You are far from silly.
As a philosophical basis for punishment, this grumpy old lawyer thinks retribution is the only structure that makes sense. But, prevention is still better.
To psychiatric tests, add:
1. Property disqualification. No-one who earns or owns more than (for the sake of argument) 10× lowest personal income (best calculated via a national minimum wage) or average wealth need apply.
2. Age restrictions. Only those between (say) 30 and 65 are eligible.
Of which you appear to have both at once over there. The world is full of power mad, prejudiced old fools, it seems.
No. Should I?
@SJAsh_03
"...
The state is set up not to administer justice, but to punish. No victims are compensated, but the state gets its pound of flesh. Writing
more than a century ago, Darrow focused on crimes against property, the predominate crime for which the state “penned” offenders at that time.
Today, burglaries, besides not being sexy, are too hard to solve, and not a cash generator for local, state or federal law enforcement.
So now it’s the war on drugs that clogs America’s prisons combined with initiatives from Washington to “get tough on crime.”
..."
-- From the Introduction
Sounds about right.
The state imposes punishment, not damages. The clue is in the word. It is vengeance. Rarely quantifiable, and generally a compromise between what feels "right" to the policymakers and what the state can afford.
The fantasy that prohibition works is the biggest hindrance to solving drug issues. But try telling that to a right-wing media and those whom it tells what to think.
Personally, I would rank violation of a home as one of the most serious crimes.
alice 🪞♥️ 🎩🐇
Simon Ashcroft