Hard to make a nuanced point on social media because people just assume you’re saying something *they* associate with what you wrote rather than what you *actually* wrote. On Twitter, one guy was suggesting judges be liable for the harm caused by criminals they release the way engineers are liable if one of their buildings collapses. (This was in response to the murder of that beautiful Ukrainian girl on the train.) I responded you can’t do that because then judges will just put the max sentence on everyone just to avoid the *possibilty* of something happening. Some guy gets busted with weed, you put him away for the max because what if he gets violent with someone later on, and you’re the one who let him out? Even the most mild offender *might* do something violent, you never know. The reason the engineer analogy was bad is that engineers ALWAYS need to build buildings that don’t collapse. So the liability incentive perfectly aligns. But judges should lock up *some* people for longer, and release others. The incentive is not aligned if you get them to lock up everyone. Of course, people jumped into the mentions being like: “You’re soft on crime, you would let these criminals kill innocent people, etc.” No, not the point. Obviously that psycho was a slam dunk case of staying locked up. Point is you don’t want to be at the mercy of a state that hires its minions and then incentivizes them to bring the maximum force of law on you no matter what. And the OP was advocating for that, thinking it made sense, but it’s a terrible idea. Nothing I can do about it, just human nature, but it annoys the fuck out of me when I say something, and triggered reactionaries rush to make mean something they associate with it rather than what I said.