Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (64352)	12/1/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Yesterday in Massachusetts, a judge struck down the state's sex offender registry law. He ruled that the state must prove that each convicted child molester is dangerous to a neighborhood before requiring them to register.

To: one_less who wrote (64352)	12/1/1999 12:41:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 108807

<<When the Columbine murders occurred here in Colorado, there was a huge competition to see who could forgive the perps quickest. So, there were letters of forgiveness placed on their crosses like a monument.>> Abdul Haq, there is another possible explanation for the behavior you allude to above, other than the one you offer ("pop culture doesn't like behaviors to be judged"). Forgiveness, after all, is considered to be a Christian virtue (especially when the person you are forgiving is already dead -- that is, has already suffered the maximum punishment a court could inflict). Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. ...Love your enemies, do good unto those which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you..For if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And so forth. I am not saying this is the only explanation for the phenomenon you deplore, but I do think it may be one of them. I also wonder about your assertion that there is a trend, in the courts, "to discount the personal responsibility of perpetrators of heinous crimes in lieu of their bad upbringing." It seems to me the real trend has been in the opposite direction: thanks to the drug laws, the three-strikes you're out approach, etc., there are more people in jail, for longer terms, than ever before. The United States has more people in jail, proportionate to the total population, than any other country that keeps crime statistics, except for Russia. Do you really think that is because we have that many more "real" criminals? Joan

To: one_less who wrote (64352)	12/1/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

As someone who has practiced criminal law, I can tell you that my experience is that at sentencing time, the judges here in Virginia hate people who won't take responsibility for their actions, and really slam them. I also know that some people are more willing to cut a criminal a break based on their individual circumstances ~ a very lovely woman I know, who is a licensed clinical social worker, had jury duty, a felony theft, not a large amount, but still a felony, and was complaining that the other jurors were so judgmental and punitive. She thought perhaps the defendant had a difficult upbringing, but he did not testify. I explained that if he didn't testify, it was because he had a bad record, and the fact that the case was being tried at all meant that that he was not a first offender, or even second, as there are diversionary programs for them. My point being that the criminal justice system, in my experience, is not willing to discount personal responsibility, not here, anyway.

To: one_less who wrote (64352)	12/1/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: wonk	Respond to of 108807

...I'm interested in legal perspectives on a trend we are seeing in courts these days. That trend being, to discount the personal responsibility of perpetrators of heinous crimes in lieu of their bad upbringing...Your opinion, please? I don't agree with the "victimology" movement. Every individual is responsible for their own actions. That said, each and every transgression of our society's laws should be analyzed based upon the circumstances. Criminal justice systems should successfully accomplish 3 fundamental and equally weighted purposes: (1) deterrence (2) punishment (3) rehabilitation. Since the citizenry grant to the State the power to curtail any individual's freedom, confidence in the criminal justice system depends on these 3 purposes being fairly and equitably administered. Unfortunately, the system in recent times has become more and more weighted with "mandatory" sentences and punishments. History shows that in this instance confidence is like a 3 legged stool; weaken 1 or more of the three legs, and the stool eventually collapses. I am equally disgusted by "Its not my fault; I am a product of a bad upbringing" on the one hand and "Lock em up and throw away the key" or "Let me pull the switch" on the other. One can argue whether the "mandatory" punishment movement is a reaction to the victimology movement or vice versa. From my perspective, its a waste of time and bandwidth. Just as every individual is responsible for their own actions, every one of us is also responsible - at minimum for self interest - to see that the three purposes mentioned above are accomplished. A very common phrase heard often around courthouses is - "There is no Justice, only Law." Yet, Justice is the very word carved in stone upon almost every Courthouse facade. That's the ideal, and the farther away we get from it, or the less we focus on it, or pay lip-service to it, the more coarse our society will become.