Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou4b.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou4b!mat From: mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations Message-ID: <1245@hou4b.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Dec-84 22:57:59 EST Article-I.D.: hou4b.1245 Posted: Thu Dec 27 22:57:59 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Dec-84 02:44:42 EST References: <285@sftri.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 54 >I believe an accused rapist has the same rights we all enjoy, >including innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a speedy >trial. (Actually, the alleged victim should enjoy this right too, >in my opinion) Absolutely. >I believe a convicted rapist has, by virtue of his guilt, some of >his rights taken away. These rights are restored to him when he has >served the sentence assigned him and "paid his debt to society"; >provided the sentence given to him is not death. The severity of >the penalty is another matter. You may feel that the penalty for >certain crimes is too light or too heavy, but that is a different >issue. 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 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). >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? >To my way of thinking, the rights of every human being are precious, and the >crime that has to be committed to justify taking away all of those rights >forever must be monstrous indeed. Precisely which crimes those are is a >matter of judgement, and I will not argue further on that score here. 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. Strongly threatening or taking the life of a human being is perhaps the most horrible crime that our legal system recognizes. Even selling secrets vital to the national defense is not considered as horrible ... though it ought to be. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.