FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Does anyone think this man needs to ever be loose in society again? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Does anyone think this man needs to ever be loose in society again?
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Man sets estranged wife on fire.


quote:
A half-dozen customers were shopping at a T-Mobile store in Clinton yesterday morning when a man walked in clutching a 20-ounce green Sprite bottle filled with gasoline, Prince George's County police said.

The man quickly scanned the room for his estranged wife, an employee at the store, and when he saw her behind the counter, he flung the gas at her face, according to police.


She ran to the back of the store, and he followed, still hurling the gas in her direction. She dashed outside. He lighted several matches and threw them on her, setting her on fire.

With flames leaping off her body, the woman stumbled back inside. A customer threw a towel on her, dousing the flames, said Cpl. Diane Richardson, a spokeswoman for county police.

The woman, 31, was flown to a hospital with third-degree burns, the most serious degree of injury, covering half her torso and face, Richardson said. Police did not identify her; they described her condition last night as serious.

At what point does a person's history and actions become so horrific that we decide as a society that we are no longer taking the risk of him being violent again? Where does hope of rehabilitation end and our primary goal simply become incapacitation of the offender's ability to commit crime?

This is something I've struggled with. I'm actually a great believer in the human ability to reform. I'm also a believer in the retributive aspect of punishment - that a moral debt can be incurred and justly collected by society. And generally I think that represents the outer bound of acceptable punishment, that the deterrent, rehabilitation, and incapacitation functions of punishment must be tempered by the moral debt incurred by the crime.

But suppose this man had not managed to set the woman on fire - the match fizzled, or someone sprayed her with a fire extinguisher instantly or tackled him. Would the harm require life imprisonment as a punishment? If not, is it appropriate to say, "even so, we are simply not going to allow you to mix with society any more" and find a place to warehouse him until he dies?

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
I think he'd need to be removed whether he actually managed it or not.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
That is what torques me most about criminal law: if the intent is obviously horrendous -- eg cold-blooded murder -- and the result is less so -- eg permanent/chronic need for extensive medical treatment -- then for some reason the criminal is viewed as less dangerous to society.

Sorry, I don't care that the criminal failed to achieve a fully successful completion of his/her desires. I want that sucker kept away from society, kept away from even the possibility of creating yet another victim.

There are acts which are so intinsicly disgusting -- eg attempting to torch someone -- that the person who commits the act has forfeited any claim that society can safely coexist with him/her. In these cases, imprisonment should be at least as long-lasting as the effect on the victim.

[ October 11, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nato
Member
Member # 1448

 - posted      Profile for Nato   Email Nato         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't believe in punishment as retribution against the criminal as much as I support rehabilitation, deterrence.

I'd give this guy a long sentence with a chance of parole after some years. His crime was ugly and brutal, and planned, and he deserves a solid sentence for it.

I think that whether or not he managed to pull it off does have some importance in deciding the "weight" of the crime. If we accept your moral debt perspective, the damage he did completing the crime was greater than if his match had fizzled, ansd therefore the debt is higher.

If you conspired to smash the winshield of your neighbor's car (His grass is always greener, darn it!) you wouldn't owe him a new winshield if you had been caught at the last second. If you subscribe to the moral debt theory, I think you have to include the severity of the crime in the calculation of its weight.

Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, again. If a neighbor attempts to damage my property and fails, he should go to jail as a "time out" to consider that there are penalties for vandalism. If he succeeds, he should go to jail and pay for all of the damages he caused, especially for making me waste my time dealing with his mess.

I don't believe in punishment at all, and very little in deterence. I believe only in rehabilitation and prevention of future crime.
However, I do believe in giving a man a few moments -- or years -- to reflect on his error-filled thought processes.

And I do believe that some folks have thought processes so malign and so malignant that they shouldn't be released at all.
That degree of malign and malignant nature being defined by the type of crime they chose, and the technique/method they chose to commit that crime.

[ October 11, 2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nato
Member
Member # 1448

 - posted      Profile for Nato   Email Nato         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sorry, again. If a neighbor attempted to damage my property and failed, he should go to jail to remind him that there are penalties for vandalism. If he succeeded, he should go to jail and pay for the damages he caused.
Exactly.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, I do believe in giving a man a few moments -- or years -- to reflect on his error-filled thought processes.
That's tough, though, when you hear about cases where a sex offender is released from prison and then proceeds to rape someone within a month of being free. How do you know if a person is truly reformed?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
The first step is to rid yourself of the notion that anyone can be reformed against their will. The only way anyone changes is if they truly want to. Otherwise, you're pissing into the wind, so to speak.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
Have you read 1984 EJTdS?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Some terms, at least to explain how I've used them here:

Punishment is the use of coercive force as a response to particular acts. In this country, this amounts to coercive taking of money (fines), coercive restrictions on actions while within society (parole/probation, license suspension), coercive confinement (imprisonment), and death.

