The Importance of Punishment - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

08/15/2008 03:25:50 PM · #351

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by SDW:

Originally posted by Louis:
Your post is there. It's an appeal to pity, which isn't really a strong argument, failing, as it does, to address any of the points brought up concerning the Norwegian example.

It's not an appeal to pity. I did watch the Norwegian 3 min. video and it does have something to do with it. Why do you say its pity??

What you posted is intended to evoke pity in the reader for the "prisoner", without you having to address any of the actual points being made. It's not in itself a stated position that anyone can counter.

OK my point has been confirmed. Now lets revel the prisoner.

The prisoner is the victim and her cell is the grave, her life taken while doing her job at age 23 by a criminal. See her sentence (that will last eternity) and treatment is not being addressed when it comes to the punishment of criminals. It seems that some people often want to forget the victims once the dirt has been placed over their grave and flowers have withered.

Halfway through the Norwegian video one prisoner speaks about another prisoner that killed two with a chainsaw(??) but its all about trust and he runs the saw in the mill. So they are addressing hard criminals in the video as well as petty criminals. Why should he get the benefit of a second chance when the victim does not?

ASSUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS!!!

Now why should we Assume that a hard criminal will keep his word and not do it again when he is released? Something to think about; not to ASSUME!

Originally posted by victim:

I have been beat beyond recognition, raped, and placed in a cell so small I canâ��t even turn around if I could. I canâ��t even catch my breath, they donâ��t let me visit my family, and I donâ��t get the chance to go out in the yard for one-hour of exercise during the day. My cell has no light so I just lay in the dark; at least I have a soft bed. I wish I could be back in society once again. Iâ��m to young to be in this prison, but Iâ��m here forever; why canâ��t I get a second chance?

Now the post takes on a new perspective, don't you think?

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 15:37:10.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

08/15/2008 03:27:29 PM · #352

Originally posted by egamble:

happy?

;-) I'm glad to see you've considered the links and came to the conclusion that it might work, at least for certain criminals. I agree that it will be more difficult to reform people who have grown up in gang structures and will possibly return to them after their prison term.

Originally posted by egamble:

But I will agree it could help in the non-violent offenders population...before they were mixed into the 'criminal colleges' and learned how to bring even more destruction to our society.

You also seem to agree that prisons can have the effect of "criminal colleges". This is something I'm also concerned about.

You suggest sending criminals to the camp in the beginning. This might be a good idea for non-violent, "harmless" criminals and keep them from learning worse things in an ordinary prison. However, for the more serious criminals, I think being at a normal prison first will make them appreciate the camp more. If they are sent there first, they might not play along and act up. However, this still leaves the "criminal college" effect of the ordinary prison, which is something we should not welcome.

Please note that the do have rapists and murderers in the camp in Norway. And it seems to work even for them. However, also consider that they carefully select the prisoners they accept (I think they have to apply for the transfer). They probably won't choose people with a permanent mental illness.

Let's come back the issue where we still seem to disagree:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by egamble:
Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?

I answered your question in my last post.

So if the drug's effect was only temporary you would deny any responsiblity and not want to be punished.

And in the case of the permanent craziness you would want to be killed.

Do you agree that your degree of responsibility and that of the woman suffering from schizophrenia are the same? Let's say she doesn't wish to be killed as you do. What should we do with her? Should we kill her anyways? Should we incarcerate her? Should we be nice to her if we do the latter?

egamble

Canon EOS-7D

08/15/2008 03:30:29 PM · #353

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Do you agree that your degree of responsibility and that of the woman suffering from schizophrenia are the same? Let's say she doesn't wish to be killed as you do. What should we do with her? Should we kill her anyways? Should we incarcerate her? Should we be nice to her if we do the latter?

Keep her locked up, forever. So she can't hurt anyone.

Of course, if she killed her five babies...I think we should escort her into the next life and let God be her eternal judge.

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 15:32:32.

egamble

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

08/15/2008 03:32:19 PM · #354

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by egamble:
happy?

