So we should only make the decision that's +EV for society, no matter how repulsive it seems?

Reality is, 10 years is a very long time to spend on probation, and this young man could find himself resentenced over minor violations down the road. A less favorable judge at a violation hearing could sentence him to the max for the top counts of his indictment. If it's not worth jailing him now, is going to be worth doing so if he breaks curfew a few times in his 20s? Given this possibility (and maybe eventuality) is even 10 years of probation to harsh a sentence under your framework, because it carries with it a high probability of length incarceration?

http://www.dallasblack.com/communityChannel/dpunch

14 year old sentenced to 10 years in juvie for a murder committed by a single punch.

http://www.tdcaa.com/issues/teen-get...alloween-party

14 year old sentenced to 10 years in juvie for robbing 20+ people and beating a person (but apparently not killing him/her) with a pellet gun.

same judge.

#lolikes

Five year old throws a rock off a building. Four people die.

Life in prison!

More or less. What's wrong with that?

I think I agree with ikes so far, btw.

Ya, I gotta side with ikes here. Life in jail for negligent homicide is lol. No jail time is also lol. There's got to be a reasonable middle ground.

Because the justice = whatever maximizes society's EV principle would lead to reprehensible outcomes.

If we think purely in terms of EV what's the pay off to society from 10 years of supervision for this kid? It's an enormous expense, and most of the risk of recidivism will probably have waned for him within a few years. Why not just mandate drug and alcohol treatment and be done with it? I would have to believe favorable resolution of his drug and alcohol issues would almost eliminate the possibility of recidivism, and his family obviously (for now) has the means to afford the best treatment money can buy.

On the other hand, imagine someone else who has also committed a negligent homicide. This time their demography and personal history (childhood abuse, chronic drug prolems, poverty, few social supports, etc.) make it clear they are highly likely to reoffend. What's the +EV move for society? A lengthy and expensive rehabilitation process with a low probability of success, or a summary execution?

Well, first off you clearly didn't make it to the end of my post. Those clearly aren't right outcomes. They're also different crimes. Those people intentionally committed a crime and intentionally hurt other people. Most importantly however, I say in that freaking post that it's wrong.

Also links are still broken. There's a chance minimum sentencing laws played a role because of gun used in the robbery (even though it's just a pellet) and the fact the other kid intentionally attacked the man unprovoked. Those are dumb too though. And, the detail links are still broken.

No it just doesn't satiate your blood lust and the populist ****** mob.
LOL a summary execution? What? Pretty sure we could find better outcomes.

ikesisright

Laugh if you like, but I fail to see how spending a bunch of money to rehabilitate someone when the chances of success are low is better for society than simply eliminating them. Remember we're talking strictly in terms of the most +EV play for society. No other conception of morality can come into play.

I've personally got no blood lust, and I haven't heard anyone itt advocate the death sentence for him. If I had to choose between the two he gets 20 years before he gets probation, because it's more appropriate to the crime, especially considering the fact this kid has expressed zero remorse over what he's done.

put him in jail until his 18 or 21st birthday. followed by 10 years probation, alcohol/drug treatment from the moment he enters juvi, until the day his probation ends, and get vasaline of the victims family so its smooth when they rape rich kids parents in civil court.

The punishment needs to be harsh clearly from a deterent standpoint too. I know 16 year olds are pretty dense and the message might not sink it "Hey if I do something really irresponsible I might F myself up"

but I think the counter message is way, way more dangerous "I can do stupid **** and get away with it cuz I'm a teeanger"

internal logic.... how does it work?

Don't see any problem with the logic there, just the assumptions. On the deterrence theory his statement is almost trivial. But he's way overemphasising the role of deterrence imo.

He's saying there has to be strong penalties for deterrence, then saying teenagers are dumb.

Thats..... not consistent.

Not really. Teens are dumb, but not so dumb that they don't understand that they'll go to jail if they run over four people.

Sure it is. Suppose we could perfectly measure how susceptible a person is to a given deterrent. And suppose that I was 15% less susceptible ('dumber') than you. On the deterrence theory the correct response to the disparity is to increase the punishment (ie, deterrence) for people in my category. Each category must get the same 'amount' of deterrence, and so the more susceptible to deterrence a category is, the less severe a punishment is required, etc.

Like I say I don't agree with it, but there's no problem with the reasoning itself.

ikes it's kinda telling that you're going to the bat for leniency for this kid when you went HARD IN THE PAINT after Obama's DOJ for not seeking the maximum penalties when some black dudes stood near a polling place. Also, more recently, a quick check indicates that your passion for more understanding regarding the criminal justice system provoked a grand total of... ZERO posts in the non-violent offender life sentence thread.

You don't fool anyone, ikes. You see liberals are angry, you disagree. You're a simpleton in the ****ing clinical definition. You're Silver_Man with better punctuation.

Your attempt to rewrite history so you can disagree with me while agreeing with me on the issue at hand is quite indicative of how badly I've been whooping your ass around here lately. Your new 'welfare doctor' schtick looks promising though!

Face it dude, you're attempting to bring up and lie about something that happened in freaking 2008. You're old and stale at this point. You need some new material.

He's assuming a lot more than that, although the logic fatal flaw tactic is overblown. There's not going to be much of a deterrent effect for jail times imo, there's little rational thinking going on in a drunk 16 year old.

The biggest problem I with this is the kid getting to go to a 400k rehab vacation instead of some ****ty depressing gov rehab center/juvi.

Basically he gets 10 years probation and he goes to go to a resort to deal with being a dumbass kid who likes to drink and drive.

The other problem is the fact that the judge only gave him this sentence because he was 1. White 2. Wealthy

Great legal system.

#lolikes

Wouldn't usually expect to find this line of reasoning on a poker forum.

Intent can often be important, but I'm not sure that consequences should. For instance I believe attempted murder should be equivalent to murder. If a person survives by some medical marvel it seems wrong that a person should receive a lesser sentence by some fluke.

In the case of driving, it is your action that is dangerous and whether you run bad and a kid steps out in front of you does not affect the crime or the intention, only the consequence. And to again assert the poker analogy, consequence is just variance playing out. Your decisions are what matters.

If that sounds like being far too soft on drunk drivers who kill people, then maybe the reality is actually that we're being far too lenient on the ones that don't kill people.

Making the difference between a small fine and years in prison the subject of chance seems neither rational nor just.

I think ikes actually believes this is true

dumb + stupid = no jail time seems like a rather odd theory of jurisprudence.