I wanted to add this article and present to you a few questions.
In my state, we have often had law makers that have passed laws that were “tough on crime”. This was all well and good in the 90s but it cost the taxpayers a ton. (Then the prisons fell apart, amongst other issues).
The person mentioned in the below article was found to be responsible for taking someone’s life, depriving a family of their loved one and a workplace of workers.
The young man is not a saint. He appears to be a screw up at best. But I would ask you:
Does this man going to jail for a lengthy timeframe serve justice?
Would it make more sense making him do service for the family and finding him counseling?
In three years, he could be a monumental fuck up of a 21 year old.
I am unsure that putting Alabama taxpayers on the hook for his food, jail stay, and terrible healthcare would make the Bramblett’s family whole.
It would make more sense for him to pay restitution and be pushed into finding a job.
The kid seemed lost, according to local sources I knew. I had been in his shoes, I was an exhausted driver full of piss and vinegar. Being lost was often a disadvantage for townies in an university town.
The state, DAs and actors in the legal industry are the one’s that often jump at problems like this. The people actually ask for summary executions or actual rehab at times, instead of prison sentences with no educational programs to reduce recidivism. Our state prisons are evidence of this, the punishment expanding out of simply being imprisoned.
I think that the libertarian idea of letting victims of actual crimes have recompense makes more sense than letting the state have people. I dont think that putting on a show is justice.
Just stew on this. I am for punishing actual crimes but the state often forgets victims and the local community often has better ideas on how to handle things.