Subject:
|
Re: Criminal Justice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:31:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Would you contend that the abrogation of guilt caused by punishment has
> nothing to do with recidivism or that such effect is nonexistant? It kind of
> feels like you wanted to pin me to that specific stance so you could play
> whack-a-mole with me, and if so, I'd be keen to hear why you specifically
> think that's impossible.
Actually, I was simply trying to agree and to provide one point of common
thinking. Sorry if it came off as a challenge.
> What if the victim has no family? Is murdering one person cheaper than
> another? Off hand that sounds icky, but is it actually bad? I guess I think
> it is! Otherwise, we'd have a system that _officially_ values the lives of
> rich people over the lives of the poor.
Another good point! I suppose that, technically, the *life* of the murder
victim isn't the sole basis for determining financial compensation; the
person's potential future earnings are factored in, of course. But you're
right--the application of punitive damages implicitly places a price tag on
murder. If there's no family, I don't know who might bring civil suit
against the killer, but to me it feels like *someone* should. I confess
that I simply don't know enough about this subject to give an informed opinion.
> I'm not claiming that no one could reasonably be called a deadbeat dad. But I
> personally know three men who have been denied full paternal privilege
> inappropriately and who fund the life of leisure of their ex wife. I also know
> more people who have a good and reasonably amicable deal established, but I
> don't know any women who're getting the shaft (by the custody system) in the
> same way that men commonly do. And yes, I acknowledge that my annecdotes
> aren't data either, but just like yours, do establish some level of occurance.
I'm concerned that my previously antagonistic manner may be bleeding
unintended into this discussion, pushing you to the defensive more than I
mean. If so, I apologize.
You're 100% correct that "deadbeat dad" is a polarizing term, just as you
are correct that many men are unfairly hounded for unreasonable settlements.
A year or so ago ot.debate featured a discussion about a man who was forced
to continue financial support of a child even after it was proven that he
wasn't the father!
> And, how does the societal responsibility/role differ depending on the
> criminality of the mental illness? Do we as a group owe a mentally ill person
> less merely because they are not criminally insane?
Or more, for that matter?
> What makes a person a person, or a specific person a specific person? If
> you administered a treatment to me that made me enjoy tinkertoys instead of
> LEGO, would I be a different person? I'd say only slightly. I've made much
> more dramatic personal changes in the natural course of my life.
Sure--everyday we experience stimuli that change us in subtle and often
imperceptible ways. I think certain changes that are more fundamental and
really constitute a change in the basic "self." If you [Chris, rather than
"you-in-general"] became a ravenous meat-eater who took pleasure in causing
other people pain, I'd say that Chris as I know him no longer exists. Or,
to use a more lighthearted example, if Tim Courtney suddenly began singing
the praises of MegaBloks in preference to LEGO, then I would probably
perceive that Tim [as I've known him] had ceased existing, too.
Hmm. Even articulating that point makes me re-think the issue still
futher. I suppose that there are certain nebulous rubicons which, once
crossed, constitute a fundamental change in a person tantamount to the death
of the prior person. I don't know that I could delineate those points
exactly, of course...
This part of the discussion neatly coincides with Bruce's "earliest
memory" thread. Am *I* the same person who, as a three-year-old, fell onto
concrete steps and got a black eye?
> Anyway, I think that society does have the "right" to protect itself. Maybe
> the specific hypothetical unrepentant insane criminal could opt for one of
> several treatments including lifelong incarceration.
That sounds reasonable. If the criminal opted for execution, would
society be right or wrong to allow it?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Criminal Justice
|
| (...) Would you contend that the abrogation of guilt caused by punishment has nothing to do with recidivism or that such effect is nonexistant? It kind of feels like you wanted to pin me to that specific stance so you could play whack-a-mole with (...) (22 years ago, 19-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
