A jury has found David DePape guilty on two counts in the violent attack on Paul Pelosi, the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, last year in the couple’s San Francisco home.
Out of curiosity, why do you not usually approve of it and what in this case makes it justified to you?
My reason for not approving of the court making examples of people would be along the lines of it not really working - people still commit crimes no matter how many examples seem to be made, and giving someone an excessive punishment to dissuade others is inherently unjust - so for me it’s hard to see a reason it would be okay in any case, even this one.
Your reasoning against it may be different though.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I don’t usually approve of courts making examples of people, but the court needs to make an example of this guy.
Out of curiosity, why do you not usually approve of it and what in this case makes it justified to you?
My reason for not approving of the court making examples of people would be along the lines of it not really working - people still commit crimes no matter how many examples seem to be made, and giving someone an excessive punishment to dissuade others is inherently unjust - so for me it’s hard to see a reason it would be okay in any case, even this one.
Your reasoning against it may be different though.
I don’t usually approve because two people convicted of similar offenses ought to be dealt similar punishments.
But violence or intimidation towards elected representatives is a crime that is worse than the sum of its parts.
Especially if its for political reasons. That makes it terrorism and not just violence.