In the news

Is your view that they should not face any consequences unless it's demonstrable that their specific post led to…

No not at all, but that would factor into the level of sentencing for me. People say dumb and horrible shit all the time, so the context is really important. In this case the context is a very real risk to life, but words are not violence.

Luckily we don't have to play "what if" games on forums, because "Distributing
material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" is an offence in the UK and has been for many years, with clear sentencing guidelines, and she pleaded guilty

words are not violence.

No but they are an offence of a different nature. We don't only imprison people for violence

We don't only imprison people for violence

E.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/18/five-just-stop-oil-supporters-jailed-over-protest-that-blocked-m25

I guess what I'm asking is whether those sentencing guidelines are appropriate, or even applied correctly in this case:

The approach to the imposition of a custodial sentence should be as follows:
1) Has the custody threshold been passed?

1. A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.

2. There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.

3. The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for the most serious offences.

I'm not sticking up for this person, quite the opposite. I am however coming from the position that the bar for imprisonment is often too low across the board. In discussing cases like this, I might be able to think more clearly about civil liberties in general. The sentencing guidelines also seem as confused as I am:

There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies.

the harm caused by the offence [...] will be relevant to the assessment

the bar for imprisonment is often too low across the board.

Have you seen most rulings for motorists who injure or kill pedestrians & cyclists?

I have yes, and I think they're too low.

Nah, it's about time the bar was a bit lower. 31months at HRH AirBnB might make her rethink her ways and become a nicer person.

I suspect she isn't the second coming of John Profumo.

No... I suspect she isn't?

HRH AirBnB

That just sent a shudder down my spine. Charge the prisoners rent too! That'll teach 'em.

Rather them pay it than me, tbh.

Yeah, I knew I shouldn't have entered into this conversation...

Hey, who's heard about One Direction star Liam Payne falling from the third floor of a hotel balcony in Buenos Aires? [runs for exit]

I don't think I've said anything particularly controversial, tbh!

Getting prisoners to pay for prison leads to some pretty odd incentives is all I'd say. Anyway, prison sentencing isn't exactly my wheelhouse so I'll tap out for now.

Why oh why oh why did I just look at that?

Which means the bar is too high in those cases?

I did say the bar was “often” too low, so make of that what you will.

I’m interested in this because it’s an area of political theory that I’m not particularly clued up with, hence my reservation to say anything categorical here.

There are good questions to go into at the limits of liberalism and the borders of liberal statehood, and it’s always been a curiosity to me that the early liberals designed prisons in their spare time for kicks. I could probably do with finally reading the copy of J.S. Mill’s On Liberty that’s been on my shelf for ages to be honest and save you all from my waffling posts…

A friend used to work for him, she's a bit upset by it, obviously

Because we're all fascinated by death. It's part of the big question....do our lives have any meaning?

your guts right on this, 'carceral capitalism' and 'are prisons obselete?' might interest you.

abolition aproaches are pretty well documented in a lot of 3rd wave writings. although speaking of this will get you munched at by a lot of the lockemup' reactionaries.

little racist woman getting locked up feels good, but abolishionists would argue that is done to protect the states ability to individualise violence and racism rather than reflect on how it's endemic as a result of the states actions (how many politicians on all sides fanned hatred towards those hotels). the ability to then use those principles to continue structurally racist/ prejudiced policing/sentancing is a built in bonus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqz8gyp500o

bit more structural racism.

Thanks maj! Will check them out 🙂

Edit: yeah this looks great:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781635900026/carceral-capitalism/

The territory’s new government [...] argues being able to criminalise children younger will help divert them away from future crime.

Jesus wept.

yeah - basically "let's do the opposite of what everyone knows works"