Yes sure. As parents when our kids are naughty they get punished. Why does should that stop once a human becomes adult.
On 19 Apr, 16:12, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 17, 9:10 am, AmandaRheen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To my understanding, a jail sentence is imposed as punishment for > > crime/s committed. > > And do you believe that is the way it should be? > > > > > > > Jail is the punishment. Quadriplegia is not by > > laws of which I am aware, criminal punishment. > > > If the parole board considers that the granting of parole is based on > > certain conditions being met by the prisoner and these conditions are > > not met, parole does not logically need to be granted. I suspect that > > remorse about the crime for which a prisoner is currently being > > punished plays a central role in the granting of early release from > > jail for THAT crime/s. Surely a clear lack of remorse would still be > > a reasonable factor affecting the outcome of even a compassionate > > parole hearing, when the medical condition is of a chronic not fatal > > nature. > > > Sustaining quadriplegia does not erase the historical facts of > > previous crimes, nor does it erase the impact the crimes, for which > > the prisoner is currently serving sentence, have on his / her > > victims. Jail not quadriplegia is the punishment. Idealistically, > > parole is the outcome of good behavior whilst in custody, not the > > outcome of sustained physical injury. Pragmatically, parole is a > > means of managing prisoners between secure custody and the community, > > not the means by which possibly good old ‘common law justice’ within > > custody can be used to remove increased financial costs to the prison > > system. > > > As the victim of a crime the prisoner suffering quadriplegia also has > > the right to take recourse through the legal system in the same way > > the murder and rape victims of his / her own crimes have been > > required. The outcome of this legal process will be presided over by > > a judge and or jury, not a parole board. > > > On Apr 8, 12:48 am, 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. > > > -- > > 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- 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.