There are four traditional uses of punishment:

Retribution: the idea of a moral price to be paid, a desserts reasoning.

Rehabilitation: the attempt to remove factors that lead to crime. Drug rehab and job training are the two most obvious.

Deterrence: the attempt to discourage future repetition of the acts by assigning bad consequences. General deterrence is the fear engnedered in person B when person A is punished. Specific deterrence is the fear of future punishment engendered in A when A is punished, and the possible escalation of punishment for repeat offenses.

Incapacitation: making it harder for the person to commit an act again. Imprisonment, chemical castration, suspended driver's licenses.

Essentially all commentators see a place for all four of these purposes in a criminal punishment scheme, although different weight will be given to each.

So - again, within the way I was using the terms - "punishment" encompasses rehabilitation. They are not exclusive terms.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0range7Penguin
Member
Member # 7337

 - posted      Profile for 0range7Penguin           Edit/Delete Post 
The problem with our criminal code is its a choice between two evils. The evil of the person or the evil of government. So far american society has decided that government is the greater evil and therefor people can get away with terrible things.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kayla
Member
Member # 2403

 - posted      Profile for Kayla   Email Kayla         Edit/Delete Post 
I've always had a problem with "attempted" murder and murder, or any "attempted" crime really, being two different crimes. Just because you are too stupid to commit the crime correctly, the intent was the same, so the punishment should be the same.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree that intent should weigh more heavily than it does. The problem is it's so hard to prove intent that it wouldn't do any good.

Scott -- no, I haven't read 1984. Should I? I know the gist of it, but never read it.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
No, keep him segregated from general society for the rest of his life. I don't know if he can reform or not, but that's immaterial to me. This man in particular can have his reform outside of his potential victims.

Ironically if in twenty years he had paid his court-ordered debt to society and complained that he should be allowed amongst people again, that would prove to me only that he was not.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
A lot about the compromises made in a society between the different purposes of punishment and the weighting of offenses can be brought to light by analyzing attempt.

There are two very general principles used:

1.) the more harm the act caused, the more punishment is warranted.

2.) the more harm that would be caused if many people in the future commited the act, the more punishment is warranted.

The first principle argues for weighing outcome more heavily. The second principle argues for weighing intent more heavily. People cannot generally be deterred from that which they do not intend, although they can be encouraged to do some things they otherwise would not (drive non-negligently, for example).

I'm very torn on this. A bullet goes one inch to the right and someone survives. Why is this defendant deserving of less punishment than the one for which the bullet didn't miss by an inch? It's very hard to say.

It's easier to tolerate when intent is not required. For example, gross negligence is generally not punishable unless it results in death (or injury in some states). This is likely because there's a lot of negligence, and most of it is not detectable until the harm occurs.

It should be abundantly clear that I'm not sure at all where the proper balance lies.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brinestone
Member
Member # 5755

 - posted      Profile for Brinestone   Email Brinestone         Edit/Delete Post 
This is a tangent, but the fact that he did it in a very public place implies to me that he didn't care about getting caught. He knew he would go to jail or worse, and he did it anyway. A guy like that is either crazy or very dangerous. I doubt the law judges differently based on something like this, but I would wager that a guy like this would not be reformed by prison.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
At what point does a person's history and actions become so horrific that we decide as a society that we are no longer taking the risk of him being violent again? Where does hope of rehabilitation end and our primary goal simply become incapacitation of the offender's ability to commit crime?
Never.

Why would there need to be a point where we determine they can no longer ever be allowed to be free again? That seems to deny the capacity for human beings to change. I'm inclined to suspect that something one has done thirty years ago has very little to do with what you might do now - particularly if you show significant evidence of acting differently now than you did then. It would most definitely be unfair to keep this guy in jail on the grounds that he is a threat to society 30 years after he did something like this, just because of that one crime. He might do it again, but the chances would not be significantly greater than the threat that many of us who have committed no crime at all yet pose.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He might do it again, but the chances would not be significantly greater than the threat that many of us who have committed no crime at all yet pose.
Not meaning to pick on you, Tres, but what are you basing this statement on?

