Why would you contaminate a hospital or other locked residence with a man who had a vicious personality?
On Apr 8, 7:12 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > I would think that the most logical thing to do woud be to move him > from jail to a secure hospital to carry out the rest of his sentance. > > On 7 Apr, 15:48, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not sure how on topic this is, but consider the following thought > > experiment: > > > A man commits a series of various heinous and grevious crimes (murder, > > rape, etc), such that he gets life in prison (though parole is not off > > the table). > > > During his imprisonment, a confrontation with a fellow inmate results > > in the man becoming paralyzed from the neck down. > > > At his parole, one of the primary considerations is how much of a > > threat the man poses to society. As a quadriplegic, he poses minimal > > threat. He is, however, completely unrepentant about his crime and his > > state of mind is still that of a viscious killer. > > > Another consideration is that, above and beyond the cost to society of > > keeping someone imprisoned for life, he now has intense medical care > > that the state must absorb. > > > With these considerations, should he be released on parole? > > > The core of this lies in the philosophical underpinnings of > > incarceration. Is the primary function of prison to punish? To > > rehabilitate? To simply isolate society from dangerous elements? > > > It seems clear that rehabilitation is off the table. Furthermore, it > > seems unlikely that prison would provide more punishment then him > > simply being paralyzed. In fact, if released he would have to account > > for his own medical costs, probably resulting in worse care. Being > > free may be more punishing tham keeping him in prison where he has > > guaranteed medical care, shelter and food. As a quadriplegic, he is > > also a minimal threat to society. (I say minimal because such people > > have managed to commit crimes, but the rate is as probably as low as > > you are going to get for any person). > > > I feel this situation reveals an underlying paradox. In most > > situations, people would espouse the utilitarian aspect of prison: it > > reduces harm to society by acting as a deterrant through the threat > > and enactment of punishment, isolating threats from society, and > > rehabilitating people so they are less of a threat if and when they > > reenter society. > > > What is often underplayed is the emotional aspect. If a person shows > > genuine remorse at a crime committed, they are generally treated as > > being less of a threat. This makes sense since not all crimes are acts > > of malice. A person that genuinely feels guilt *is* less of a threat > > and should be treated as such. But this association remains valid only > > when there is a tie between a person's mindset and their ability to > > commit a crime. When that tie is severed, a person's emotional state > > no longer represents their potential to be threatening and can no > > longer be used in this manner. The paradox arises from the fact that > > most people would continue to use emotional state as requirement for > > release and would recoil at letting an unrepentent killer be freed > > from prison. > > > Notes: > > > This situation is an based on an actual case > > -http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C061031.PDFthoughsome > > elements have been generalized for this philosophical exercise. To > > summarize the actual case, the prisoner was attemtping to involve a > > special statute that allows prisoners to be released under > > "compassionate" consideration if certain conditions apply (terminal > > illness, medically incapacitated or otherwise no longer a threat due > > to medical condition). The parole board denied the claim under the > > ruling that quadriplegics can still pose a threat, as evidenced by > > several intances they were able to find. A court overturned that > > ruling on the basis that, on a long enough time line you can find > > instances of anyone being a threat and the statute does not require > > that a person be no threat what-so-ever. A superior court then > > overturned the lower courts ruling, so it would appear that the man > > remains in jail.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
