If your goal is to act as a deterrent then harsher sentences do not work, at least according to research.
At this point, we think it is fair to say that we know of no reputable criminologist who has looked carefully at the overall body of research literature on “deterrence through sentencing” who believes that crime rates will be reduced, through deterrence, by raising the severity of sentences handed down in criminal courts.
I mean… if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it’s more like a recommendation. Fines become a “cost of doing business”.
Is this fictional? I thought that this was actually true from the Social Union in WWII. Maybe in the battle of Stalingrad?
I think it’s an oversimplification to say that it was never enforced:
By the way, my tinfoil hat uses Arch Linux.
EDIT: now I see that I’ve just repeated the same joke that someone already made better in a different post. Leaving my post up for posterity so I remember my shame.
The Scots are a violent, savage people. I was attacked there and beaten, and everyone I met on the rest of my week stay regaled me with stories of people they knew who had been similarly brutalized. “Oh yeah my sister got a kicking last week.” “My mate Barry tried to pull some geezers off a bird and then she helped them give him a kicking!” And on and on. Amazingly even more vicious than the English, which hardly seemed possible.
Except the water faucets (“taps”) come in pairs, one with cold water and one with hot. So, not so much like going into the future, but more like some primitive land too stubborn to change for the better in even the most straightforward, obvious ways. 😆
Bill Gates signed his pledge more than 10 years ago. His wealth doubled in the last 7 years, meaning that he’s gotten average increases of like 10% per year.
Mr. Gates, you’re going the wrong way!
Didn’t Bill Gates sign a pledge to give all of his money away? And he is billions richer than last year? Huh.
I didn’t think women were ever independent in Saudi Arabia, but were basically owned by their closest male relative?
EDIT:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/08/saudi-arabia-law-enshrines-male-guardianship
The first rule of Christianity is, “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
There is no probation against killing in general in Christianity, only murder, which makes an appearance as the 5th commandment. Murder being unlawful and/or unjustified killing, so clearly wartime killing is a-okay in Christianity.
Now, you could argue that “love thy neighbor as thyself” might implicitly forbid killing, but if you start looking to Christianity for morality or even simple consistency you’re going to have a bad time.
As someone with both solar panels and a water kettle I promise you this is something I frequently wonder about!
I joined the Democratic party in 2016 just so that I could vote for Bernie in the primaries. Oh well.
It’s the Netherlands.
I was curious too, did a web search, and found this:
I think that it’s not always just about harassment, but sometimes just wanting to be left alone?
I’m curious why you think Python is unsuitable. Both of my kids picked up Python pretty easily.
100 Gbit? Is there even such a thing as a 100 Gbit link? I want to know more!
There is an interesting question as to what happens if he dies before being sworn in. It’s not clear what succession looks like then, I think…