No one's denying the capacity to change, but rather the desire to. For a lot of cons, violent criminals especially, they can't help their violent tendencies. They know it's wrong, but the urge is too powerful. They're not repenting, because they enjoy hurting people.

Most criminals, the only thing they regret is that they got caught. Luckily for them jail is a great place to learn how to avoid getting caught the next time. Which is one of the major problems with our penal system.

Yes, I said penal. Get over it, people.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Tres, the statement El JT de Spang quoted is flat out incorrect. The average violent offenders is more likely to commit future acts of violence than the average person who has not been convicted of a violent crime.

This is especially true with sexual offenders.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
Tres,

You're pretty religious right?

One could argue that prison would merely serve to protect society and that true reformation would be between the sinner and God, and that is all that would really matter.

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That seems to deny the capacity for human beings to change.
Capacity does not equal real-world ability. I have the capacity to be and do many things, good and bad, but in reality I will do very few of them, given the host of choices.

A person may maintain that capacity to change in prison. That someone has the capacity to change does not mean they regain their rights, which they have thrown away by their own actions. It does not mean they have repaid society for the lives they've stolen or destroyed or ruined.

And, as has been shown, what you 'suspect' and what reality actually is are as usual two very different things.

That's why there's a need.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Not meaning to pick on you, Tres, but what are you basing this statement on?
Consider a person I once knew: He was prone to fits of irrational anger, treating women like objects, acting immorally for his own selfish gain, and being violent. He had never committed a crime, and thus was not in jail, yet I would say based on his characteristics that he was a real threat to society.

Now consider a hypothetical person who set someone on fire in a fit of rage 30 years ago, but has since aged, matured, calmed down, developed a moral base, found God, whatever. He now acts in a generous fashion and keeps his emotions in check, by all observations. But, because of his crime 30 years ago, he is in jail. I would say such a person is far less of a threat to society than the friend of mine who I described above. Thus, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to claim we are keeping the latter in jail for being a threat, while allowing the former to roam free, when the former is a greater threat than the latter.

The problem here is that, in trying to mandate that a person stay in jail forever, we are trying to predict the future. We are implying that either the man CAN'T possibly change his ways, or that our prediction of his future self now is going to be more accurate than our judgement of him in 30 years after we see what he has become. There is no need to think this. Why not just say we should keep him in jail until we no longer think he is a major threat? If he can't prove he's changed, he can stay. And if he can convince us he's changed, we give him a second shot.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay then. The two immediate problems I see is that you're calling your friend with violent tendencies your 'control' group. Then you're ascribing some Buddhist change of life to the arsonist. In your highly unlikely hypothetical situation, yes, the friend is probably more dangerous than the criminal.

However, it's not a good analogy because your 'friend' is not average. And the 180 degree personality change by the con is not realistic.

Another thing; we're not saying by putting someone in jail that they cannot change. We're saying, statistically, they're not likely to. And since we're dealing with a public safety issue, we err on the side of caution. This is a pretty important step in a society's development, being able to restrain one for the good of many.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
First, let me say that this crime is horrific. Everything reasonable should be done to stop not only this man, but any others from commiting similar crimes in the future.

But that is not an answer to Dag's questions. To answer Dag's question we first need to ask

1. Can people, even people who commit such henious acts, truly change?

2. Can we as a society determine with any degree of accuracy whether or not such an individual as truly changed?

As a follower of Christ, I have to give an unmitigated Yes in answer to the first question. Such changes may be rare, but they are absolutely possible.

The second question is more difficult but I want to answer yes to is as well. Somehow if I truly believe that even henious criminals can change, it seems hypocritical not to try to identify and reward those changes.

I know that there is a risk. But frankly we take such risks everyday. I can't be 100% certain that any of you won't try to soak me with gasoline and light me on fire tomorrow.

A 180 degree change may not be likely, but that doesn't mean it is unrealistic. This man committed a hiddeous crime. He should be punished for it. But in the process of that punishment, every effort should be made to help this man to change and to reward him when he has become a new man.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy"

How would it be if that bit of scripture was posted in courtrooms.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
People would disregard the message just because they didn't like the messenger. That's unfortunate.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
Statistically, more black people commit crime than white people, more poor people commit crime than rich people, more recent immigrants commit crime than American-born citizens, and so on and so forth. I don't think people should be kept in jail because, statistically, they are in some demographic who is likely to commit crime. They should only be kept in jail on the grounds of "Incapacitation" if they actually ARE likely to commit crime in their particular case. If 30 years do pass and they do change, as does happen sometimes, we should not be telling them they have to stay in jail because statistically their change was too unlikely.

