I think this makes sense if we're ok with the number of perpetrators going up due to being convinced it's ok to perpetrate.
> Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?
> Attempting to control second-order factors that may influence behaviour is a very short road to tyranny. How do we decide which factors to control for? Who gets to make this decision? How do we know in retrospect that such a decision was mistaken? The only justice lies in conviction beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of one's peers.
It is very hard to read this as not sealioning. Is there a way you could rephrase it so that it doesn't come across that way?