Phillip Garrido
bill later
backyard prison with the two children he fathered.
As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
Kill the fucker
And make it hurt.
Dorothy J Heydt
Alternatively, put him in prison with an assortment of honest
burglars, counterfeiters, and carjackers. I'm told they just
*love* sexual criminals.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Louann Miller
> Alternatively, put him in prison with an assortment of honest
> burglars, counterfeiters, and carjackers. I'm told they just
> *love* sexual criminals.
Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
general absence of mercy.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/08/merciless.html#more
Birther-Stopper
EIGHTEEN YEARS AND TWICE A MOTHER YET SHE DIDN'T ESCAPE?
This has HOAX written all over it!
Like Elizabeth Smart, 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard liked the dick --
for a while -- then as [a lot of] time went by, she yearned for
younger cock and decided to walk away.
We'll "experience" tales like this like, forever.
They're just common cuming-of-age stories!
Frank Galikanokus
Na, just lock him up with the general population of a nice state prison.
JAM
Aardvark
I've just spent the last three hours reading that page, its attached
comments, and linked informational pages. Fascinating stuff.
Arthur
> djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote innews:Kp3A4...@kithrup.com:
Would that meme have made "The Sparrow" a better book?
Will in New Haven
The guys I know who have been inside say that being maimed or killed
is much more likely than being raped. For most of the population
anyway. Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort of
final sense?
--
Will in New Haven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llLZNUu3dKo&feature=PlayList&p=DE52C9E7E4B80FF5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=27&shuffle=4553
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
>about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
>cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
>general absence of mercy.
While I note this has been part of nature forever - it seems that
absence seems to be more obvious in societies with strong religions.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Brenda Clough
Let us have it one of the overcrowded, underfunded California state prisons.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
My novel REVISE THE WORLD is now appearing at
www.bookviewcafe.com
Derek Lyons
More like a lack of empathy and respect for the law.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
aaron
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ut-dneFiBLPDbgrX...@giganews.com...
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
> news:Kp3A4...@kithrup.com:
>
>> Alternatively, put him in prison with an assortment of honest
>> burglars, counterfeiters, and carjackers. I'm told they just
>> *love* sexual criminals.
>
> Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
> about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
> cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
> general absence of mercy.
Does that imply mercy is always a postive attribute? While not a supporter
of capital punishment for a variety of pragmatic reasons, the emotional urge
to cause someone like Garrido to suffer is perfectly understandable.
I think back to the notorious Kitty Dukakis question in the 1988
presidential debates. The answer he should have given was: "Of course! I
would want to kill him myself. But our society does not base it's justice
system on the anger and wrath of the victims".
OBSF: Science fictional crime and punishment?
Sheffield in - I think - his Aftermath books had a concept of 'Judicial
Sleep' which was as much a practical decision as one of 'humane'
incarceration. the thought was that if it was discovered they were innocent
they could be woken up and freed with not even time out of there life taken.
On the economic side is cheaper to warehouse inmates in this manner compared
to a traditional prison.
Wayne Throop
:: perspective about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes
:: wonderful thing" cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was
:: symptomatic of a general absence of mercy.
Eh. I have tended to expect it was symptomatic of a frustration wrt
(the perception that) crime ought to be followed by punishment rather
than fairly consequence-less-other-than-physical-movement-restrictions
warehousing. And if the legal/penal system doesn't do it, *some*body's
got to take up the slack.
There's also a strong meme of "threaten to send folks to gitmo
to make them talk" being just a dandy tactic to use day-to-day
in law enforcement, whereas it sort of appalls me.
I tend to find Brenda Lee Johnson is *usually* a bit ... cleverer
than that. Her methods aren't quite so appalling as "you're going to
get raped if you don't take the plea", but sometimes... well, on one
occasion she intentionally booked a drug cartel hitman into the prison
system under the name of the man he'd been sent to kill. And of course,
it's not like he was the only one comissioned with the task, and it's
not like lots of other prisoners aren't beholden to drug cartels, so
it wasn't like he lasted the night. Which is also a tad appalling,
if a bit more ironically self-referential in some sense.
So anyways, bottom line, I dunno if you want to call it a "lack of mercy",
but I suppose a "perception of rampant leniency" is much the same thing.
The problem with mercy being, that it sometimes falls on the undeserving.
"There was a crime, there was a victim,
and there was punishment."
