From: E. Shaun Russell (e_shaun@uniserve.com)
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 11:51:44 MDT
Perry wrote:
>The issue is restitution, pure and simple. This might, of course,
>effectively result in most murderers being effectively enslaved for
>decades or even their entire lives making restitution to their victims,
>but I see nothing inherently wrong with that. If you cause damage, you
>have an obligation to make good on it.
But what is to hold them to it? What keeps a murderer from
murdering the family of the victims in the time that he is supposedly making
restitution? I think that for violent crimes like rape, battery, assault,
murder etc., the best way to take care of it is with (as Eric Watt Forste
said) handcuffs and leg irons. However, should the judgment not be wholly
circumstantial? I, personally, see that in some instances murder should not
be a crime (rape and battery etc. are another story). So the question turns
from "What should be done?" into "Who gets to decide?" I am reminded of
Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in which a witness to a crime
assembles some passer-bys to bring forth a judgment. Both sides present a
case, and a decision is made in a short amount of time. This way, a person
who is declared "innocent" does not have to suffer through many months of
invasive incarceration as frequently happens in our legal system today.
As for the future, I would imagine that a drug would be found that
could provoke the truth from a suspect. BTW, I am all for capital
punishment as long as it is based on circumstance and situation, and as long
as it is implemented honestly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Shaun Russell Poet, Musician, Atheist, Extropic Artist.
=========================> Transhumanities editor for Homo Excelsior:
Kineticize your potential. http://www.excelsior.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:30 MST