Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.
We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that’s not a problem. There’s no criminal punishment happening, and if it’s in the contract you signed, that’s expected.
But, you should only criminally punish someone after they’ve hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.
We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.
Define “bad enough”, because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?
We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that’s not a problem. There’s no criminal punishment happening, and if it’s in the contract you signed, that’s expected.
But, you should only criminally punish someone after they’ve hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.
Define “bad enough”, because this is a very slippery slope. What about thefts ?
Following this reasoning, there are no crimes until you get caught and/or there is a victim. To me this is unacceptable in a decent society.
And why we should not to try to avoid to have a person in jail and one killed in the first place ?
Theft has a victim, what are you talking about???
Without an actual victim there is no crime.
And I understand this. What I don’t like is the idea that to try to prevent that there will be victims is bad.
The way to prevent crime isn’t to punish those who haven’t hurt anyone, but to more strongly punish those who have.