;-) I'm glad to see you've considered the links and came to the conclusion that it might work, at least for certain criminals. I agree that it will be more difficult to reform people who have grown up in gang structures and will possibly return to them after their prison term.

Originally posted by egamble:
But I will agree it could help in the non-violent offenders population...before they were mixed into the 'criminal colleges' and learned how to bring even more destruction to our society.

You also seem to agree that prisons can have the effect of "criminal colleges". This is something I'm also concerned about.

You suggest sending criminals to the camp in the beginning. This might be a good idea for non-violent, "harmless" criminals and keep them from learning worse things in an ordinary prison. However, for the more serious criminals, I think being at a normal prison first will make them appreciate the camp more. If they are sent there first, they might not play along and act up. However, this still leaves the "criminal college" effect of the ordinary prison, which is something we should not welcome.

Please note that the do have rapists and murderers in the camp in Norway. And it seems to work even for them. However, also consider that they carefully select the prisoners they accept (I think they have to apply for the transfer). They probably won't choose people with a permanent mental illness.

Let's come back the issue where we still seem to disagree:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by egamble:
Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem?

I answered your question in my last post.

So if the drug's effect was only temporary you would deny any responsiblity and not want to be punished.

And in the case of the permanent craziness you would want to be killed.

Do you agree that your degree of responsibility and that of the woman suffering from schizophrenia are the same? Let's say she doesn't wish to be killed as you do. What should we do with her? Should we kill her anyways? Should we incarcerate her? Should we be nice to her if we do the latter?

Again. I think it would work for the non-violent offenders.

The structure of our society, the sheer number and thus the variety of our populace would make the 'rehabilitation' (via these camps)of hardcore or violent offenders impossible.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/15/2008 03:37:28 PM · #355

Your post still essentially seeks to win people to your position by appealing to their emotions, and that never makes for a good argument, but:

Originally posted by SDW:

The prisoner is the victim and her cell is the grave, her life taken while doing her job at age 23 by a criminal. See her sentence (that will last eternity) and treatment is not being addressed when it comes to the punishment of criminals.

Assuming you mean the people taking Sam's position in this thread, it is. Unless you just want to kill everyone that commits a crime -- and the only country with capital punishment in the Western world is America -- you'll be left with an individual that's gone through the justice system for better or worse. Rehabilitating that person back into society is in society's best interest, assuming the individual doesn't die in prison. And at the end of the day, you have to treat people humanely, irrespective of how inhumanely they've treated others. No? If not, why not?

Originally posted by SDW:

It seems some often that people want to forget the victims one the dirt has been placed over their grave and flowers have withered.

Just for your info, that also is a statement intended to arouse the sentiments and pity of the audience, and while it may have its place, it's not in itself any kind of argument.

Originally posted by SDW:

Halfway through the Norwegian video one prisoner speaks about another prisoner that killed two with a chainsaw(??) but its all about trust and he runs the saw in the mill. So they are addressing hard criminals in the video as well as petty criminals. Why should he get the benefit of a second chance when the victim does not?

Because if he returns to society, he should be rehabilitated, made to feel like a human being. What's the alternative? Murdering him?

Originally posted by SDW:

No why should we Assume that a hard criminal will keep his word and not do it again when he is released?

Because according to the laws of all the countries in the Western world but one, he may be a member of society at some point in future. Should he be treated like an animal, then let out of his cage after twenty five years? Or should he be treated with dignity, as we would have had him treat his victims, and then let him pass into society in graduated steps?

What kind of society do you want to live in? A compassionate one, or a lethal one?

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 15:38:14.

08/15/2008 03:51:14 PM · #356

Originally posted by SDW:

We are going in circles. Read my post of 08/14/2008 05:10:29 AM again, it addresses this issue. For your convenience:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by SDW:

Originally posted by Sam94720:
The Norwegian camp is such a compromise. Prisoners spend most of their sentence in an ordinary prison (which should work as a deterrent), but for the last months they are transferred to a camp where they learn values like friendship, compassion, hard work, etc. and are prepared for their life afterwards.

