• Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    By finding him guilty but not punishing him, he will be made to feel guilty and the chance of him reoffending will be prevented, without socially impairing the man

    What a load of horse shit. “Letting him get away with rape penalty free will ensure he doesn’t do it again” is some crazy fucking logic. Seems like knowing there are no consequences for your actions would make repeating the offense significantly more likely.

    • gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s funny that the court would explicitly legitimize the idea that some people deserve to be “socially impaired” and others do not despite committing exactly the same crime.

      Funny in the sense that it contradicts the entire foundation that the legal system is based on and makes the court look illegitimate and deliberately corrupt.

    • lividweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m sure this concept of non-punishment will now be applied to many other cases across social classes, right?

      Right…?

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a bit like the old sitcom “Night Court” where the judge would find the ladies of the evening guilty as charged and turn them loose with “time served” as their penalty.

      This “lack of sentence” is a bit more than time served since the penalty for this crime can still be applied at any time if the offender is in court for anything else.

      It’s overly lenient and a bad message, but better than letting off manslaughter charges for a defense of “affluenza.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43621839