mom@sftri.UUCP (M.Modig) (12/22/84)
>> >> Also spare me any frenzied, sarcastic, or even well-reasoned >> accusations that I am in favor of "protecting rapists" or that I am >> a woman-hater for daring to intimate that the rapist is a human >> being, and thus is entitled to rights we accord all other human >> beings, and may only have those rights and privileges taken away >> from him in a particular manner [convictions, courts, >> sentencing...,etc.] >> >> Mark Modig >> ihnp4!attunix!mom > >I would like to elaborate on that last paragraph...It is certainly very >important to avoid false accusations, and see that justice is accorded >properly, but as far as I'm concerned, the CONVICTED rapist (or for that >manner, anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime against another >person) is no longer a human being, but some sort of beast--I don't want >to use the term animal for fear of insulting the animals :-). It seems to >me that in our zeal to see that justice is administered fairly, the scales >have swung too far in the direction of the convicted criminal, and that just >doesn't seem right to me. I'm not advocating INHUMANE treatment of these >people, but I do think that they should be punished for what they've done, >and that usually involves revoking many rights and privileges that most >humans take for granted. Admittedly, you do make mention of the conditions >under which a person's rights may be taken away, but again, a being who has >been convicted of a violent crime has, in my opinion, just forfeited any >rights he/she may once have claimed as a human being. Perhaps people would >thing twice about committing violence against their neighbors if the >punishment were swift, sure, and just. No doubt the fostering of the proper >attitudes toward our fellow humans, male and female, would be the ideal >solution, but I don't see that becoming widespread anytime soon. The point >is, people must learn that antisocial behavior has nasty consequences. >MJR Shurtleff I sympathise with your feelings, and I am not sure if my attitudes would change if someone close to me were a victim of violent crime, but: I believe an accused rapist has the same rights we all enjoy, including innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a speedy trial. (Actually, the alleged victim should enjoy this right too, in my opinion) I believe a convicted rapist has, by virtue of his guilt, some of his rights taken away. These rights are restored to him when he has served the sentence assigned him and "paid his debt to society"; provided the sentence given to him is not death. The severity of the penalty is another matter. You may feel that the penalty for certain crimes is too light or too heavy, but that is a different issue. You obviously feel that a convicted rapist has no rights. If he does not, then why do we bother imprisoning him? Why not execute him on the spot? To my way of thinking, the rights of every human being are precious, and the crime that has to be committed to justify taking away all of those rights forever must be monstrous indeed. Precisely which crimes those are is a matter of judgement, and I will not argue further on that score here. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
mat@hou4b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (12/28/84)
>I believe an accused rapist has the same rights we all enjoy, >including innocent until proven guilty, and the right to a speedy >trial. (Actually, the alleged victim should enjoy this right too, >in my opinion) Absolutely. >I believe a convicted rapist has, by virtue of his guilt, some of >his rights taken away. These rights are restored to him when he has >served the sentence assigned him and "paid his debt to society"; >provided the sentence given to him is not death. The severity of >the penalty is another matter. You may feel that the penalty for >certain crimes is too light or too heavy, but that is a different >issue. I'm not sure what ``paid his debt'' means ... I don't think that retribution is something that can be calculated. On the other hand, we have someone who has demonstrated his ability to threaten another's life to fulfill his own (unjustified) desires. I don't believe that we in a civilized society can morally or ethically allow that individual the chance to do it again. Period. I don't much care if this means lifetime confinement (confinement to ONE cell where the offener cannot reach anyone else -- even another prisoner) or execution, but we should not allow the individual on the streets again. Ever. If you wish to say that one offense is not enough, that the person should be given a chance to harm a second victim before we are sure of this, I will yield the point. Most offenders of this sort have committed third, fourth, etc offenses (career criminals). >You obviously feel that a convicted rapist has no rights. If he does not, >then why do we bother imprisoning him? Why not execute him on the spot? >To my way of thinking, the rights of every human being are precious, and the >crime that has to be committed to justify taking away all of those rights >forever must be monstrous indeed. Precisely which crimes those are is a >matter of judgement, and I will not argue further on that score here. Killing a person in the act of an attack that carries the ``threat of deadly force'' is quite legal if that threat is real enough. Killing a person who is raping you (a crime that can only be carried out by such a threat if it is violent rape) is quite legal. You are not ``executing him on the spot'', you are protecting yourself -- and it is legal in part precisely because there is no doubt about whether this person is committing this act. Strongly threatening or taking the life of a human being is perhaps the most horrible crime that our legal system recognizes. Even selling secrets vital to the national defense is not considered as horrible ... though it ought to be. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (12/28/84)