And in situations like this, there is no such thing as erring on the side of caution. Both sides are dangerous - one allowing too many dangerous criminals free and the other forcing too many no-longer-dangerous criminals to stay in prison longer than they deserve. Erring on either side only increases the danger of the other. I think the right solution is to try not to err altogether.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

As a follower of Christ, I have to give an unmitigated Yes in answer to the first question. Such changes may be rare, but they are absolutely possible.

Thank you for saying this, Rabbit. And you, too, Tres, for advocating what can be best in people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
1. Can people, even people who commit such henious acts, truly change?

2. Can we as a society determine with any degree of accuracy whether or not such an individual as truly changed?

As a follower of Christ, I have to give an unmitigated Yes in answer to the first question. Such changes may be rare, but they are absolutely possible.

I absolutely agree here. I'm even fairly optimistic that it happens more than rarely.

quote:
The second question is more difficult but I want to answer yes to is as well. Somehow if I truly believe that even henious criminals can change, it seems hypocritical not to try to identify and reward those changes.
I'd like to. But, with today's knowledge, how do we do this? And which way do we err.

We say we tolerate 10 guilty people going free to avoid convicting one innocent person, and there's a LOT of truth to that.

But once someone has been convicted, especially when guilt is not in doubt as in this case, what ratio do we use.

I don't think a life sentence is unjust for this person, based on the crime. But I have no objection to releasing someone who had truly reformed before that. But if I knew absolutely reliably that he was totally reformed in one year, I still think he should be in prison for at least 10 years, probably more.

You've obviously thought deeply about this. What do you think is appropriate as a means of making the decision when we can't know if someone is truly reformed?

quote:
Statistically, more black people commit crime than white people, more poor people commit crime than rich people, more recent immigrants commit crime than American-born citizens, and so on and so forth. I don't think people should be kept in jail because, statistically, they are in some demographic who is likely to commit crime. They should only be kept in jail on the grounds of "Incapacitation" if they actually ARE likely to commit crime in their particular case.
I don't think anyone who hasn't committed a crime should be sent to jail, even if I can be 99.9999% sure they will commit an act of violence.

However, once someone has committed that act, there is moral authority to imprison, and not just until he's reformed.

quote:
I think the right solution is to try not to err altogether.
I won't have that luxery. I'm trying to deal with this not as a hypothetical, but as a real decision. Because someday I will have to make this decision, and I will err. I won't be able to know who is reformed or, more accurately, who will be reformed, when I request sentences.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
However, once someone has committed that act, there is moral authority to imprison, and not just until he's reformed.
When does that moral authority end then, if not when he's reformed? When does this prisoner regain his right to freedom? Never?

quote:
I won't have that luxery.
You won't have the luxery of avoiding error, but you WILL have the luxery of TRYING to avoid error, rather than trying to err in one direction or the other.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
When it is impossible to avoid error, one must act commensurate with the assumption that error is happening.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And in situations like this, there is no such thing as erring on the side of caution. Both sides are dangerous - one allowing too many dangerous criminals free and the other forcing too many no-longer-dangerous criminals to stay in prison longer than they deserve. Erring on either side only increases the danger of the other. I think the right solution is to try not to err altogether.
There is absolutely a side of caution in this case. There is absolutely a need to imprison offenders for a minimum time, regardless of whether or not they claim to have 'reformed'.

You cannot release someone early who has shown no compunction about inflicting physical damage on their fellow man. Public Safety. I'm sorry if you feel that criminals are being held too long, but frankly I can't imagine why they should get the benefit of the doubt when they've clearly shown their inability to coexist with others.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
Can a sane person ever truly believe that murder (the premeditated type, not self-defense, wartime or accidental) is morally acceptable? There are a lot of crimes that people may argue about the morality of, but murder generally isn't one of those.

I think any sane murderer knows that what he's doing is morally wrong. Instead, somewhere amidst his rationalizing his desire to kill, he probably asks himself 1) what is the likelihood that I will get caught? and 2) will the satisfaction I derive from killing be worth the punishment?

