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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (15873)	6/29/2002 7:42:08 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

In civil actions, one can be held liable without the full burden of guilt, that is, actual malice--- the intentional infliction of harm or deliberate choice of transgression. That is why it is necessary to be punitive, rather than simple make the victim whole. Now, I will not deny that there are alternatives to incarceration, and that sometimes they make sense, for example, fines or community service. The advantage of incarceration is that it segregates the malefactor from the community for a time, and imposes conditions of readmission. It also encourages reflection and expiation by making the malefactor live under discipline and take counseling. Finally, it provides a roughly equal unit of measurement, i.e. time, by which to adjust the severity of punishment according to the crime. Nevertheless, I will not deny that sometimes alternative sentencing is preferable. For example, rather than separate a mother from her children, if the crime were not too severe, or there were sufficient mitigation, I would be inclined to a fine and probation, so that one remained under partially supervision, though free to move about.