for a brawl. If it was a serial killer I would agree with you. A murder? Idk maybe it was in self defense. Its complicated and there is no easy solution.
Having atomic weapons is basically a cheatcode for infinite lives. Back then it was a normal concern for a country to be entirely eliminated, idk. Prussia, but once you have atomic weapons, suddenly nobody can wipe you out of the map.
reply