From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 09:54:15 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> John K Clark wrote:
>
> > "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> Wrote:
> >
> > > I what way do you think prisoners are *not*
> > > basically the same as the people everywhere
> else?
> >
> > As I said before many people in prison should not
> be there,
> > counterproductive drug laws being the most
> notorious example, however I do
> > not think I am basically the same as your average
> child killer or mass
> > murderer.
>
>
> Sure. But as you yourself have admitted, the child
> killer and
> mass murderer types are far and away the minority.
> So why do
> you make statements about people in prisons
> generally that would
> only be appropriate for this small minority?
I'd not call 56,000+ murderers in prison a 'small
minority'. Nor the hundreds of thousands of rapists in
prisons (whom I very much doubt you'd like to see on
the street).
While I support the notion that drug offense
sentencing has gotten way out of hand, where killers
spend less time in jail than acid heads in many cases.
Those who commit crime are a very small percent of the
population (around 2%) so it makes sense to focus on
those who do and to take measures to isolate them from
the rest of society for extended periods. If you
murder someone, if you aren't executed, you should
never set foot outside prison for the rest of your
life. Rapists shouldn't go free unless they are either
castrated or so old and infirm as to not be able to
catch anybody to rape. Both types are known to have
high recidivism rates, so freeing them is simply
conspiring with them to commit future crimes.
Any parole board member who sets free a criminal who
kills again should be fired and fined heavily, at the
very least. They hold the safety of society and the
lives and liberties of innocent individuals in their
hands.
> >
> > > Are you implying that criminals are
> genetically disposed to be
> > > criminals?
> >
> > I'm sure some are, most probably are not. What
> difference does it make?
>
>
> A great deal actually. Those who are genetically
> predisposed
> should not be treated the same as those who simply
> chose to do
> some very vile things. How they should be treated
> is a
> different issue.
I disagree, especially if you mean that those who are
genetically predisposed should be treated more
leniently than those who simply choose to do vile
things (how would one choose to do vile things unless
one had some genetic predisposition to do so?)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:47 MST