Typically the claim comes up when discussing crime; one side usually advocates for harsher penalties for violent criminals and the other side argues that harsh penalties are ineffective and cruel—and usually some stuff about how the criminals can’t help it, they’re a product of their environment, etc. Typically, in my country at least, the side arguing for softer penalties tends to overlap a lot with the folks who are most likely to advocate for severe driving penalties. This seems like a contradiction to me, so I’m curious about how people reconcile this.