So instead of being an issue of whether killing is right or wrong, it's an issue of whether the reward is worth the risk, essentially saying that murder is acceptable if you're willing to pay the price. Well, murder is not acceptable, and the threat of punishment should reflect that. A person should not think to himself, "well, if I kill this person I might get 10 or so years of prison, but I don't mind because I really hate this person." Instead they should be thinking, "am I willing to throw away the rest of my life just so that I can end this other person's life?" The punishment should reflect the idea that murder is not acceptable regardless of the price you're willing to pay.

That's not to say that all premeditated murders should automatically result in a life sentence, but I think people should fully expect that while they debate whether or not they are going to kill someone. If this were the case, I think a lot of people would think a little longer about whether they want to risk murder.

So can you reform someone that already knows that what he did was wrong and was willing to do it anyway? I think prison is a more important deterrent than it is a means of reformation.

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
forcing too many no-longer-dangerous criminals to stay in prison longer than they deserve.
Exactly how long is too long, and what exactly do they deserve?

I'm sure that once in prison, many criminals regret what they did and are more than willing to change in order to gain freedom. But that doesn't mean they should. They knew full well the risk they were taking in committing the crime and did it anyway. I have no sympathy for them if they suddenly regret what they did and want out.

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
When does that moral authority end then, if not when he's reformed? When does this prisoner regain his right to freedom? Never?
No. I didn't say that. Some crimes deserve life in prison, whether the prisoner is reformed or not. I happen to think dumping gasoline on someone and tossing a match on them is one of them.

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to letting them out after a suitable period if they have reformed.

quote:
You won't have the luxery of avoiding error, but you WILL have the luxery of TRYING to avoid error, rather than trying to err in one direction or the other.
Gee, thanks. I hadn't thought to try to avoid error.

The point is when we know the error will occur, which way do we err. In findings of guilt, we err in favor of letting guilty people go.

In this case, which way should we err?

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ricree101
Member
Member # 7749

 - posted      Profile for ricree101   Email ricree101         Edit/Delete Post 
I have a question of those who believe that reform should represent the primary goal of the prison system.

Suppose that you have two criminals arrested at pretty much the same time. One of these criminals was arrested for something minor, lets go ahead and say it was shoplifting. The other one was convicted on three counts of first degree murder.

Lets say that after a short while, the murderer begins to feel strong remorse and decides to reform once he gets out. The shoplifter, on the other hand, does not really regret his actions and probably never will. Which one should go free first?

Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
I think reform and deterrence are very nice ideas.

Beats me how to make it happen, though.

But I do know how to protect innocent people from repeat offenders. Keep violent criminals in jail.

So, for the worst criminals in our society, the child molesters, the murderers, the torturers, I'm in favor of the death penalty or lifetime imprisonment or any option that separates them from society for ever. Anything less is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

I believe in the capacity of people to change. I think it's wonderful if criminals reform. But I won't take their word for it. Their word has lost all currency. Keep 'em away from me and mine.

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think any sane murderer knows that what he's doing is morally wrong. Instead, somewhere amidst his rationalizing his desire to kill, he probably asks himself 1) what is the likelihood that I will get caught? and 2) will the satisfaction I derive from killing be worth the punishment?
I think your understanding of murder has been highly distorted by mystery novels and TV shows. Most people who commit 1st degree murder do so in an act of rage or fear. Even if the murder has contemplated the act for hours or weeks, he/she has probably given little if any rational thought to the idea. Rage and fear simply drive rational thoughts out of the brain.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So, for the worst criminals in our society, the child molesters, the murderers, the torturers, I'm in favor of the death penalty or lifetime imprisonment or any option that separates them from society for ever. Anything less is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Then mercy is irresponsible.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Mercy is often irresponsible. If you disarm someone who's intent on killing you, then you turn your back to walk away you've shown mercy. You've also shown an alarming lack of self-preservation instincts. Releasing people who have committed crimes of this magnitude is foolish. Let God show mercy on them, I don't see any reason why the rest of us should.

And I never understood why committing a murder in a state of rage makes it more excusable. This, by the way, is not first degree murder. First degree murder is dependent on the murder being premeditated, or "with malice aforethought". Heat of passion murders such as the situation you refer to are typically second degree murder.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
camus
Member
Member # 8052

 - posted      Profile for camus   Email camus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Most people who commit 1st degree murder do so in an act of rage or fear. Even if the murder has contemplated the act for hours or weeks, he/she has probably given little if any rational thought to the idea.
If it has been contemplated for a lengthy period of time, then I don't think it could be based solely on pure rage or fear. After all, it does take some rational thought to plan out a murder, such as means and opportunity.

