Meh. I'm in favor of harsh punishments for violating rules that are (a) just / fair, (b) very very easy to NOT violate. Read Friedman's Law's Order - have to multiply loss x prob of being caught. Harshness does not AT ALL invalidate "can't do time / don't do crime" logichttps://twitter.com/uppittynegress/status/1095023824658227202 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ $1,000 fine for littering from a car? FINE! Don't want to pay it? Don't throw crap out the window.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MorlockP
And then the ones who can’t pay end up in jail. So now tax payers are paying for that, plus police overtime to watch for litterers, plus the salaries of the court to prosecute the litterers. So we’ve wasted all this money in hopes 98% of litterers will just pay the fine?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uppittynegress
yes, them going to jail is GOOD. You want to disincentivize theft.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
You know this logic is why the courts are backed up and people are sitting in jails for months and years before trial, right? We’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce harsh punishments against $10 crimes. Why does this seem logical?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
do you agree with me that (a) the law against "theft of services" is morally legitimate? (b) it is very very easy to not be a thief?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.