Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!bunker!garys From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations Message-ID: <639@bunker.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Dec-84 16:58:26 EST Article-I.D.: bunker.639 Posted: Mon Dec 31 16:58:26 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Jan-85 06:31:49 EST References: <285@sftri.UUCP> <1245@hou4b.UUCP> <284@sftri.UUCP> <412@bunkerb.UUCP> <289@sftri.UUCP> <413@bunkerb.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 62 I largely agree with what Mary Shurtleff has said about what we should do with those who commit violent crimes. But I want to pick a couple of nits, and I want to take what she said even farther (not that I am trying to put words in her mouth). > ... the idea is to punish the offender by > removing sufficient rights to make the offender aware of the severity of the > transgression. The criminal *may* have a right to live, but not the right > to the freedom to go out and inflict the same harm on another human being, > for starters. If we are trying to teach the offender something, by making him more aware, then we will reach different conclusions than if we are merely trying to prevent him from repeating the offense. I think you are more interested in the latter. If you are, I am in agreement with you. Maybe someone gets lured in by something seemingly small, and gradually goes on to more severe crimes (e.g., shoplifting -> burglary -> armed robbery -> murder), but that excuse should work a maximum of once, as far as I'm concerned. And even so, priority should be given to preventing repeat offenses, or deterring others from trying the same thing, rather than "showing him the error of his ways." > Think about what takes place when a violent crime is committed. A person has > been both physically and psychologically damaged. This damage was inflicted, > intentionally and knowingly, by another person. I think you have contradicted yourself. First, you state as a goal making "the offender aware of the severity of the transgression." Then, you seem to be saying that he is aware, having inflicted damage "intentionally and knowingly." (I agree with the latter statement.) > ... what they have done makes them less than a true human being. I don't accept arguments based on someone's idealistic notion of what a "true" human being is. "Human being" is a biological term. Ideals about what a human being should do, yes, but not about what a human being is. The consequences of this (that evildoers are as human as humanitarians) is that every one of us is capable of the worst atrocities, as well as the noblest achievements. (If we were to synthesize all of the qualifications of what a "real" human being is, I'm afraid that not many of us would qualify.) > As such, they are entitled to less than the full bill of rights > which the rest of humanity enjoys (theoretically, anyway). They are entitled to less rights because of their offenses, not because of their lack of human-ness. Now I shall propose a rule of thumb for determining what rights a criminal should forfeit for a crime. If a certain level of force would be justified in preventing a crime, then that same level of force could be justified in punishing a crime. (This sets an upper bound on punishment, not a lower bound.) For example, if it would be justifiable to kill a would-be rapist, to stop him, then it is not out of the question to execute him once he is convicted. Conversely, if deadly force is considered excessive in the prevention of, for example, shoplifting, then execution would be out of the question upon conviction. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys