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 hereAs 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.