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