• KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even this I disagree with. It sounds like a good idea until the total cost is substantial, and they don’t want to foot the bill. So they watch for someone who does anything that can be misconstrued as vandalism and force them to foot the bill.

    Not to mention, fining someone for $100 in damage nearly a million is honestly more unethical than the vandalism.

    There’s a reason we don’t do this type of thing in the legal world, it’s easily taken advantage of, and unethical as fuck.

    • Showroom7561
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So they watch for someone who does anything that can be misconstrued as vandalism

      Vandalism serious enough to be brought to court would be enough to win the lottery. If it’s something petty, like doodling on a park bench with a pencil, then they don’t win, but they should still do XX months of community cleanup.

      As an alternative to the lottery, how about we charge the scumbags 2x the actual cost to repair the damage they caused. And 1 year community cleanup as a sign of goodwill.

      Either way, the cost to society far outweighs the current cost of committing these crimes. Flip it around and see what happens.

      • cozycosmic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you proposing that doodling on a bench with pencil should warrant months of community service?

        • Showroom7561
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, a month of community cleanup sounds fair.

          We’re not talking 24/7 enslavement, btw… “months of community service” could mean “20 hours of community service over four months.”