Comment by mindslight | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindslight | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ten years is not a "great deal". Remember how much you've done in your life over the past ten years. Now imagine being caged up for that time instead, and then being released into a world in which everything had passed you by.

It's a lot better than being murdered, of course. And it's better than say twenty years. But this still isn't saying much, right?! There are no good answers here, only less-bad answers. The whole situation is a tragedy all around - one which arose out of a fucking traffic disagreement.

Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. And while this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line answer of how one should be approaching every little difficulty. (a traffic disagreement!)

But yet we've got mass media that demonstrates them as if they're some kind of simple "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.

(Note to any reflexively-downvoting gun-thumpers: I'm not actually arguing to make firearms illegal or anything! I'm a gun owner myself. They're a tool - a tool whose dynamic has been poorly understood in popular culture)

Of course it's not ideal. But you're really getting waylaid.

Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.

The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)

That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.

In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?

Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.

In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.

Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.

I'm not "getting waylaid", I'm pointing out the best answer to how many years in prison for murdering someone is, by far, wu.

Firearms being an effective way to murder is exactly one thing underlying the dynamic. But my point is that it isn't even the existence of firearms per se, but rather a culture that emphasizes escalating minor disagreements into life or death confrontations. The bar seems much higher for bringing a situation to that point with beating or stabbing.

This speaks directly to your objectively comparing sentence lengths. How many people on the jury were thinking "shit, I drove here today, I everyday carry a gun, sometimes I lose my cool, I could easily end up in the situation the defendant was with some asshole" ? These situations need to be seen as exceptional and wildly out of societal norms, not practically routine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com