For the most part, that's exactly right (speaking of victimless crimes, but let's not digress).jlangton wrote:Hang on a second-using that train of thought...there shouldn't be anybody in jail.KBCraig wrote:If the victim is made whole, why should the rest of us pay to lock up the assailant?
How many times do we see real crimes with real victims, and the perpetrator pays a "debt to society" via fines and imprisonment, while the person who was actually harmed gets nothing?
The goal of the justice system should be to restore what was taken from the victim.
I must have missed the report that he has any kind of history of doing this. I thought it was reported as a bizarre one-time event. So, saying he "apparently has an issue with assaulting people" is an unsupported characterization.This person apparently has an issue with assaulting people when they've been drinking.
One of my best college friends, who is still a close friend 25 years later, once knocked the fire out of me while I was attending a party at his house. He wasn't drinking -- he was on pain medication from having his wisdom teeth removed a few hours earlier (and he really wasn't happy that his roommates were throwing a party).
Ten minutes later he was apologizing profusely. I wasn't injured beyond a sore jaw and bent glasses.
Things like that do sometimes happen in life. How many young men have been fast friends after a knock-down drag-out? How many brothers fought like roosters in a ring? Should charges be filed in these cases?