Mark Terribile writes: > I'm not sure what ``paid his debt'' means ... I don't think that retribution > is something that can be calculated. On the other hand, we have someone who > has demonstrated his ability to threaten another's life to fulfill his own > (unjustified) desires. I'm not saying I like this method either, but as I understand it, that is basically the philosophy in place today. On the one hand, how can you put a value on a life, or being kidnapped for a month? But the sentencing process implies that some determination of value has to be made. Insurance companies are also very good at this. (An arm is worth so much, an eye..) > I don't believe that we in a civilized society can morally or ethically allow > that individual the chance to do it again. Period. I don't much care if this > means lifetime confinement (confinement to ONE cell where the offener cannot > reach anyone else -- even another prisoner) or execution, but we should not > allow the individual on the streets again. Ever. > > If you wish to say that one offense is not enough, that the person should be > given a chance to harm a second victim before we are sure of this, I will > yield the point. Most offenders of this sort have committed third, fourth, > etc offenses (career criminals). Fine. I have no argument here. The point of my article really was that there is an existing procedure for officially depriving a guilty party of his/her/its/their rights. Exactly what rights are taken away and for how long in the case of a rape is a different matter. As far as that goes, I think different crimes have to be treated differently, even to the point of treating each case on an individual basis. > >You obviously feel that a convicted rapist has no rights. If he does not, > >then why do we bother imprisoning him? Why not execute him on the spot? > > Killing a person in the act of an attack that carries the ``threat of deadly > force'' is quite legal if that threat is real enough. Killing a person who > is raping you (a crime that can only be carried out by such a threat if it is > violent rape) is quite legal. You are not ``executing him on the spot'', you > are protecting yourself -- and it is legal in part precisely because there is > no doubt about whether this person is committing this act. Slight confusion here <Sorry, should have been a bit clearer.> As I have said in another article, I think a defender has a perfect right to use deadly force on an attacker if the circumstances warrant it. (A little old lady beating on you with a purse might not be such a case). When I said "executing him on the spot", I was really talking about sentencing a convicted rapist to die, rather than going to the trouble of imprisoning him, since the article I originally responded to [M. Shurtleff in <412@bunkerb.UUCP>] said that the rapist was like an animal rather than a human being, and that he had forfeited his rights when he raped someone. I was interested in raising this question since, to me, life is a right; if you insist that we are entitled to the rights that underly our Constitution, I think it is no great leap to assuming that life in which to enjoy these rights is also a right in and of itself. This brings up the question that I really had when the article said that a rapist had forfeited his rights: if he has no rights, why not just execute him rather than imprison him? In this case, we seem to be saying that rape is a crime equalling and, in some cases surpassing, murder. Is that what she meant to say, or am I just reading it wrong? Is this what people feel? Mark Modig This article represents my opinions alone, and I accept ihnp4!sftri!mom sole responsibility for any errors of any kind contained herein. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Bell Labs.
mary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) (12/31/84)
Re my comments on the rights and loss thereof of those convicted of violent crimes: > This brings up the question that I really had when the article said > that a rapist had forfeited his rights: if he has no rights, why > not just execute him rather than imprison him? In this case, we > seem to be saying that rape is a crime equalling and, in some cases > surpassing, murder. Is that what she meant to say, or am I > just reading it wrong? Is this what people feel? > > Mark Modig I was trying to broaden the discussion to include other types of violent crime, and make no judgements about which crime is more severe. The point I was trying to make is that a person who has been convicted of a violent crime against another person (including assault, rape, and murder) is no longer entitled to many of the rights which that person had previously enjoyed, due to the nature of the crime. Whether or not the right to life is among those rights is *extremely* debatable, and I really don't want to argue that point right now. However, the idea is to punish the offender by removing sufficient rights to make the offender aware of the severity of the transgression. The criminal *may* have a right to live, but not the right to the freedom to go out and inflict the same harm on another human being, for starters. Think about what takes place when a violent crime is committed. A person has been both physically and psychologically damaged. This damage was inflicted, intentionally and knowingly, by another person. What kind of person would perform such an act? What about someone who performs such acts repeatedly, or with extreme cruelty? Do you really believe that this is a warm, loving, caring person? Does this person deserve to be treated as if they had done nothing wrong? Not in my opinion, and this is why I suggested that the per- petrators of violent crimes should expect to forfeit many of the rights due to ordinary folk, because what they have done makes them less than a true human being. As such, they are entitled to less than the full bill of rights which the rest of humanity enjoys (theoretically, anyway). Determining just what rights are to be curtailed is obviously a very sticky question, and there will be as many opinions on it as there are people on the net. I don't want to attempt to start to develop a code of punishment here, but I will say that I think that people who commit violent acts against other people should be aware that they are then responsible for the consequences of those acts, and that those consequences are not always nice, nor should they be. Neither is a murder, a rape or an assault. MJR Shurtleff ....!bunkerb!mary
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/01/85)
