▲ | perihelions 16 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'll steelman the unpopular position: I think sobriety is a reasonable condition of freedom for someone with psychiatric self-control issues, that have lead them to commit felonies in the past. Vandalizing your employer's infrastructure over a grudge is, I suggest, strong evidence of a major impulse control issue. It think it makes sense and is in the public interest, draconian as it is, that this person shouldn't be allowed to get high and have unmonitored internet access. The same place they've committed felonies before, on impulse. Further context: his own defense lawyer filed a motion asking a court to find this guy mentally incompetent to stand trial, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-txed-4_19-cr-00... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | klibertp 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> I think sobriety is a reasonable condition of freedom for someone with psychiatric self-control issues, that have lead them to commit felonies in the past. Were he high on weed, maybe he'd not commit the felony in the first place. Yeah, banning him from alcohol is fine, from stimulants broadly - also OK, but weed? Honestly? How often, statistically speaking, does smoking weed make a person aggressive? While this person may be an outlier, without precise information on it, I'd say the ban on weed is as sensible as a ban on butter or relanium. If it doesn't serve any obvious purpose (like with alcohol: being drunk makes you do stupid things more often), then maybe it's really just a way of harassing this person? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | vel0city 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One important thing to remember is parole is not freedom. He was still serving a sentence for his crime. |