Darryl Anderson was drunk behind the wheel of his Audi SUV, had his accelerator pressed to the floor and was barreling toward a car ahead of him when he snapped a photo of his speedometer. The picture showed a car in the foreground, a collision warning light on his dashboard and a speed of 141 mph (227 kph).

An instant later, he slammed into the car in the photo. The driver, Shalorna Warner, was not seriously injured but her 8-month-old son and her sister were killed instantly, authorities said. Evidence showed Anderson never braked.

Anderson, 38, was sentenced Tuesday to 17 years in prison for the May 31 crash in northern England that killed little Zackary Blades and Karlene Warner. Anderson pleaded guilty last week in Durham Crown Court to two counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

  • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I don’t know that emotion is so easily divorced from justice. How do you define what a just punishment is for a crime? Or does the magnitude of the crime not matter?

    • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      We learn over and over again from our various texts-of-wisdom, be it fables or scripture or novels or movies, that revenge is a primitive response to problems. It’s the moral of so many stories, right?

      Yet we organize society to satisfy these immature desires. Punishment, for the most part, is neither deterrent nor corrective, and a paltry form of redress.

      Do you want justice? Start with redress. You can’t fix the problem of a dead child but the victims need proper support, to alleviate all the other issues caused by the crime. In Canada the prison system is called “corrections” but it mostly fails at that… rehabilitation requires an evidence-based system to succeed, and ours is built on punishment, an emotional response.

      If you want deterrence, well that requires eliminating poverty and supplying real education, backed by proactive and robust mental health services.

      I define justice as the best possible outcome of a bad situation.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        So the crime committed and the effect on the victims, if any, doesn’t affect the sentencing?

        • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Uh, sure it does, in the sense that if someone is unable to be rehabilitated, they should be kept away from the public? Not sure what you’re asking except maybe “can I please just have a little revenge?”

          • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m confused on how you quantify rehabilitation. How do you know someone has changed?

            And yeah I guess I’m genuinely having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that first degree murder and shoplifting could result in the same sentence.

            • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Why would they result in the same sentence? That’s a strange proposal that I have never heard before.

              Regarding rehab, well that’s a procedural question more than legislative. Ask experts in the field. It’s not like the problem is new, even if it’s evident we are going about it fundamentally wrong.

              • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                Now I’m confused, I thought the premise of this thread is that jail time should be based not on the severity of the crime, but only how long it takes to rehabilitate the offender. Did I misunderstand that?

                • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah I was pointing out that the prison system may be completely ineffective where it’s based on punishment. It’s a critical view, not prescriptive, and designing a new system requires a revolutionary approach, with consideration for the needs of the victims as well as the mental state of the perpetrators.

                  I wasn’t proposing anything pat and simple like one-size-fits-all incarceration, completely the opposite, actually. Maybe forever in prison, maybe no jail time. Justice, in terms of repairing things for a victim, might mean a lifelong burden for the convicted, or something else entirely. It would necessarily be complex. More emotional, less rational people would have a problem with that since they can’t see justice without punishment.