--- Rusty Sabich, "Presumed Innocent"
"You have the right to remain unconscious."
--- (several sources)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
:: perspective about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes
:: wonderful thing" cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was
:: symptomatic of a general absence of mercy.
: fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
: More like a lack of empathy and respect for the law.
Well, yeah, if you want to state it efficiently, in a tenth of the
number of words of verbiage I devoted to saying the same thing.
"NCIS: the show with more initials than any other TV crime drama."
--- TV promo spot
William Hyde
> Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Alternatively, put him in prison with an assortment of honest
> >> burglars, counterfeiters, and carjackers. I'm told they just
> >> *love* sexual criminals.
>
> >Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
> >about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
> >cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
> >general absence of mercy.
>
> >http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/08/merciless.html#more
>
> More like a lack of empathy and respect for the law.
And vast, deep, immeasurable, stupidity.
William Hyde
Rebecca Rice
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:10:22 -0500, Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
>> about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
>> cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
>> general absence of mercy.
>
> While I note this has been part of nature forever - it seems that
> absence seems to be more obvious in societies with strong religions.
>
True. If Charlie thinks that modern Americans lack mercy,
he should take a look at where we are compared to the past.
The kinds of things that used to be done to captured
prisoners (basically, tie them out in the town square and
let anyone who wanders by do whatever they want... cut off
digits, poke out eyes, burn them, cut open their belly and
cook their intestines while the person is still alive,
etc.), and the days when executions were considered a
perfect excuse for a family picnic are not that long ago.
Rebecca
David Mitchell
Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
He certainly seems... damaged to me.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get
= Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.
=======================================================================
Robibnikoff
"David Mitchell" <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:h7aool$ho9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:33:12 -0400, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
>
>> bill later wrote:
>>>
>>> Jaycee was just freed from Phillip Gorrido's backyard prison with the
>>> two children he fathered.
>>>
>>> As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
>>>
>>> Kill the fucker
>>>
>>> And make it hurt.
>>
>> Na, just lock him up with the general population of a nice state prison.
>
> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
> mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
>
> He certainly seems... damaged to me.
What about his wife? She certainly shares full responsibility for what
happened.
>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA
#1557
MikeQ
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:10 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote innews:Kp3A4...@kithrup.com:
>
> > > Alternatively, put him in prison with an assortment of honest
> > > burglars, counterfeiters, and carjackers. I'm told they just
> > > *love* sexual criminals.
>
> > Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
> > about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
> > cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
> > general absence of mercy.
>
> >http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/08/merciless.html#more
>
> The guys I know who have been inside say that being maimed or killed
> is much more likely than being raped. For most of the population
> anyway. Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort of
> final sense?
I don't think that could be proven in either direction.
From my point of view the problem with the meme is that it adds a
too high degree of randomness to the idea of justice. No judicial
system
is completely fair - humans are too fallible for that - but adding
something
like 'inmates justice' to the equation may make the the end result too
random?
Regards,
MikeQ
Mike Ash
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
It would be interesting to see what happens when you take advocates of
sending the guy to "pound me in the ass federal prison" and ask what
they think of sending the wife to PMITA federal prison too. I suspect an
extreme degree of gender inconsistency on the issue of prison rape.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Louann Miller
2cc7-4a9e-936...@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort of
> final sense?
I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that DID
have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate to live
in one that didn't. And that most people, or at least most of his readers,
would agree. I would have to reread the post but I don't recall an appeal
to any authority other than the better angels of our nature.
Will in New Haven
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:33:12 -0400, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
> > bill later wrote:
>
> >> Jaycee was just freed from Phillip Gorrido's backyard prison with the
> >> two children he fathered.
>
> >> As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
>
> >> Kill the fucker
>
> >> And make it hurt.
>
> > Na, just lock him up with the general population of a nice state prison.
>
> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
> mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
>
> He certainly seems... damaged to me.
He and his wife/accomplice seem to be very religious. hmmm. If his
mental problems cause him to do this it is very likely that the only
way society can protect itself would be confinement which would be
virtually indistinguishable from punitive confinement.
--
Will in New Haven
“If you don’t see the mouse at the table in the first few minutes,
check your own breath for cheese.” Feather in <Poker for Cats>
Will in New Haven
The idea that sex offenders are treated differently than other inmates
does not come from within prisons. There have been a few times such
things have happened but the _concept_ is largely wishful thinking. To
the extent that anyone is targeted especially it is young, slim guys
without fighting skills or allies/friends. After they have been raped
for a few years, their tormentors call them "the faggots."
