On 22 Apr, 18:21, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes of course what you say makes sense to me. Again though, I was > only saying Yes I belive that prision should be punishment. > > In answer to your question, I would punish both the same. > > The level of remorse shown does not lessen the fact that a bad thing > has happened. A thing that demands punishment. >
But we can count on the laws of physics to always offer 'equal and opposite reaction' to any action. Why, with this physical law in governance--which should assure proper punishment--would we need to 'add' an additional punishment? Is it to make us (society) feel better? Or do we not trust nature to offer equal and opposite reactions when it comes to actions that we humans deem as 'criminal'? Deep questions, my friend. > On 22 Apr, 15:23, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 22, 5:36 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My words spoke nowt about that one Draft, I was just replying to the > > > your question. > > > > 'Do you believe that is the way it should be?' > > > > Asked if we belive that prision should be punishment, as opposed to > > > what I can only assume you mean the other side of the coin, > > > rehabitlitation. > > > Actually I was talking about neither, but rather protection of > > society. > > > > In essane I say that as we punish children for bad behaviuor then why > > > should we stop punsihing adults and instead rehabilitate? > > > I think the discipline of adults and children is qualitatively > > different. In fact, it is less a consideration of their physical > > status as a child or an adult and more of a consideration of their > > mental state. Hence legal minors being tried as adults and adults > > being punished less if they are considered mentally not at fault. > > > The key here is knowledge of right and wrong and awareness of > > consequences. We punish children in the way that we do because we are > > teaching them about right and wrong and the consequences of actions. > > Adults are supposed to have that knowledge so the punishment is > > different. > > > > Perhaps a long winded way of answering yes to your question and giving > > > you a little insight as to possible reasons I say this. > > > > Now let me ask you this one. > > > > If you had two children both responisble for the braking of your > > > kitchen window via a football. One unrepentant and the other on the > > > verge of tears from remorse. > > > > Would you give them both equal time on the naughty step, or lessen the > > > time for the remorsefull child? > > > I'd lessen. Now, how about you? > > > > On 20 Apr, 15:25, Drafterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 20, 4:42 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes sure. As parents when our kids are naughty they get punished. Why > > > > > does should that stop once a human becomes adult. > > > > > So, between person A and person B, having committed the same crime, > > > > person A feels remorse and person B blatantly threatens to do it > > > > again, the punishment should be the same? > > > > > > 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.-Hidequotedtext- > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > ... > > read more »- 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.
