Uvalde - the followup

[Rigby5]

That suggests the intent of such incarceration is deterrence. If not that, what?
And if that, does it work?

Deterrence means preventing future repetitions.
But incarceration in this case does not do that, since he has no other sons he could buy a rifle for.
Instead this takes a grieving father and increases his pain, for no reason.
And that just increases the spiral of violence.
Making a foolish mistake is not the same as having harmful intent.
This makes the legal system an extension of personal vengence.

 

[sear]

"Deterrence means preventing future repetitions." R5 #281

Correct.

"But incarceration in this case does not do that, since he has no other sons he could buy a rifle for." R5 #281

Deterrence is not confined to a single bloodline.

"Instead this takes a grieving father and increases his pain, for no reason." R5 #281

The "grieving father" that purchased the deadly weapon and gifted it to the criminal?

I think we should deter such parental "generosity".

"And that just increases the spiral of violence.
Making a foolish mistake is not the same as having harmful intent.
This makes the legal system an extension of personal vengence." R5 #281

I'll review the study you refer to if you post a link to it.
But generally though few if any credible experts tout deterrence as 100% effective,
I know of no such experts that advocate abandoning deterrence entirely.

"This makes the legal system an extension of personal vengence." R5 #281

What improvement would you suggest?
Continue to allow parents to gift to their children deadly weapons unsupervised? Uncontrolled?
Like Sandy Hook?