From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 14:21:44 MDT
-- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> >
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> There are several degrees of murder and more than a
> few possible
> extenuating circumstances. So it is a little
> overdone to make
> such a statement as the above. Also it has been
> found that
> upward of 40% of people in death row in some states
> are either
> not guilty (by DNA testing and such) or had such
> irregularities
> in their cases that their guilt is very
> questionable. Locking
> them up for life is better than execution if they
> can call into
> question the verdicts.
Yes, but since DNA technology now exists, there is no
reason to lock up indefinitely someone that has been
proven by DNA evidence, corroborated by other
evidence, to have done the deed. If there are innocent
people on death row, I say let them go.
I will note here that many states are now offering
free DNA tests to violent criminals who claim wrongful
conviction, with extremely low response from the
prisoners. It seems that the Innocence Project has
already cherry picked most all of the truly innocent
cases.
>
> > 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
>
>
> Where did you study law ? Saudi Arabia? While I
> have some
> sympathy for this position from having several
> friends who have
> been raped, I don't think castration is the answer
> for the type
> of complexes often involved. Nor do I think just
> putting people
> away for a long time is an optimal solution. A more
> optimal
> solution would be rehabilitation and have the person
> supporting
> themselves and possibly paying restitution.
I've studied sexual predators and offenders in school,
and as the recent scandal in the Catholic Church
demonstrates, most sexual offenders have almost no
rehabilitative potential.
The sort of castration I was thinking of was chemical
castration, which is painless, and is proven to
significantly help sexual predators curb their urges.
>
> But you seem to assume that a few things like that
> the
> individual is utterly blameworthy and that one gross
> violation
> makes that individual utterly unsalvageable for life
> (which may
> be a very, very long time if we get our dreams made
> real). Yet
> it would be a challenge to prove that organic damage
> of the
> brain could not be cured and that even massive
> psychological
> damage and personality disorders and so on could not
> be
> rehabilitated with any likely technology. If a
> person whose
> nature + nurture + decisions + who knows how many
> things did
> something reprehensible, I am not at all sure that
> means they
> should simply be destroyed directly or by rotting in
> a cell IF
> we can repair them. Are you?
>
I don't see most sexual offenders as recoverable, nor
does anybody who works with or studies them.
>
>
> > 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
>
>
> No. It is not an exact science. Mistakes will be
> made. Honest
> mistakes do not deserve heavy punishment.
BS. There are no honest mistakes when it comes to
safety. If you weren't careful enough to avoid killing
someone, then you were negligent in your training and
practice of whatever it was that you did to kill
someone. Negligent homicide is a violent felony.
>
> > lives and liberties of innocent individuals in
> their
> > hands.
> >
>
>
> So does everyone who drives a car.
"Serving on a parole board is a priviledge, not a
right"
If my driving misjudgement causes a multivehicle
accident that kills someone in another car that was
not even near me, I can still go to jail for
manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc... Parole board
members set killers free to kill again every day and
are rewarded with a paycheck for it.
__________________________________________________
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 - 09:15:48 MST