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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Re: Reply to questions on confronatations Message-ID: <295@sftri.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 12:57:09 EST Article-I.D.: sftri.295 Posted: Wed Jan 2 12:57:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 07:33:29 EST References: <285@sftri.UUCP> <1245@hou4b.UUCP> <284@sftri.UUCP> <412@bunkerb.UUCP> <289@sftri.UUCP> <413@bunkerb.UUCP> <639@bunker.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J. Lines: 23 > 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 I think this is a bit too arbitrary. Cases should be treated on an individual basis, with due consideration to all factors that are possibly relevant. I think this discussion is beginning to stray a bit from the subjects that are supposed to be discussed here, and I've certainly done my share to perpetuate it, but perhaps we could move it to net.legal or net.politics or ??. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom