Subject:
|
Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:59:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1034 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> What restitution would you suggest for causing an accident that
> killed someone?
As you note, the death can't be taken back. But that person could, and this is
merely an example, tour highschools giving talks to classes about what happened
and why. He could fundraise for traffic safety organizations.
> Wouldn't the goal be making sure this person _never_ does the same
> thing again, and that as many people as possible learn from their
> mistake?
That's a possible goal. A pretty good one, I think. But I strongly doubt that
that punishment would actually prevent anyone else. And maybe the highschool
circuit wouldn't either, so we need to keep thinking -- or more to the point, he
needs to keep thinking. But punishment is shown to have an inverse correlation
with the desired behavior -- both in the classroom and on the streets.
And if you want him to "_never_" do it again, you should execute him. That's
the only way to be sure.
> > I think the two
> > appropriate responses from society to criminal behavior are
> > restitution-enablement and treatment for mental illness.
>
> Do all criminals *want* to make restitution?
The ones that aren't broken do. The ones that _are_ broken, qualify for mental
care. And restitution really isn't the perfect word -- as exemplified by murder
which can never be made up for. People who believe that they have done wrong
want to do _something_ to make it right. When that isn't the case, it's worth
examining why -- which step in the process is out of whack.
> I'd say there's a fair amount who
> don't give a rat's behind about their victim, or even the fact that they're
> doing jail time for their crime (given the number of repeat offenders).
I think most people clearly want out of jail. They just don't know how to stay
out. And we're not doing anything to help them. The prison system only
exacerbates the problems on the streets. I think we either need loads and loads
of execution (because that obviously does cut down on repeat antisocial
behaviors) or something entirely new.
> All it harms is the person's reputation and image, which it could be
> argued that if the person was that reckless with their driving that
> they caused someone else's death, isn't that a fair punishment?
> Maybe it isn't?
I think that a major fault with our criminal justice system is that people are
concerned with "fair." Fair is make-believe. All that matters is which of our
responses craft improvements to the world and to society and at what cost.
I am very seriously not sure that we are making a better place than we would
have by not punishing people at all. Seriously! I'm also not saying that we
aren't. Just that I'm not sure.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| The problem with drunk driving is the drinking (not trying to be obvious). Punishments and programs that do not address drinking will not work because if a person shows poor or no judgement when drunk, then they will continue to do this after any (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Driver humiliated by Texas judge
|
| (...) What restitution would you suggest for causing an accident that killed someone? Maybe I'm not being creative enough, but the person's already dead. Wouldn't the goal be making sure this person _never_ does the same thing again, and that as (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
