“Punitive grandstanding” is the most descriptive short phrase I could come up to describe the following concept:
A situation where someone pushes for extreme punitive measures against in immoral act, which in practice “virtue signals” moral superiority and implies people proposing lesser punishment are immoral. This behaviour often goes beyond what is proportionate or productive.
You probably know what I mean. Say there’s a new lemmy thread on a news community, it’s about someone having committed a horrible crime. All the comments end up being a sort of “jerk off contest” for who can propose the strongest punishment and thereby assert their moral superiority.
Instead of taking an approach to actually reduce the incident of said crime, looking at what problems might have led to it, how to care for the victim/family, and how to properly rehabilitate and treat someone who committed such an act, solely focusing on coming up with the most draconian punishment possible.
Anyone who comments something about the justice system ideally being rehabilitative gets accused of being no better than the criminal themselves or “helping” criminals.
I’ve just noticed this general trend which seems to be at odds with anarchist principles. I wonder what you think? Have you noticed this too? Do you think it’s a major problem? What can we do about it?
Hey. I’ve gone to pro-palestine protests too. It’s illegal to support a terrorist organisation, not to support Palestine/Lebanon etc. those are two different things, cheers.
Just because I suppport the Palestinian people and their liberation does not mean I support Hamas. What’s illegal though is to publicly support one of these organisations. The law is tricky but basically either pushing for terrorist acts, or displaying designated terrorist symbolism, or provide support to a terrorist organisation. This all can be found here:
https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/australias-counter-terrorism-laws