From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 01:46:10 MDT
Samantha writes
> > First, we all know the facts here insofar as attempting to
> > interpret the sentence "people in prison are different from
> > you or me". We understand that statistically they are
> > different, and also understand that in some cases there
> > really isn't an important difference (maybe yes, they broke
> > some incredibly obscure law that I also break, but for some
> > reason got caught).
>
> I don't understand that "statistically they are different" in
> any way meaningful to the conversation. You made the statement
> that breaking the law, just because it is a law, it always
> wrong. That is a pretty open and shut statement that many
> people, including Randall and I, took issue with.
What I said was "Laws should be obeyed, right or wrong",
(Sun 7/28/2002 11:52 PM). You're the one who rephrased
it to include the word "always", which of course makes
my position vulnerable to very unusual situations and
what not. Other re-statements I'd endorse are, "One
should always endeavor to obey the law", "you should
obey the law if you expect others to", and "it's best
for everyone to obey the law". There is a definite
reason to qualify and soften most of our statements,
and that's to turn off the mathematical part of our heads
which likes everything to be black or white, true or
false, right or wrong. Eternal Truth #1: Nothing is
Simple. (Eternal Truth #2: Every statement must be
further modified.)
> That they knowingly did something that should not be illegal
> but is illegal is not in the least any condemnation of them or
> blameworthy. Would you agree?
Excellent question. No, I would not agree. The problem word
in your question is "should", of course. Suppose I were to
think that infanticide is perfectly all right, say, before
age 3. Not only that, but my friends and neighbors also
believe that it should not be illegal. So you're saying
that for us to knowingly commit this illegal act has nothing
going against it except that you and a lot of people disagree
with us?
Laws form an important form of the basis of almost all successful
societies that I'm aware of. The achievements of the Romans, as
you know, in this regard is difficult to overstate. But it only
works if people have the feeling that they should abide by the
laws enacted by due process.
> I do not agree that as many as 44% actually are guilty of
> anything justifying their sentences. And no, it was not this
> "44%" that was what the initial discussion was directed at. It
> certainly wasn't what some of your very general and questionable
> remarks were directed at. So why attempt to shift it now?
Sorry, I was referring to Randall's particular stats wherein
55% of folks in jail were there on drug charges and so on.
I didn't knowingly evade something here, but we all make
mistakes, so don't hesitate to get any of us back on course.
> If 55% of the people are in as the result of bogus [sic]
> laws then that is 55% of prisoners who should not be there.
> [you mean laws that you and many of us don't like because
> they go against our principles] The study I allude
> to, iirc, was from the University of Chicago. It found
> that the average citizen breaks some 2000 laws on the
> books every single day. This is not a small effect. If said
> citizen is the wrong color, of the wrong political party, speaks
> out too often and too effectively and so on, then these laws can
> easily lead to their arrest and conviction. I should also point
> out that due to things like the "3 strikes" law, a person can be
> put away for life for a series of infractions that might be
> felonies on the books, but which are actually relatively minor
> and normally would get relatively minor punishments and/or jail
> time. The number of things that are considered felonious have
> increased astronomically in the latter half of the twentieth
> century. In the get tough on crime era, many mandatory sentence
> provisions and limits on the judge's discretion due to
> extenuating circumstances were put in place. This also results
> in more people in prison and doing much more time in prison.
Yes, I agree mostly, though don't mind life imprisonment for
those who persist in breaking laws.
> > Yes, I guess we've agreed that indeed that those in prison
> > on ridiculous charges are just like you and me, but I would
> > not call drug possession a ridiculous charge. It's a charge
>
> If the law is wrong then it cannot be anything but a ridiculous
> reason to put someone in prison.
Good grief. Wrong in whose eyes? So I just don't know
how to delimit your remark. It needs qualifiers badly ;-)
Is one supposed to infer from it that everyone should deem
ridiculous the incarceration of anyone for breaking a law
that he or she disagrees with? Sorry. Maybe the blame
for my confusion here is your use of the word "wrong".
Do you really think it a wise or necessary choice?
> What would you do for instance with the laws still on the books
> in many states forbidding homosexual sex if you were gay? Would
> you deny yourself a sex life or move or ignore the laws?
Hard to say. I'd probably move or deny myself a sex life,
but I might practice sex in secret, it being simultaneously
none of anyone's business and impossible for the authorities
to learn about. Yes, this is the "sodomy" case that I was
referring to when I wrote you offlist, and could constitute
an exception to my statement, "obey the law, right or wrong".
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:46 MST