This is a honest question and I would like a honest answer from your view point.

Lets look at a rapist that has raped a little girl or boy. Do you think one year (I believe somewhere in this thread your mentioned a year if I not mistaken; correct me if I'm wrong) prison sentence followed by some forms of therapy is what the rapist deserves? When the victim has to live the rest of their life in fear, reliving the moment, remembering the date, having trust factors, emotional, sexual, and relationship problems.

Of the two, the criminal or victim, which is being punished, humiliated, and raped day-in-day-out?

See this is one thing that bothers me about all this analogy. I have yet to see any compassion from you toward the victims. If you have shown any its been in passing to get back on the subject of how the criminal should be dealt with.

This whole thread is about a question of priorities. What is more important to us, a peaceful society with a small crime rate or the punishment of criminals?

You compare the suffering of the victim to that of the perpetrator and you seem to wish that the latter be made at least as painful as the former. From the point of view of the victim, this may satisfy a need for revenge and therefore be desirable. However, from the point of view of the society as a whole, it may bring about undesirable side effects (financial costs, further victims).

There are criminals who I agree should remain locked up forever. However, most criminals will have to be released one day. My two theoretical scenarios would play out like this in the case of the rapist:

A*) A man rapes a girl. He is caught and spends a year in a treatment facility. He enjoys this time and learns to find other ways to satisfy his needs. He is released and becomes a commendable member of society and doesn't commit any crime any more.

B*) A man rapes a girl. He is caught and spends fifteen years in a prison. This time is a horrible experience for him, he suffers. Even after his release we make his life miserable by putting him in a public registry. He's unable to lead a normal life. In his desperation he turns to what he got to know best in prison: violence. He rapes two more girls. He is caught again and this time punished even more.

Scenario B*) satisfies the victims' need for revenge or "justice", even three times. However, from a point of view of the society it is costly. We have two more victims. And we need to pay for the prison time.

Scenario A*) does not satisfy the victim's need for revenge, I understand that. However, from the point of view of the society as a whole it is more desirable.

Please note that both scenarios are "idealized" cases, I'm aware of the fact that we can't assume all cases to play out like this. Please also note that I purposefully set the treatment time in scenario A*) low to increase the contrast and highlight the trade-off.

Both scenarios are extremes and not entirely realistic. I believe that we are currently closer to B*) and that we should move toward A*). The Norwegian prison is a step in that direction. A part of the punishment is given up and replaced by an experience that makes inmates more likely to become good members of society after their release.

Please further note that most crimes are not rape. Many people end up in prison because they used violence to solve problems. And what do they learn in prison? That violence is the only way to solve problems, that you have to be brutal to survive. I fear that they will apply what they've learned in prison on the outside afterwards. Maybe it would be better to teach them something else in prison, even if it meant reducing the amount of punishment they get.

You ask me whether I had any compassion for the victims. I do. Also for the additional two girls in scenario B*). However, I don't quite understand why compassion for the victims should mean punishing the criminal as severly as possible. I'm not sure if this is the best we can do for the victim.

Let me illustrate this further with a personal story. Almost 20 years ago I was beat up in school by older kids, repeatedly (probably asked too many questions people didn't want to hear... ;-) ). I lost several teeth. To this day I have painful surgery (the most recent one was in May this year) to deal with the aftermath of those incidents. I had to give up my (still young and probably unpromising) career as a trumpeter. I'm not able to bite into an apple. (This doesn't even come close to rape, but I think it serves to illustrate the general attitude nonetheless.)

The culprits were never punished. I saw one of them in the streets a few weeks ago; he probably doesn't even remember me. I don't bear any grudge. I've come to accept my fate. No kind of punishment would relieve my pain or improve my life in any other way.

