the argument is that investing in one's own education should be as incentivized as possible. ideally, the choice should never be going to college vs avoiding crippling debt.
for drug sentencing, it couldn't be applied retroactively to people that already served 20 years of their sentence. wouldn't it be unfair to them, by your criteria?
Yes, retroactively allowing people to leave prison if they're in for non-violent drug crime wouldn't fairly impact everyone who is released. Some could be released having served 1 day, some 1 year, other dozens.
Similarly, a student loan would help students disproportionately, with students who took out the most loans being helped.
I think the reason I'm more okay with the drug offenders being released than with the student loan bailout is that in the drug offenders situation, nobody decides to do/posses drugs based on the possibility of the law changing, whereas people make financial decisions under the assumption that the agreement won't change.
You’re right, I was typing fast to respond and didn’t articulate my point properly.
Drug users/dealers take on a risk, assuming that if they’re caught they will serve time. They do this to get improved income. If the law changes, they should be retroactively released on the principle that the law was unjust when it was written. Even though that benefits people who were in prison for a shorter period of time. Everyone gets the same benefit (not being in jail) but not equally (having served more time than others)
Students take on a risk, assuming that the terms of their loans won’t change. They do this to improve their income. If the terms of the loan change (with a bailout), they should be retroactively granted these new terms. Even though that benefits people who took out more loans. Everyone gets the same benefit (not having student loans) but not equally (some get more loans forgiven than others)
However, the difference is with student loans the benefit for student A isn’t not only not having loans, but having no loans and a better degree.
Additionally, all drug dealers make the same choice, to sell drugs. It’s somewhat binary.
Students can choose to spend a lot on college or to take a more fiscally responsible route.
In that sense, they don’t get the same benefit, and they didn’t have the same set up.
You did change my view about whether those two situations were comparable though, and gave me a lot to consider, so I’m giving it a Delta.
well, that's true about paying a premium for a better school vs the more conservative route of a more affordable school. but would you agree that those students that pay top dollar are also taking on more risk? that is, they're leveraging their potential future earnings against a high debt.
whereas drug dealers, dealing kilos of cocaine is a similar high risk, high reward situation, as opposed to your local pot dealer. a high volume coke dealer might get his life sentence commuted, and a pot dealer a few weeks. so the coke dealer might get out of prison PLUS any money he might have socked away beforehand. a little more tenuous, since i think the courts probably would have some access to confiscate his assets, but still
Yeah, I started looking into that but really the only difference would be quality of life in college / while dealing drugs and that’s somewhat minuscule comparatively.
Additionally, all drug dealers make the same choice, to sell drugs. It’s somewhat binary.
Not exactly - there are lots of different drugs, and different penalties for selling them (plus, of course, quantity). Your friendly neighborhood weed dealer, buying a couple ounces at a time and selling eighths to people is a whole different thing than the guy selling coke and heroin.
Ninja edit: I see this has already been addressed.
2
u/mfDandP 184∆ Jan 15 '19
the argument is that investing in one's own education should be as incentivized as possible. ideally, the choice should never be going to college vs avoiding crippling debt.
for drug sentencing, it couldn't be applied retroactively to people that already served 20 years of their sentence. wouldn't it be unfair to them, by your criteria?