> Do you think an addict considers the closure rates on assault cases before harming a stranger?

Actually, yes. These people are not instinct-driven animals completely incapable of thought.

Similarly, if you know that drunk driving is very likely to get you caught then you will do that less than if you know there's 0% of getting caught.

You can tell a lot about how someone thinks by listening for denial of agency. The CEO had to do it; that drug addict had no choice; he had to defend his honor; she couldn’t lie.

Sometimes people have only one choice, but they almost always have agency.

Your experience of addiction must be significantly different than mine.

I was referring to the language people use to convert other humans into objects or automatons.

But if you deny the addict any agency, you deny the possibility of eventual recovery. One could also point to the Sacklers as the ones with agency in that scenario. But somebody made choices; it didn’t just happen and there’s nothing that anyone could have done.

Well no, the problem is transit-poor environments that force every old trip to be a car trip [1]. What you're asking for is recompense, what I'm asking for is a system wide permanent fix.

EDIT: Rephrased retribution->recompense, that is to say recompense is good, but is not optimized for avoidance in the future (i.e. a system-wide fix)

[1]: https://urbanist.co/public-transportation-reduces-drunk-driv...