• KISSmyOS@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    They should be rehabilitated in an institution that is set up to help them beat the addiction and re-join society.
    If necessary, they should be removed from society and locked up, if they pose a danger to others.
    Putting them in a typical American prison that is designed to make their life as miserable as possible while extracting free labor helps neither them, nor the victims, nor society.

    • Conyak@lemmy.tf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      In 1991 an alcoholic got drunk and killed my 16 year old brother with his car. Are you suggesting that he should not have gone to prison but instead should have been sent for treatment? I’m not so sure things are as black and white as you say.

    • CableMonster
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Since we cant force people to get healthy they will be in our society with their addictions. Should they be punished for their crimes?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think you read the comment you are replying to:

        If necessary, they should be removed from society and locked up, if they pose a danger to others.
        Putting them in a typical American prison that is designed to make their life as miserable as possible while extracting free labor helps neither them, nor the victims, nor society.

        • CableMonster
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          That is two different things, one is an active threat, the other is punishment for a crime.

      • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Depends on the crime, the motive and their state of sanity.
        Generally, it’s for a court to decide.

        • CableMonster
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          8 months ago

          So then the woman that was taking meth, and killed her fetus is or is not liable for the death of the fetus? If your theory is that people that are in the middle of addiction are not responsible for their actions then that is pretty disasterous in multiple ways.

          • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            That’s not my theory, and you’re not interested in engaging with me in good faith, so good bye.

            • CableMonster
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              Your theory doesnt make any sense, if there is no direct consequences of actions then it opens up a whole bunch of problems.

          • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Plenty of drunks kill and maim other people because they decide to drive drunk. The punishment very rarely matches the crime, yet you want to impose harsher punishments because of a miscarriage that could maybe be related to drug use.

            • CableMonster
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              We should assume there is much more evidence that she is responsible beyond what the article claims, but its possible that she is innocent and just had a miscarriage. I dont know if drunks need to get a worse punishment or not, but that doesnt relate to if a woman should be responsible for killing their fetus.