I don't know the Finnish equivalent of this but this is in the neighborhood of negligent homicide in the US. An enterprising prosecutor could probably make a decent case for 2nd degree murder.
This is very clearly in "spend somewhere between 1 and 2 decades turning big rocks into little rocks" territory to my punishment-focused American lizard brain.
What he did is reprehensible. But comments like this are emotively loaded and provoke the ongoing debate around the purpose of jail term. In my opinion, even this length of sentence has a high chance of producing a hardened, bitter criminal with hacking skills.
> even this length of sentence has a high chance of producing a hardened, bitter criminal with hacking skills.
You present this as an argument for a shorter sentence. But from another perspective, it's an argument for never letting him out.
Prison isn't primarily meant to rehabilitate; you are almost certainly right that it will do the exact opposite in this case. Its power to deter is also limited. But what it can do, if we are simply willing to use it for that purpose, is contain dangerous people and prevent them from harming others again by simply not giving them the opportunity to do so.
Not looking to argue directly about the punishment, but I think it's quite clear that this individuals is ALREADY a hardened, bitter criminal with hacking skills and needs no assistance on that score.
> From a post war crime boom and relatively high incarceration rates, Finnish prisons have emerged to be counted among the most humane correctional facilities in the world and yet, recidivism is very low compared to international standards.
Sounds similar to that of Norway which is known for its kind/compassionate treatment of prisoners.
Removing people from society is what we do when they do these kind of terrible things to others. 6 years of removal isn't enough. The debate you refer to is a separate thing.
Rehabilitation is all the rage around these parts, but there are other reasons for prisons. One of the purposes of prison is to protect the public from dangerous people. Another aspect is the instructive element; you send a message to the rest of society about what kind of behavior will or won't be tolerated.
This man should be executed. It would be a fitting punishment for both of those reasons and more. He caused at least one suicide and victimized tens of thousands. This is a crime that calls for the death penalty.
pc86|1 year ago
This is very clearly in "spend somewhere between 1 and 2 decades turning big rocks into little rocks" territory to my punishment-focused American lizard brain.
HPsquared|1 year ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
n4r9|1 year ago
XCabbage|1 year ago
You present this as an argument for a shorter sentence. But from another perspective, it's an argument for never letting him out.
Prison isn't primarily meant to rehabilitate; you are almost certainly right that it will do the exact opposite in this case. Its power to deter is also limited. But what it can do, if we are simply willing to use it for that purpose, is contain dangerous people and prevent them from harming others again by simply not giving them the opportunity to do so.
zaphod12|1 year ago
JumpCrisscross|1 year ago
Given the guy’s arrest record (and implied lack of rehabilitation), a longer sentence would serve the goal of incapacitation.
skilled|1 year ago
> From a post war crime boom and relatively high incarceration rates, Finnish prisons have emerged to be counted among the most humane correctional facilities in the world and yet, recidivism is very low compared to international standards.
Sounds similar to that of Norway which is known for its kind/compassionate treatment of prisoners.
UberFly|1 year ago
lupusreal|1 year ago
This man should be executed. It would be a fitting punishment for both of those reasons and more. He caused at least one suicide and victimized tens of thousands. This is a crime that calls for the death penalty.
pyryt|1 year ago