DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-04-04 06:09:57 EST, you write:
<< The station did one of those random (?) surveys of people
in the mall (very scientific, right) and asked if they thought the records
should have been released. Some of the remarks by the respondents were like
this one: "if a juvenile commits an horrendous act and is picked up, then
his/her past record should be released so that the individual doesn't commit
anymore crimes." Or this one: "if the individual has done a terrible crime,
the past record should be publicised so he/she is too embarrassed to do it
again." I think I know what they meant, but I felt it was a little late to
embarrass Mitchell or to prevent him from committing another horrendous act
simply by releasing this preadjudication record. >>
If you know what they meant, you know more than I do. How is embarrassment
over a past action going to keep me from doing the same act again? It may
well keep me from doing the act in such a way as to get caught, but that's not
really the same thing. I think some of these folks put mouth in gear and
leave brain in neutral.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
