openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
Well technically yes, but defending them from what. IMO I don’t get the point of gratuitous punishment.
IE I see 2 possibilities.
Someone can be rehabilitated. IE we think it’s reasonable that after the punishment we consider them able to be low enough risk that more or less they can contribute to society and function as a normal person again.
Someone can’t be rehabilitated. In which case punishment is completely meaningless, and we need to keep them away from any potential victims for the rest of their lives. Of which I do understand but not agree with the concept of shortening it.
But in the case of 2, I flat out don’t get the concept of intentionally adding suffering in that point for any purpose other than keeping them from getting near innocents. If we’ve given up on changing them, then we’ve negated any potential purpose to the suffering, and thus it’s just gratuitous and… makes those involved in it’s execution the monsters.