Alternatively, I could have dedicated my life to making those of the culprits miserable. And my own, that of my family and of their families at the same time. I don't think that would have helped anyone. And "compassion" would not be the word I'd use to describe it.

08/15/2008 04:00:02 PM · #357

We keep discussing about rape and murder. I understand that these crimes are emotionally most disturbing, but they only make up a tiny fraction of all crimes committed.

You might have seen my post about Kohlberg's stages of moral development earlier. The Wikipedia page mentions the "Heinz dilemma", which goes as follows:

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

How should we punish Heinz? Is he a bad person?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

08/15/2008 04:02:31 PM · #358

Originally posted by Louis:

Your post still essentially seeks to win people to your position by appealing to their emotions, and that never makes for a good argument, but:
Originally posted by SDW:
The prisoner is the victim and her cell is the grave, her life taken while doing her job at age 23 by a criminal. See her sentence (that will last eternity) and treatment is not being addressed when it comes to the punishment of criminals.

Assuming you mean the people taking Sam's position in this thread, it is. Unless you just want to kill everyone that commits a crime -- and the only country with capital punishment in the Western world is America -- you'll be left with an individual that's gone through the justice system for better or worse. Rehabilitating that person back into society is in society's best interest, assuming the individual doesn't die in prison. And at the end of the day, you have to treat people humanely, irrespective of how inhumanely they've treated others. No? If not, why not?

Originally posted by SDW:
It seems some often that people want to forget the victims one the dirt has been placed over their grave and flowers have withered.

Just for your info, that also is a statement intended to arouse the sentiments and pity of the audience, and while it may have its place, it's not in itself any kind of argument.

Originally posted by SDW:
Halfway through the Norwegian video one prisoner speaks about another prisoner that killed two with a chainsaw(??) but its all about trust and he runs the saw in the mill. So they are addressing hard criminals in the video as well as petty criminals. Why should he get the benefit of a second chance when the victim does not?

Because if he returns to society, he should be rehabilitated, made to feel like a human being. What's the alternative? Murdering him?

Originally posted by SDW:
No why should we Assume that a hard criminal will keep his word and not do it again when he is released?

Because according to the laws of all the countries in the Western world but one, he may be a member of society at some point in future. Should he be treated like an animal, then let out of his cage after twenty five years? Or should he be treated with dignity, as we would have had him treat his victims, and then let him pass into society in graduated steps?

What kind of society do you want to live in? A compassionate one, or a lethal one?

I have been a part of this thread since in inception. Can you find a one of my post that says I feel or believe capital punishment is the right thing to do? Once again an assumption.

Have you ever visited the inside of a prison (minimal or maximum) in the US? Or is you statement, treated like an animal, from other sources?

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:03:09.

08/15/2008 04:04:24 PM · #359

A jury wouldn't convict him. Remember, you didn't say the man beat the druggist to death. He just stole $1000 to cure his wife.

He would walk.

But IMO I don't think he is a bad person.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:05:15.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/15/2008 04:06:35 PM · #360

Originally posted by kenskid:

A jury wouldn't convict him. Remember, you didn't say the man beat the druggist to death. He just stole $1000 to cure his wife.

He would walk.

Yes, the druggist wasn't injured (Heinz went there during the night!). Would you agree to let him walk? Although he broke the law? Although he brought harm to another person by stealing from them?

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:07:11.

Louis

Nikon D800

08/15/2008 04:08:02 PM · #361

Originally posted by SDW:

I have been a part of this thread since in inception. Can you find a one of my post that says I feel or believe capital punishment is the right thing to do? Once again an assumption.

Well then, what's your alternative to capital punishment and no rehabilitation?

Originally posted by SDW:

Have you ever visited the inside of a prison (minimal or maximum) in the US? Or is you statement, treated like an animal, from other sources?

No, I haven't. Don't you agree that the treatment of hard criminals in American federal prisons is substantially different from their treatment in that Norwegian prison we've been discussing?

