Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (16032)	6/7/2001 1:18:27 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

"All punishment is retribution." Of course it is. If I take my oldest 15 and my youngest to play at the penny archade, the oldest is likely to complain about how hanging around while the three year old plays on the penny rides is boring "punishing." If I take them to the adult archade the 3 year old acts naughty because she can't reach the controls on the games. The "consequenses" are punishing or rewarding whether they were intended to be or not. A criminal may see life in prison as lenient. Maybe because their problem behavior stemmed from lack of structure in their own life, they actually are more comfortable following the prison routine than having things so open ended. Some people choose to become lifers in the military because they do well with rigid structure. Another criminal (say with clostrophobia) may find this to be the worst punishment imaginable. In other words all consequenses carry some degree of reward or punishment but it is specific and individual. With the type one criminal (we want them back as our fellows) the conditions of a short term encarceration is intended to bring them back as a changed person. A person who has rethought past choices and is now remorseful and ready to work hard on making good choices for the future. The "what then?" question is intended for the type two criminal (we don't want them back). Any consequence is going to have various types of motive impacts on the perp. McVea is rewarded for the fame and reputation that he is carrying to the edge of death for example. I believe he is also suffering from many things related to his captivity. bla, bla, bla Analysing this can go on for ever and likely will. The "what then?" question is intended to seek a consequence that provides resolution for society. The crime of McVea is irreconcilable. The criminal can not propitiate society. So, if we throw out the death penalty as a consequence; which we do for 99.9 percent of irreconcilable crimes then what is the consequence that is responsible and resolves the issue for society? The key here is to consider consequences as consequences that either offer resolution or not, first. The effect that they have as punishing or not to the type two criminal should be a secondary thought. A type two criminal has already gone beyond anything that we could choose that would meet the guidelines as "fitting the crime." Society is not going to get a pay back from these people and Society is not going to be able to meet out any equivalent garnering of flesh. So, how much they are punished or not by the consequence we select should not be at issue.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next