Threats to society?

[Deamon]

I was watching a recent law and order episode where a man killed an insurance company boss because he thought it would make the insurance company give them a drug that might cure his daughters lukemia. Well anyway he was prosecuted, and receieved a mistrial, I want to know whether you think we should imprison people that aren't really threats to society. See this guy isn't the murdering type and its his first felony. Should he be imprisoned for life when he's probably never going to kill someone again and is a hard working member of society. Should he be imprisoned? He's not likley to kill again, if not how should he make up for his crime?

[Macbeth]

Whether he is a threat to society or not really has nothing to do with the idea of punishment.

But, it does bring up an interesting point in terms of prostitution & drug use (so called "victim-less crimes).

[jhans]

I probably shouldn’t respond to this b/c I’m sure in the end it will result in you saying something about how great Europe is and then we will end up with another post whereby we (excluding Deamon and probably Eddy) will all cap on Europe.

That being said, I can’t help myself. The justice system was not created merely to detour only specific acts by specific people. Each time we punish an individual we are punishing that person to: 1) Give the victim justice 2) Detour the convicted from future behavior 3) Detour future behavior by the rest of society. There was a large school of thought in the 19th century that contended that the main purpose was to reform the convicted individual. If you believe (as some did/do) that reformation of the individual is the 4th and main purpose behind punishment than I suppose you could answer your question by saying that it wouldn’t accomplish anything by punishing the guy. While I would love to see criminals reform their behavior, I believe that history has shown that reformation as a single object has a very low rate of success. I say punish him because I believe the most important reason for punishment is to dissuade all of society from criminal behavior.

[Eddy's Geist]

LOL! UBER ALLES DEAUTCHLAND!

Sorry.. couldn't help myself.
Daemon's got the right attitude on this one. I say let the father go.

Anyone remember the lady from northern California who went into the courtroom and shot and killed the man who had sexually molested her son? She got prison time and I think unfairly. She did something good for society... we've all heard how molesters tend to molest again... and... the california public doesn't have to pay to warehouse this guy.

[JBMoney]

http://bushwhacked.net/photo/cheerleader.jpg

[This message has been edited by JBMoney (edited 01-18-2002).]

[Auff]

Per usual Eddy, take a totally unrelated example and attempt an analogy.

As much as I'd like to honor the vigilante, a crime is a crime. Jailtime for his killer.

As far as the Law and Order guy, he should have been hung. The victim had a family too, he was doing his job.

[wrecker05]

He is guilty of first degree murder. So therefore I believe he is a threat to society. Who's to say he won't kill his grocer next because the bananas aren't fresh enough ?

[Eddy's Geist]

Oh come on Auff, you're just pissed off because you don't like the idea of the mothers in your neighborhood busting a few caps in to your ass for fingering their kids http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif

[Deamon]

Yeah but wrecker, he did it because he thought it would get medicine to save his daughter's life. I don't think he would do it again. In my perfect court system it would be 2 murders and then execution, but nothing for first murder. Stealing should be punishable by death aswell, but 4 offences before execution, Unless there's a good reason like you can't afford food, but if you're spending all your money on drugs then kill 'em anyway. Inefficencies in society should not be tolerated, but they must be proven first, and putting away someone that would be efficent would slow things down.

[wrecker05]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Deamon:
Yeah but wrecker, he did it because he thought it would get medicine to save his daughter's life. I don't think he would do it again.</font>

While that reasoning sounds nice and orderly. Perhaps a few bleeding hearts will say "oh ok not guilty". 1st degree murder is ..... well 1st degree murder.
With that reasoning, you rationalize almost any crime. I did it because he was (a minority of your choice) and they always cause capital crimes[directly or indirectly]
He or she looked at my wife, I only killed him to prevent a rape.
Etc etc etc

He still murdered and he will be punished.

[Auff]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Eddy's Geist:
Oh come on Auff, you're just pissed off because you don't like the idea of the mothers in your neighborhood busting a few caps in to your ass for fingering their kids http://bushwhacked.net/ubb/wink.gif</font>

WAH THA FAHHH?

Pissed off? More incorrect assumptions about someone you don't know. Very bad form.

Fingering kids? What does that mean? Are you some kind of sicko, or what?

[Eddy's Geist]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Auff:


Pissed off? More incorrect assumptions about someone you don't know. Very bad form.

</font>

hahhaha! Classic case of displacement!

Besides Auff, I really don't think you're a Nazi or a child molester. Got ya riled up though!!!

[Auff]

Not

[Spaz59]

Auff has now gone off to sulk.

I hope you feel good about yourself Eddy's Geist.

You
You


BULLY!