And anectdotally, yes, it seems to me that people doing hard time are treated pretty basely -- close to being treated like livestock.

08/15/2008 04:12:08 PM · #362

In the US the jury would likely be instructed on what the man can be convicted of.
Burgerly, simple burgerly, etc...each with a different min and max sentence.

If I were on the jury and the minimum would get him to serve jail time, I would vote Not-guilty and let him go.

However, If I came to the conclusion that the evidence showed he was guilty and I voted Not guilty, I would be going against what the judge instructed me to do. (which is not a crime). In my opinion, this is what happened in the OJ Simpson murder case...oh...oh...did I just say that?

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Originally posted by kenskid:
A jury wouldn't convict him. Remember, you didn't say the man beat the druggist to death. He just stole $1000 to cure his wife.

He would walk.

Yes, the druggist wasn't injured (Heinz went there during the night!). Would you agree to let him walk? Although he broke the law? Although he brought harm to another person by stealing from them?

08/15/2008 04:13:30 PM · #363

I miss talking about my


      _         ;-.-._

    .-" "-.       \.  _{

   /       \      /   o )_

  ;         |    ;  ,__(_<`

  |        /     |     \()

  |  /`\  (      |      ;

   \ \ |   '-..-';      |\

    '.;|   ,_ _.= \    /`|

       \  '.       '-'   |

        \   '=.         /

         '.     /     .'

           \  .'---';`

      jgs  | /  `.  |

          _||     `\\

         ` -.'-- .-'_'--.

             `"      `--

08/15/2008 04:31:00 PM · #364

Originally posted by kenskid:

But you agree that Heinz broke the law, right? He stole property of another person. What would you answer

SteveJ in this case?

Originally posted by SteveJ:

Commit the crime, you do the time. There is no grey area. It is not and cannot be revenge to punish a criminal, it is retribution for breaking the law.

[...]

We have laws to protect the people who live by the law, those who break these laws are punished. If you think there is any argument against this, then you are deluded and a danger to humanity. A world without law, where everyone is allowed a free crime is the slippery slope to anarchy!

EDIT: Glad to see you managed to fix your cock.

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:31:24.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

08/15/2008 04:47:42 PM · #365

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by SDW:
I have been a part of this thread since in inception. Can you find a one of my post that says I feel or believe capital punishment is the right thing to do? Once again an assumption.

Well then, what's your alternative to capital punishment and no rehabilitation?

Originally posted by SDW:
Have you ever visited the inside of a prison (minimal or maximum) in the US? Or is you statement, treated like an animal, from other sources?

No, I haven't. Don't you agree that the treatment of hard criminals in American federal prisons is substantially different from their treatment in that Norwegian prison we've been discussing?

And anectdotally, yes, it seems to me that people doing hard time are treated pretty basely -- close to being treated like livestock.

Well I have visited several to talk to people about what they have done. Some have a life sentence but have it better than most living out in the world. They have free housing even though it's not the housing you and I enjoy. They have free cable TV, free workout facilities, medical care, and three square meals a day. They are not locked in their cells all day like animals and are allowed out in the yard to play ball. They get to socialize with other inmates. They have access to libraries vastly superior to most places outside of prison.

Yes some bad things happen in prison and that when the prisoner (the one doing bad) should be taken out of the general population in the prison. If a guard violates a prisoner then he has now became a criminal and should be indited and put through the justice system in like fashion.

Not all prisoner should be lockup for life, it depends on the crime. But if they are the above treatment and facilities are far better than most law abiding citizens have access to.

I do agree that there are is a wide variety of crimes and no crime is alike. So I feel some criminals should be placed back in society after rehabilitation and/or restitution.

BTW: I have seen on several occasions where prisoners that have been entrusted to be on work detail, having only days left before they will be freed run so that they could be caught. When asked why, "I would be crazy not to want to stay in here. I have no worries, it hard out their in society - I have it made!".

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:50:42.

