> any sort of justice reform is complained about as being soft on crime
I'd like to point out that the proposition here can both be framed as draconian and too soft depending on the context/frame of reference one is evaluating it under.
Really, the difficulty of justice reform is that people are unwilling to implement policy that has foreseeable and harmful consequences. Because they see that as (and others will interpret it as) equivalent to intentionally seeking to harm the unfortunate group. But this is the wrong way to do this. It has to be about reducing harm/crime/whatever word you want to use.
I'll give an example. Let's say you invent a drug that cures lung cancer in 100% of cases but there's a 20% chance of those that are treated will develop breast cancer. Without a doubt this is something we should do. Breast cancer has one of the highest rates of survival while lung cancer has a very low rate. But you could make an argument that you are knowingly giving patients cancer, and this would be accurate (and imagine more realistic case where the rates are not evenly distributed across demographics). You did after all design a drug that gives people cancer. I think we can all imagine such a drug being pulled because people misunderstand the consequences. And certainly real world situations are nowhere near the simplicity of this hypothetical.
I'd like to point out that the proposition here can both be framed as draconian and too soft depending on the context/frame of reference one is evaluating it under.
Really, the difficulty of justice reform is that people are unwilling to implement policy that has foreseeable and harmful consequences. Because they see that as (and others will interpret it as) equivalent to intentionally seeking to harm the unfortunate group. But this is the wrong way to do this. It has to be about reducing harm/crime/whatever word you want to use.
I'll give an example. Let's say you invent a drug that cures lung cancer in 100% of cases but there's a 20% chance of those that are treated will develop breast cancer. Without a doubt this is something we should do. Breast cancer has one of the highest rates of survival while lung cancer has a very low rate. But you could make an argument that you are knowingly giving patients cancer, and this would be accurate (and imagine more realistic case where the rates are not evenly distributed across demographics). You did after all design a drug that gives people cancer. I think we can all imagine such a drug being pulled because people misunderstand the consequences. And certainly real world situations are nowhere near the simplicity of this hypothetical.