henryreynolds

I love the idea. Why exactly 50?

Impatience also makes you write more performant software because you can't stand waiting on build/test/run cycles.

I almost completely agree with everything you said. A few things:

The "do X damage pay X penalty" framework is a simplification for the purpose of convenience. To try calculating all the ephemerals would be tedious, provide little additional illumination, and lose the thread. It's meant to illustrate, NOT be writ into law.

The propaganda element is particularly interesting in light of the effect on mass shooters. It's been established that sensationalizing mass shooters encourages new ones, hence why some media outlets have stopped. I'd question the reach and efficacy of the propaganda, in this case.

You could surely find another person who would spend the proposed 11 days in prison to make the statement, "I also hate satanists enough to break their stuff." Hence, and as you said, we would need to fine tune the punishment to maximize deterrence while minimizing cruelty.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the responsibility of media and society as a whole. If you can punish an offender for propagandizing criminality, as you propose, could we not also punish a news organization for broadcasting their act nationally? Purely hypothetical and ignores all the obvious reasons you can't (e.g. freedom of speech). I'd really like to understand your mental model for the "cost to civilization writ large" and how you determine responsibility.

Per the National Institute of Justice, "The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment."

As a dramatic overgeneralization of the principle, you'll have fewer thefts if every thief is forced to pay for their stolen goods than if 1% of thieves are tortured to death on live television.

It suggests that lowering expenditures on prisons, by reducing sentences, and retargeting that money toward enforcement would yield positive effects.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...

Church of Satan, in this case. Didn't think anyone would read "Baphomet Statue" and assume it was owned by Christians.

That said, yes. Assuming the Church of Satan retains ownership, or at least responsibility for restoration, they are the injured party and owed restitution.

Great summary! While I couldn't agree more about your abstract claim, I don't think it fits the specifics of this case.

The US GDP Per Capita for 2022 was $76,399. For Norway, $106,149. That's a significant difference, but we'd need to compare a far larger set of nations to determine correlation.

I suspect that there are thresholds of wealth where restorative justice becomes more or less viable. In an isolated and preindustrial village of 100 people, confining or killing a problematic citizen may prove more costly if they provide an essential service. For post-industrial societies, there's likely a cliff after which restorative justice is consistently less costly. IIRC, Norway spends far less per capita on criminal justice than the US.

Actually, should that be my next article? Analyzing the trends of wealth, criminality, and incarceration?

You're absolutely right that the sum harm inflicted is greater than the cost to repair the altar. There's a certain point where trying to calculate ephemerals loses the thread.

For the inconvenience, missed opportunity, and emotional damage, I'd look to tort law. The entire matter could be resolved through civil suit without incarceration, and I'd rather see the victim whole than the criminal suffer.

Not my cup of tea but go for it. You should use a faraday suit or cage and ensure it's up to the task of keeping you safe.

https://www.britannica.com/video/185595/physics-lightning-st...

Great example of how a behavior commonly considered reckless is perfectly safe when you know and account for the risks. Thanks!