08/15/2008 04:51:10 PM · #366

Thanks [user]louis[/user] helped me.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

EDIT: Glad to see you managed to fix your cock.

Message edited by author 2008-08-15 16:51:48.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/15/2008 07:31:28 PM · #367

Originally posted by egamble:

I have broken no 'significant' law. (EDIT, man made law..I have broken most of God's law)

Most people will likely consider their own law-breaking as being trivial in nature, or the laws that they disregard as being trivial - but that is entirely down to their point of view.

Most people will break traffic laws without thinking it significant (as you admit - I do too). Many people will steal things from time to time - but in trivial ways (eg office stationery from work). Many people will commit fraud (eg exaggerating expenses, or exaggerating declared income on a mortgage application) without thinking twice.

Whether these people are committing serious or non-serious crimes does not necessarily depend on what they do but upon whether they are "unlucky" (e.g. killing an unseen bicyclist when failing to stop at a stop sign) and upon one's point of view (Â£100 pounds of exaggerated expenses on a Â£5,000 work trip might seem trivial, saving Â£1,000 a year because you pretend to qualify for a better mortgage rate might seem victimless/trivial (it is not), whereas taking Â£100 from the shop's till might well be prosecuted).

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

08/16/2008 08:12:55 AM · #368

Let me come back to the Heinz dilemma:

Originally posted by Sam94720:

I haven't heard a convincing argument yet why Heinz should or should not be punished. He committed a crime. He broke the law. He brought harm to another person.

And

egamble: You seem to have understood that the German woman bears little to no responsibility for her illness. And you appear to be willing to pay for keeping her locked away permanently.

Now imagine this woman had not committed any crime. But she'd still have the illness and she wouldn't be able to work because of it. In the other discussion we had you argued people should be cut off welfare after a few years. Would this also apply to her? And if yes: Does this mean she has to commit a crime to be worthy of your money?

egamble

Canon EOS-7D

08/16/2008 08:47:52 AM · #369

Originally posted by Matthew:

Most people will likely consider their own law-breaking as being trivial in nature, or the laws that they disregard as being trivial - but that is entirely down to their point of view.

Most people will break traffic laws without thinking it significant (as you admit - I
Whether these people are committing serious or non-serious crimes does not necessarily depend on what they do but upon whether they are "unlucky" (e.g. killing an unseen do too). Many people will steal things from time to time - but in trivial ways (eg office stationery from work). Many people will commit fraud (eg exaggerating expenses, or exaggerating declared income on a mortgage application) without thinking twice.
bicyclist when failing to stop at a stop sign) and upon one's point of view (Â£100 pounds of exaggerated expenses on a Â£5,000 work trip might seem trivial, saving Â£1,000 a year because you pretend to qualify for a better mortgage rate might seem victimless/trivial (it is not), whereas taking Â£100 from the shop's till might well be prosecuted).

I think there is a plain difference between an act that is obviously meant to inflict harm...and a person that might not come to a 'complete stop' (it is against the law, if ALL forward motion has not stopped) at a stop sign.

08/16/2008 08:52:34 AM · #370

Originally posted by egamble:

Let's say you drive through a village with 100mph (way above the speed limit). You do not intend to harm anyone. You are lucky, nothing happens. What should your punishment be?

Let's say you drive through a village with 100mph (way above the speed limit). You do not intend to harm anyone. You are unlucky and hit a child crossing the street. What should your punishment be?

08/16/2008 11:05:33 AM · #371

A 19 year old was sentenced to 4 MONTHS in federal prison for driving down a town street with a noose tied to the back of his car.

There were black protestors protesting the conviction of 6 black teens in the beating ONE white teen. The whole thing started because fights began when some black teens wanted to sit under a tree that the white teens usually sit under. It seems the white tree was off limits to the black teens.

It was days or even weeks later (I forgot the details) that the black teens beat the white guy. They were arrested and convicted on several counts.

During the protests over the black teen's convictions, a white 18 year old at the time drove past the crowd with the noose tied to the back of the car.

