←back to thread

849 points dvektor | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ArthurStacks[dead post] ◴[] No.44291367[source]
[flagged]
bastawhiz ◴[] No.44291709[source]
Sorry, but this is a disgusting take. Addiction is well established as an illness. It's outright shameful to suggest that someone who is going through recovery is purely doing it as a grift. What you're suggesting is that we can't trust that rehabilitation is possible or reasonable, which is a deeply cruel prospect.
replies(2): >>44291761 #>>44291881 #
ArthurStacks ◴[] No.44291761[source]
And I'm sure if you had your way the prisons would be empty of anyone convicted of a drug related crime because 'they and their terribly sad addictions/illnesses are the real victims'

Theyre in prison as a punishment for crimes

replies(2): >>44291983 #>>44293889 #
bastawhiz ◴[] No.44293889[source]
To what end? To spend tax dollars? To make them rot away indefinitely?

What good are we doing to society if we are keeping rehabilitated individuals locked up at taxpayer expense? There's no objectively correct amount of punishment. The correct amount of punishment should be the smallest amount of time necessary to be confident that the criminal won't cause more harm to society, especially when the crime was committed as the result of a treatable illness like addiction.

replies(1): >>44294889 #
1. ArthurStacks ◴[] No.44294889[source]
To what end? Justice.
replies(1): >>44305832 #
2. bastawhiz ◴[] No.44305832[source]
Justice goes both ways. How much punishment is too much justice? At some point you're just being cruel, which the US constitution forbids.