And if someone is not capable of rational thought and is susceptible to blindly following emotions and then proceeds to light someone on fire, then that's all the more reason to not let him loose in society.

Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let God show mercy on them, I don't see any reason why the rest of us should.
The unmercifyl always associate mercy with idiocy.

If you are Christian, there is one powerful reason why you should show mercy -- because God himself has commanded you to so.

quote:
For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. -- Matthew 5:14-15

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven time -- Matthew 18:21-22

"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart." -- Matthew 18:32-35

"If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, 'I repent,' forgive him." -- Luke 17:3-4

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. -- Matthew 5:7

And for the LDS who read this

quote:
I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. -- D&C 64:10

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit, I am sincerely interested in your thoughts on how we decide if someone has reformed and which way should err when making the decision with imperfect information.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The unmercifyl always associate mercy with idiocy.
Not always. Only when it is idiocy.

God commanded a lot of stuff, some of which is contradictory. I'm not interested in debating scripture interpretation with you. Mercy has a very valuable place, both in society and in my life. I don't think it has any place in this situation.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
He who is merciful to the cruel will end up by being cruel to the merciful.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Then mercy is irresponsible.
No, Rabbit. But mercy to the point of imprudence, particularly imprudence with the lives and well-being of others, is.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But mercy to the point of imprudence, particularly imprudence with the lives and well-being of others, is.
This is why this is so personal to me. I'm interested not in abstract theory, but in what one would look at when they decide if a particular person should be let out of prison (or not put in prison at all). What does "reformed" actually mean. Does reform merit leniency?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
How do you measure "reform"?

I think reform can be easy to fake. And I think people who consider it of central importantance to be merciful are vulnerable to being fooled, because they are essentially being asked to believe something they want to believe is true.

I want to be merciful. But I want to be merciful to future victims, too. I think it is important to weigh the likelihood that someone will committ a crime again. And I think the subjective measures that we use currently to weigh this risk are inadequate.

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Rabbit, I am sincerely interested in your thoughts on how we decide if someone has reformed and which way should err when making the decision with imperfect information.

I think its obvious from what I've said if we must err, we should err on the side of mercy. But with that said, I must add that we should make every reasonable attempt not to err at all.

I don't have a complete answer to the question, but here are a few thoughts.

1. Criminals should receive some punishment for their crime even if they immediately show they are changed and will commit no more crimes. Meted punishment is an important deterent to other criminals.

2. Punishment for crimes must follow a consistent pattern, be based on well defined laws, and be proportionate to the crime committed. A legal system that punishes a TV thief with life imprisonment and a child molester with 6 months jail time is not only unjust, but encourages disrespect for the law.

3. Humans (judges and juries) must be allowed some descretion in determining sentences because no legal code can be detailed enough to ensure justice for all cases. Manditory sentences may appear to ensure consistency, in truth they lead to absurd punishments.

4. People should be punished only for the crimes they commit and not for the crimes they intended to commit or wanted to commit. This man can't be punished as a murderer because he did not commit murder.

5. Imprisonment is not 100% effective in preventing people from commiting future violent crimes. Violent crimes are committed in prison daily. Assault battery and rape aren't OK if you commit them against convicted criminals. The potential for mercy, i.e. parole, can be an important tool for preventing violence.

6. It should the convicted criminals responsibility to demonstrate that they have changed. The level of "proof" required should be proportionate to the severity of the crime. Items that might be considered as evidence that a person has changed could include.

a) Participation in anger management programs and demonstration of changed behavior as a result of participation.

b) Admission of guilt and remorse for crimes.

c) Attempts to make restitution to victims of the crime and society

d) Participation in service to the community.

e) Seeking opportunities for personal development such as education.

f) Willingness to accept the consequences of ones actions.

[ October 14, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maui babe
Member
Member # 1894

 - posted      Profile for maui babe   Email maui babe         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. -- D&C 64:10
Of course, this begs the question what does it mean to forgive someone? Does it necessarily imply trust, or is that a different game altogether?
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:
Then mercy is irresponsible.
No, Rabbit. But mercy to the point of imprudence, particularly imprudence with the lives and well-being of others, is.
At what point does it become imprudent? That is the problem. We can never no with 100% certainty when our mercy will endanger the lives and well-being of others. But despite that fact, as a Christian I have been commanded to be merciful. If I do not support a means for forgiveness within the legal system, how can I claim to be following that commandment.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2