Judge Timothy Gilligan gave her the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
It’s at least good that the victim is pleased with the judge’s response (per her quote in the article).
And if the goal is reform, as it should be, it’s a better choice than jail. Hopefully it works.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
That’s just thinly veiled revenge justice. It’s not a good doctrine for a humane (or working) society.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.