|
|
Re: DEATH PENALTY IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
Stephen Barnard (steve@megafauna.com)
Sun, 01 Sep 1996 01:54:43 -0800
Bob Keeter wrote:
>
> Stephen Barnard <steve@megafauna.com> wrote:
> >ScottCrull wrote:
> >>
> >> Quite frankly, EVERY crime should invoke the death penalty. This would
> >> end overcrowding & make everyone accountable for their actions. With only
> >> one penalty for every crime, then we may see a decrease in the amount of
> >> crime, both in the US & worldwide. IF the populace knew that to commit a
> >> crime would mean instant death (there should be no mitigating
> >> circumstances or insanity defenses), then, just perhaps, this world could
> >> settle down to work together on global issues.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this scenario will never take place because no person or
> >> groups of people will ever have the guts to enact, enforce, or fight the
> >> Courts for its legality!
> >
> >What about the many people wrongly convicted of crimes? Now, if they
> >are lucky enough to be absolved of the crime, they are merely released
> >after years in prison, with their lives in ruins. At least they're
> >alive.
> >
>
> Grossly off subject for this forum, but I could not resist!
>
> Lets see now, if I commit a heinous crime, repulsive to all of humanity, I
> should be locked up, at the expense of society, for the rest of my life,
> extended by whatever miracles modern medicine might devise, with the
> proverbial "three hots and a cot"? Give me a free health club to build up
> my body, first rate law libraries so that I can devise a couple of frivelous
> legal motions each year, and "rebilitation" opportunities out the ying-yang!
> Yep, thats punishment alright!
>
> Let me get real radical, what if there were ONLY three punishments:
>
> Restitution at some rate of capitalistically acceptable return on costs (i.e.
> value X 2.5 or something), to be invoked for what we would now call misdemeanors.
> For the crimes without a direct monetary value (drugs, etc), let the convict
> pay for his prosecution at the rate of 2.5 X the cost. All funds in excess of
> the costs would go into the public till for schools, roads, and other things
> of benefit to all.
>
> Public flogging would be the toll for basic felonies. Its cheap, its quick, it
> doesnt cost society more than the crime did, and it doesnt "ruin" the life of
> the criminal! I bet it would also stick in his/her mind for a long time as a
> real deterrent. Along with the basic public punishment, the convict would have
> to pay as above. Guess what, there would not be a class of criminals going to
> "post-grad practical criminology" in the prisons and the law abiding public
> would not be stuck paying $30k or whatever for each year some criminal is kept
> locked up. Wrongly convicted innocents would still have the opportunity for
> redress (just to be fully capitalistic, say at a 5X the original costs!)
>
> For the "biggies", the crimes that flogging just doesnt fill the bill or for
> those criminals who could simply not be released back into society, execution!
>
> We could do away with prisons, a parole system that doesnt work, and save society
> from the public insult of rewarding those who trash it!
>
> If you think it a radical, right wing idea of the new '90s, check out "Starship
> Trooper", by Robert Heinlein. He also had some way out ideas that the vote
> belonged to those who had contributed to society via military or public service!
> One might even have to think about that one for a while as well!
>
> Is the death penalty the crime against humanity or is the burden of coddling our
> criminals the crime! Think about that for a while!
>
> Regards
> bk
>
>
I wasn't addressing the question of the death penalty for 1st degree
murder. (I'm against it, but I don't want to argue about it.) The
person I responded to advocated the death penalty for *every* crime.
There's a saying that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.
There's also a saying that a liberal is a conservative who's been
arrested.
Steve Barnard
|