He was convicted of a "hate crime" and "anti-noose" laws and will spend 4 MONTHS in prison.

You can Google all about this whole story and get many different "at faults"..."my poor white child got beat up"..."the poor black children were unfairly convicted" etc...

....Let that sort out by itself and explore:

Should you go to prison for tying a noose to the back of your car?

Check here for info on jail time for hanging a noose.

08/16/2008 11:32:52 AM · #372

Originally posted by kenskid:

A 19 year old was sentenced to 4 MONTHS in federal prison for driving down a town street with a noose tied to the back of his car.

[...]

Should you go to prison for tying a noose to the back of your car?

In this case, yes. I don't think he should be humiliated in prison or suffer any physical or psychological harm, but the time-out might give him a chance to think a bit.

You might say "Come on, driving around with a noose tied to the back of your car is no big deal.", but what would the purpose be? I can't think of any other purpose than intimidating and threatening black people.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

08/16/2008 12:47:40 PM · #373

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Let's say you drive through a village with 100mph (way above the speed limit). You do not intend to harm anyone. You are lucky, nothing happens. What should your punishment be?

Lets analyze question 1.
Person is driving through a village (in US called Neighborhood) at 100mph.
Most Cities in the US has a written law on what the speed limit is if not post and that is 30mph.
So the driver is going 70mph over the speed limit.
Assuming the driver has a brain, he/she know this is wrong and their behavior is a formula for disaster.
Yet noting happens and no one is hurt.

Punishment:
1st offense: A fine large enough but within reason to denture he/she from doing this again.
2nd offense: A larger fine and suspension of drivers license for a period of time.
3rd offense: A large fine and suspension of drivers license for a longer period of time along with mandatory driving school at defendants expense.
Another offense: Permanent suspension of driving privileges because he/she has been given three chances and school but still does not know how the danger of their actions.

Originally posted by Sam94720:

Let's say you drive through a village with 100mph (way above the speed limit). You do not intend to harm anyone. You are unlucky and hit a child crossing the street. What should your punishment be?

Now question 2.
The same as question one but the formula for disaster has summed itself. The driver knows his/her actions caused the injury or death of a person.

Punishment:
It was not murder but vehicular homicide. The driver did not mean to injure of kill a person but was well aware that his/her actions could result in such a fate.
The driver should be put through the justice system with a fair trial by jury or judge or plead guilty or no contest (defendant choice). If the defendant cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed by the court to represent him/her. BTW, the attorney is paid by taxpayers money. Depending on the outcome of the trial or plea a sentence should be handed down to the defendant; sometime at the conclusion of the trial of at a latter date - called the sentencing phase.

The sentence should reflect the trauma the defendant has inflicted upon the victim and society including financial expenses.

Should this person be lockup for life, NO! He/She did not intend to injure or kill anyone so his/her crime was without malice and not premeditated. The defendant should be placed in a minimum security prison for a set period of time determined by the courts. While in prison the now convicted criminal should not just sit around instead make it mandatory that he/she be rehabilitated. At the conclusion of his/her sentence probation that requires them to speak in public to others about the safety of obeying driving laws (from what they have learned from the rehabilitation in prison) for the period of probation. This would help others that think before they get out on the road and find themselves in the same situation.

After the completion of his/her sentence and probation that includes community involvement. They could reapply for driving privileges; first learners license that require them to be accompanied by a licensed adult for one year and then, with no major violations, they can regain their right to full driving privileges.

Message edited by author 2008-08-16 12:48:21.

08/16/2008 12:59:07 PM · #374

Hehe,

SDW, you sound like a lawyer. ;-)

One could argue that the driver showed exactly the same behavior in both cases. She (let's drop the assumption that there are only male criminals...) also exhibited the same neglect for the safety of others. In both cases she accepted the risk of killing someone. So why shouldn't the punishment be the same in both cases?

Whether or not she kills someone is beyond her control and simply a matter of luck.