I largely agree with what Mary Shurtleff has said about what we should do with those who commit violent crimes. But I want to pick a couple of nits, and I want to take what she said even farther (not that I am trying to put words in her mouth). > ... the idea is to punish the offender by > removing sufficient rights to make the offender aware of the severity of the > transgression. The criminal *may* have a right to live, but not the right > to the freedom to go out and inflict the same harm on another human being, > for starters. If we are trying to teach the offender something, by making him more aware, then we will reach different conclusions than if we are merely trying to prevent him from repeating the offense. I think you are more interested in the latter. If you are, I am in agreement with you. Maybe someone gets lured in by something seemingly small, and gradually goes on to more severe crimes (e.g., shoplifting -> burglary -> armed robbery -> murder), but that excuse should work a maximum of once, as far as I'm concerned. And even so, priority should be given to preventing repeat offenses, or deterring others from trying the same thing, rather than "showing him the error of his ways." > Think about what takes place when a violent crime is committed. A person has > been both physically and psychologically damaged. This damage was inflicted, > intentionally and knowingly, by another person. I think you have contradicted yourself. First, you state as a goal making "the offender aware of the severity of the transgression." Then, you seem to be saying that he is aware, having inflicted damage "intentionally and knowingly." (I agree with the latter statement.) > ... what they have done makes them less than a true human being. I don't accept arguments based on someone's idealistic notion of what a "true" human being is. "Human being" is a biological term. Ideals about what a human being should do, yes, but not about what a human being is. The consequences of this (that evildoers are as human as humanitarians) is that every one of us is capable of the worst atrocities, as well as the noblest achievements. (If we were to synthesize all of the qualifications of what a "real" human being is, I'm afraid that not many of us would qualify.) > As such, they are entitled to less than the full bill of rights > which the rest of humanity enjoys (theoretically, anyway). They are entitled to less rights because of their offenses, not because of their lack of human-ness. Now I shall propose a rule of thumb for determining what rights a criminal should forfeit for a crime. If a certain level of force would be justified in preventing a crime, then that same level of force could be justified in punishing a crime. (This sets an upper bound on punishment, not a lower bound.) For example, if it would be justifiable to kill a would-be rapist, to stop him, then it is not out of the question to execute him once he is convicted. Conversely, if deadly force is considered excessive in the prevention of, for example, shoplifting, then execution would be out of the question upon conviction. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
crs@lanl.ARPA (01/02/85)
up with it. Charlie ...!lanl!crs crs@lanl
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (01/02/85)
>>>under which a person's rights may be taken away, but again, a being who >>>has been convicted of a violent crime has, in my opinion, just forfeited >>>any rights he/she may once have claimed as a human being. >>> >>>MJF Shurtleff >>This brings up the question that I really had when the article said >>that a rapist had forfeited his rights: if he has no rights, why >>not just execute him rather than imprison him? In this case, we >>seem to be saying that rape is a crime equalling and, in some cases >>surpassing, murder. Is that what she meant to say, or am I >>just reading it wrong? Is this what people feel? >> >>Mark Modig > I was trying to broaden the discussion to include other types of violent > crime, and make no judgements about which crime is more severe. > The point I was trying to make is that a person who has been convicted of > a violent crime against another person (including assault, rape, and murder) > is no longer entitled to many of the rights which that person had previously > enjoyed, due to the nature of the crime. Ah, there's a big difference between "many", which is what you just said, and "all", which is what you originally said. I was responding to what you said originally said. I agree with you that rights should be lost, but I am not sure they should all be lost (which, to my mind, includes life) > ...... because what they have done makes them less than a true > human being. As such, they are entitled to less than the full bill of rights > which the rest of humanity enjoys (theoretically, anyway).... > MJR Shurtleff I agreed with most of what you had to say here, and I don't think what I've said in previous postings disputes what you think as you stated it here, but I still differ with you in regard to what a human being is. No matter what crimes they have committed, they are still human beings. Pygmy headhunters in New Guinea are also human beings. Murderers, rapists, etc. should lose their rights because of the crimes they have comitted, not because they're subhuman. Human beings murder, rape, etc. Human beings who act according to what I think is right do not. There's a difference (at least to my mind) Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom
mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) (01/02/85)
> Now I shall propose a rule of thumb for determining what rights > a criminal should forfeit for a crime. If a certain level of > force would be justified in preventing a crime, then that same > level of force could be justified in punishing a crime. (This > sets an upper bound on punishment, not a lower bound.) For > example, if it would be justifiable to kill a would-be rapist, > to stop him, then it is not out of the question to execute him > once he is convicted. Conversely, if deadly force is considered > excessive in the prevention of, for example, shoplifting, then > execution would be out of the question upon conviction. > > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys I think this is a bit too arbitrary. Cases should be treated on an individual basis, with due consideration to all factors that are possibly relevant. I think this discussion is beginning to stray a bit from the subjects that are supposed to be discussed here, and I've certainly done my share to perpetuate it, but perhaps we could move it to net.legal or net.politics or ??. Mark Modig ihnp4!sftri!mom