• Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I’m okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it.

          I’d like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don’t think either of us would have said “But surely it can be done in 15.” It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that’s interesting to me.

      • MajorJimmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Means there’s a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years.

    • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      On one hand, yes.

      On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you’d be if you’d waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That’s a whole lot of life and life experience there.

      Such a stupid senseless waste all around.