LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Again, that would be unfair to those who didn't do something that stupid (and illegal) in their younger years, would it not? Do they not deserve to be chosen for certain jobs over people with a history of crime in their teen years?
No, because that is not what forgiveness is. We don’t let someone’s teenage mistakes ruin their entire lives. It’s neither fair nor practical. It’s also arbitrary. Should I get to cut in line of people with criminal records? Should I charge them more for a house?
Speaking for myself, I don’t want my fortune to be enlarged at the expense of someone who just got out of prison.
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Right, and in theory one should be softer on adulthood crime AND tougher on teenage crimes until the difference between the two is erased. In practice, however, the same political pressure to be tough on adult criminals comes from that same majority of the voting public pushing to be soft on teenage criminals.
So, just pile on the unfairness until equality is reached, rather than actually adressing the unfairness?
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:In theory, yeah. In practice, no.
Also, unless their prison has prison labour, they didn't "serve" anything. They just ate and slept on the taxpayers' dime, albeit in a manner more miserable than some people like to pretend it is.
That’s what I am saying: we should make that theory practise, instead of changing our theory to fit unfair practices.
‘Serving your time’ is common English parlance, don’t you go picking on that. It makes for incredibly dull and indecisive arguments. Prisons are very rough, physically and emotionally.