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?

 

[Rigby5]

Correct.


Deterrence is not confined to a single bloodline.


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

I think we should deter such parental "generosity".


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.


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

There is absolutely nothing remotely wrong with gifting your 18-year-old children a rifle, unsupervised and uncontrolled.
The mistake was failing to provide psychiatric treatment after he had been warned by others.
Which is in itself a psychiatric symptom of denial.
It is not criminal, which requires a harmful intent.

 

[Shiftless2]

There is absolutely nothing remotely wrong with gifting your 18-year-old children a rifle, unsupervised and uncontrolled.
The mistake was failing to provide psychiatric treatment after he had been warned by others.

The mistake went beyond not providing psychiatric treatment. It included his father giving him the gun when he already knew his son needed psychiatric help.

 

[sear]

"There is absolutely nothing remotely wrong with gifting your 18-year-old children a rifle, unsupervised and uncontrolled." R5 #283

In law? Perhaps.

B.O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Constitution does not require that the gift recipient reach the age of five years.
None the less it would be imprudent to gift a deadly weapon to such a citizen.

"The mistake was failing to provide psychiatric treatment after he had been warned by others." R5 #283

"The mistake went beyond not providing psychiatric treatment. It included his father giving him the gun when he already knew his son needed psychiatric help." S2 #284

I don't have all the details of this case.
But there's at least an appearance that there were doubt / confidence issues between father & son, and
father may have tried to smooth it over by indicating confidence in son with such gift.

Generally there's a notion that a gift will be welcomed,
that any gift will provide utility to the recipient.
In this case?

 

[Rigby5]

The mistake went beyond not providing psychiatric treatment. It included his father giving him the gun when he already knew his son needed psychiatric help.

Yes, but it is possible he believed that something like owning a rifle would cause his kid to straighten out?
Not a smart move, but not an illegal or deliberately harmful one.

 

[Shiftless2]

The courts obviously didn't agree with that logic.

 

[sear]

" it is possible he believed that something like owning a rifle would cause his kid to straighten out?" R5 #286

"The courts obviously didn't agree with that logic." S2 #287

This seems to elucidate the distinction between reality & law.

Sadly, both these observations may be correct.
My personal opinion is our culture tends to be too casual about obtaining responsible conduct.

S2 #287 makes a sharp point. - I gave my emotionally troubled son a weapon of mass-murder hoping he wouldn't use it for that -

30 Days in the electric chair you knucklehead !

 

[Rigby5]

The courts obviously didn't agree with that logic.

And that is the problem.
All the relatives of the victims wanted revenge, so the court felt obligated to enact revenge.
And that is not legal.
That is the exact thing courts are supposed to prohibit.
The only actual legal authority comes from defense against future infringements, not revenge for past ones.

 

[Rigby5]

This seems to elucidate the distinction between reality & law.

Sadly, both these observations may be correct.
My personal opinion is our culture tends to be too casual about obtaining responsible conduct.

S2 #287 makes a sharp point. - I gave my emotionally troubled son a weapon of mass-murder hoping he wouldn't use it for that -

30 Days in the electric chair you knucklehead !

But foolishness is not a crime, and the 15 year sentence only causes additional harm and does no one any good.

The actual guilt is much deeper and harder to understand.
For example, there is a problem with school shootings, so then obviously schools are doing something wrong.
There are problems of far more shootings than ever in general, so then there is a total social breakdown, where normal empathy and sympathy are being over ridden by stress and pain.

 

[sear]

"All the relatives of the victims wanted revenge, so the court felt obligated to enact revenge." R5 #289

That would absolutely explain it.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It may not necessarily be the correct explanation.

You may not agree with the punitive deterrence model. The experts may not yet have reached consensus on it.
But it seems to remain a staple in the U.S. judicial process.