Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations
Message-ID: <289@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 10:14:12 EST
Article-I.D.: sftri.289
Posted: Fri Dec 28 10:14:12 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Dec-84 05:39:45 EST
References: <285@sftri.UUCP> <1245@hou4b.UUCP> <284@sftri.UUCP> <412@bunkerb.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 69

Mark Terribile writes:
> I'm not sure what ``paid his debt'' means ... I don't think that retribution
> is something that can be calculated.  On the other hand, we have someone who
> has demonstrated his ability to threaten another's life to fulfill his own
> (unjustified) desires.

I'm not saying I like this method either, but as I understand it,
that is basically the philosophy in place today.  On the one hand,
how can you put a value on a life, or being kidnapped for a month? 
But the sentencing process implies that some determination of value
has to be made.  Insurance companies are also very good at this. (An
arm is worth so much, an eye..)

> I don't believe that we in a civilized society can morally or ethically allow
> that individual the chance to do it again.  Period.  I don't much care if this
> means lifetime confinement (confinement to ONE cell where the offener cannot
> reach anyone else -- even another prisoner) or execution, but we should not
> allow the individual on the streets again.  Ever.
>
> If you wish to say that one offense is not enough, that the person should be
> given a chance to harm a second victim before we are sure of this, I will
> yield the point.  Most offenders of this sort have committed third, fourth,
> etc offenses (career criminals).

Fine.  I have no argument here.  The point of my article really was
that there is an existing procedure for officially depriving a
guilty party of his/her/its/their rights.  Exactly what rights are
taken away and for how long in the case of a rape is a different
matter.  As far as that goes, I think different crimes have to be
treated differently, even to the point of treating each case on an
individual basis.

> >You obviously feel that a convicted rapist has no rights.  If he does not,
> >then why do we bother imprisoning him?  Why not execute him on the spot?
> 
> Killing a person in the act of an attack that carries the ``threat of deadly
> force'' is quite legal if that threat is real enough.  Killing a person who
> is raping you (a crime that can only be carried out by such a threat if it is
> violent rape) is quite legal.  You are not ``executing him on the spot'', you
> are protecting yourself -- and it is legal in part precisely because there is
> no doubt about whether this person is committing this act.

Slight confusion here 
As I have said in another article, I think a
defender has a perfect right to use deadly force on an attacker if
the circumstances warrant it.  (A little old lady beating on you
with a purse might not be such a case).  When I said "executing him
on the spot", I was really talking about sentencing a convicted
rapist to die, rather than going to the trouble of imprisoning him,
since the article I originally responded to [M. Shurtleff in
<412@bunkerb.UUCP>] said that the rapist was
like an animal rather than a human being, and that he had forfeited
his rights when he raped someone.  I was interested in raising this
question since, to me, life is a right; if you insist that we are
entitled to the rights that underly our Constitution, I think it is
no great leap to assuming that life in which to enjoy these rights
is also a right in and of itself.

This brings up the question that I really had when the article said
that a rapist had forfeited his rights:  if he has no rights, why
not just execute him rather than imprison him?  In this case, we
seem to be saying that rape is a crime equalling and, in some cases
surpassing, murder.  Is that what she meant to say, or am I
just reading it wrong?  Is this what people feel?

Mark Modig        This article represents my opinions alone, and I accept
ihnp4!sftri!mom   sole responsibility for any errors of any kind contained
                  herein.  Opinions expressed here are not necessarily
                  those of Bell Labs.