At 07:27 PM Monday 8/8/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Ronn! wrote:
Okay, so we send daddy to jail for committing a crime, and put him up at
the taxpayers' expense. Then mommy and the kids, who are presumably
innocent of any crime, go on welfare, because they no longer have a
paycheck coming in because daddy is in jail and mommy has no marketable
skills and has several young kids at home. When daddy finally gets out,
he can't get a job because no one wants to hire an ex-con. And even if
mommy (after the kids are in school) or daddy can eventually get a
minimum-wage job, it's not enough to live on, particularly when there are
day-care expenses for the kids when they are not in school and there is
no parent at home because they are working. So we end up with the whole
family on the public dole for the foreseeable future. How do you suggest
that we (1) punish the guilty appropriately and (2) keep the innocent
members of the criminal's family from paying the price and/or ending up
on welfare?
Since you're the one questioning the system, what's your solution?
How about the one proposed in the theme from "Baretta"? (Ignoring the
recent irony.) Better yet, how about that solution without the
conditional, IOW, placing a full stop in place of the comma prior to the
word "if"?
Pesonally, I think that the sentences for molestation/pedophillia etc. are
entirely too light. Time and again we end up with these creeps back on
the street not only molesting again but raping and killing their victims -
like the guy in Idaho a few weeks a go. If it costs us money to keep them
off the street, so be it.
Was it here or on another list that I recently suggested that the chemical
used in "chemical castration" ought to be either liquid N2 or H2SO4?
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
