Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
You don't seriously believe that, do you, especially when the guy uses a term like "perverse" in the post? Pretty clear what his angle was.
|
Yes? What angle? I'm not trying to be obtuse. It seems like you're really sure about his underlying motive was in making that post and that it was invidious. Can you spell out exactly what your issue is with the logic being used? I mean, what's clear to me is the premises and the conclusion:
P1: Individuals from community X are more likely to be the targets of crime by members of community X;
P2: Recidivism is a problem;
P3: A policy that leads to members of community X being less likely to be given custodial sentences will lead to more criminal members of community X being out in the world;
C: The policy in question that calls for reduced or other sentences besides jail time will lead to crimes being perpetrated against innocent members of Community X by recidivist criminals who might otherwise be in prison.
That's just... valid. I know you said it was some form of emotional manipulation but I can't understand how that is or why you'd assume that. You can say those priorities are dwarfed by other concerns that are important in implementing sentencing policy, and there may be a good argument that the policy reduces crime overall at the end of the day (I have no idea). But he's still right, unless one of those premises is wrong.