Posted on 12/19/2002 5:48:54 AM PST by Kerberos
I have often thought that prisons could benefit from being run more like military boot camps, but liberals seem to think that would violate their(prisoners) civil rights.
Actually that was the original concept, by the Quakers, of which the word penitentiary comes from. The Quakers would take someone; throw them into solitary with a copy of the bible, so that they could have some time to contemplate the errors of their ways, and to become repentant.
I also see very little use in paying big money to incarcerate people after recompense is made. I'd like to see some punishment which costs less but is real punishment.
For instance, when the high and mighty do lowly things, they should be made to pay by doing more lowly but honorable things. Like wearing a sandwich board describing their crimes while sweeping the floor or cleaning toilets.
Seeing an person like Ivan Boesky with a broom and a sandwich board saying "I wanted to clean up on Wall Street, and now I'm getting my wish" as he sweeps the street in front of the Stock Exchange everyday for a few years would satisfy me and humiliate him at the same time. Just my ramblings.......
ROTFLMAO
Ok, we have a winner. That is the best one I've heard this week.
But that is not anything new in law. Victims of crimes have always been able to go after those who have harmed them on the civil side of the court. And as we saw in the OJ Simpson legal proceedings they don’t even have to be convicted in the criminal court for the aggrieved party to go after them on the civil side.
The problem is that those who commit crimes, with a few notable exceptions, generally don’t have any assets or revenue streams to go after. Most of them are already relying on public defenders to provide their legal representation. And when you consider the fact that after their release from prison they will more than likely never be able to get any kind of a well paying job, due to the fact that they have a felony conviction on their record, pursing them for payment for all intents and purposes is an exercise in futility.
Sometimes true, which is of course in my view, no reason not to pursue it.
I would postit, that in many crimes against people, recompense is not pursued at all. And society, not to mention the victims, suffers harm because of it.
Young offenders rarely are made to make their victims whole. If a teen steals a car and it is recovered minus many parts and contents, the perp is almost never made to restore the aggreived party to his former postition. The perp is given jail or more often probation, but then his debt is concidered paid. It's nonsense in my view.
This exact crime happened to a friend of mine and I advised him to appear in court and ask the judge for recompense. The judge was a little surprised at the request but agreed and ordered the perp to pay him off in installments. The first payment was made and nothing further was ever seen. All efforts to get the authorities to follow up were met with silence or indifference. In the end, the prosecuters just tried to get rid of him, the victim. They told him he to forget it.
Meanwhile, the lesson learned by the perp will almost certainly lead him to conclude that crime, does indeed, pay.
I would respectfully disagree with you on that point. The primary reasonability of the state, in it's operation of the criminal justice system, is to protect society from those who would do us harm. After that, we might be able to negotiate what other extended obligations they have.
”I would posit, that in many crimes against people, recompense is not pursued at all. And society, not to mention the victims, suffers harm because of it. “
And I would counter with why not? As I pointed out in my previous post people have always had the right, and the mechanism in place, to go after those who commit crimes against them for financial compensation. It is through filing an action on the civil side of the court against the person who has caused you loss. In addition, I would submit that the main reason that they don’t do such is they probable don’t have any idea that they can or, as a bumper sticker I saw on a car once said, “You think education is expensive, try ignorance.
”In the end, the prosecutors just tried to get rid of him, the victim. They told him he to forget it.”
Which does not surprise me. Prosecutors are elected officials that get themselves elected by getting convictions. They do not get elected by being a successful collection agency, and even if they were successful at it, no one is ever going to take a look at those stats. So consequently they are going to spend their time engaged in activities that are going to get them reelected, and that is accomplished through getting convictions. And why you would want to engage the state as your personal advocate is beyond me. But then again I am a firm believe in the axiom that “if you want to screw something up real good, get the government involved,” as I have found that to be true on more than one occasion. Hell I’m just trying to work with the local police department this morning to get them to coral a coyote that is running around the neighborhood, an undertaking that seems to beyond their abilities. Like I was talking with my neighbor last night, if we didn’t have laws against discharging guns within the city limits, we could get the 12 gauge out and take care of this coyote problem real fast.
I suppose the thing that bothers me most about your position is that at the root of it is the idea that the state as an obligation to take care of you and\or act on your behalf. I don’t need the state to look out for my interest, aside from providing me with the courts to pursue those interest in, and would much prefer that they stay out of it.
For the murderers, rapists, robbers, arsonists, yes. Make them do hard time, and let the pot smokers go. That's how we'll save money.
It's too expensive... And it acomplishes what?
Don't know - let's ask the experts ...
The only rightful role of government in a free society is to defend rights. The only one. In the absence of that, I have no need of them whatsoever.
The primary reasonability of the state, in it's operation of the criminal justice system, is to protect society from those who would do us harm.
You said it yourself. Where you get the idea that I think the government should "take care of me" is a mystery to me.
Your idea about civil courts is partially right, but it runs into trouble when you mix criminal activity with civil tort disagreements. And as to taking care of yourself, no problem, but the only reason most people consent to governments is to give them the power to use force on their behalf. Otherwise, chaos.
Where are people imprisoned merely for smoking cannabis inside the privacy of their own homes?
No it has nothing to do with them taking care of me. It has to do with the reasonability of the state to apprehend those who commit crimes and bring them to justice. Otherwise what we have is vigilantism.
"Your idea about civil courts is partially right, but it runs into trouble when you mix criminal activity with civil tort disagreements"
How so?
The "me" I was talking about was, me. Not you.
I understood you to say that that you thought that I believed that government should take care of me. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It has to do with the reasonability of the state to apprehend those who commit crimes and bring them to justice.
I agree, and I would add that justice will only truly be done in any particular case after the perpetrator has been made to make the victim whole. I think it is a big part of their responsibility. I take it that you do not agree. Ok, no problem, agreement with me on any particular issue is rare. I'm used to it.
Otherwise what we have is vigilantism.
my point precisely.
And I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on that. I think our disagreement is on the point that you think that should fall under the purview of the criminal side of the court and I contend that there is already a mechanism in place for restitution on the civil side of the court. Of course it involves people exercising their right of redress, a process they have to initiate.
But you stated:"Your idea about civil courts is partially right, but it runs into trouble when you mix criminal activity with civil tort disagreements"
And so I ask, how does my position on that run into trouble?
Are you advocating anarchy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.