The randomness of our justice system is a horror. For one criminal a
sentence may simply be an enforced rest among his peers. For another,
the same number of months or years will be spent in torment. For
others, it is a death sentence.
Steven L.
> In article
> <324b1d68-04e5-423a...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> bill later <late...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
One obvious way is that I'm sure this story of Gorrido and the girl is
going to be made into a made-for-TV movie. It looks perfect for
Lifetime (if they emphasize the feminist angle) or Cinemax (if they
emphasize the sex).
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Bert Hyman
<david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Not to start a pointless debate;
Too late ...
> but have you considered that he might be mentally ill, and therefore
> not morally responsible for his actions?
Just because he's done something that you cannot comprehend, doesn't
mean that he's suffering from some organic defect.
There really are bad people walking this earth, consciously deciding to
do bad things.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
William December Starr
bill later <late...@gmail.com> said:
> Jaycee was just freed from Phillip Gorrido's
> backyard prison with the two children he fathered.
>
> As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
>
> Kill the fucker
>
> And make it hurt.
Let's stuff wildly cross-posting trolls down his throat until
they're all dead.
-- wds
BamaBrian
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:33:12 -0400, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
>
>> bill later wrote:
>>> Jaycee was just freed from Phillip Gorrido's backyard prison with the
>>> two children he fathered.
>>>
>>> As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
>>>
>>> Kill the fucker
>>>
>>> And make it hurt.
>> Na, just lock him up with the general population of a nice state prison.
>
> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
> mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
>
> He certainly seems... damaged to me.
We're not going to try him for his acts done during his mental state
today; just for acts done during his mental state back eighteen years.
Note that Garrido was ALREADY convicted once for kidnapping and forcible
rape. Why this non-human was on the street when he abducted an eleven
year-old is a mystery to me.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Gray Ghost
september.org:
Why was he released? Does the term "bleeding heart liberal" mean anything to
you?
--
"Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to it, if they
think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for everyone's care, too,
whether or not they've paid in, whether or not they deem you valuable enough
to care for, 'cause they think your money is valuable enough to steal.
William December Starr
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
> Why was he released? Does the term "bleeding heart liberal" mean
> anything to you?
>
> --
> "Universal" American healthcare coverage, explained:
> You get the "care" they approve for you, when they get around to
> it, if they think your life is worth saving. And you'll pay for
> everyone's care, too, whether or not they've paid in, whether or
> not they deem you valuable enough to care for, 'cause they think
> your money is valuable enough to steal.
Oh look: a double-barreled right-wing asshole.
-- wds
Derek Lyons
>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in news:3abb7dda-
>2cc7-4a9e-936...@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
>> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort of
>> final sense?
>
>I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that DID
>have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate to live
>in one that didn't.
He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
forever.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:4a9af65d....@news.supernews.com:
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>news:3abb7dda-
>>2cc7-4a9e-936...@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
>>> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort
>>> of final sense?
>>
>>I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a
>>society that DID have mercy, even with the occasional
>>disadvantages, and would hate to live in one that didn't.
>
> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well
> - but also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond
> the pale forever.
>
I believe his point is that what you describe isn't really mercy.
Anybody ever come to a conclusion on whether or not said terrorist
actually *has* cancer?
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
> Stross was talking just the other day, from a non-American perspective
> about the whole "prison rape is a normal, sometimes wonderful thing"
> cultural meme. He didn't like it and thought it was symptomatic of a
> general absence of mercy.
Without going to that web page, and without any desire to be anti-
American, I should think that it is clear that prison authorities are
responsible for the well-being and safety of their charges, they are
to exercise that responsibility dispassionately, regardless of the
terrible crimes they may have committed, and thus if prison rape ever
actually takes place, this is clearly the result of a serious
dereliction of duty somewhere along the line.
Also, unlike capital punishment, this would clearly fall into the area
of "cruel and unusual punishment" as well.
John Savard
Quadibloc
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort of
> final sense?
Where I think it's evidence of something wrong is because it shows the
following is not taking place in American grade schools:
<begin little story>
It was a sunny March day. The boys in Miss Smith's Grade 1 class were
going to watch a special movie. Each one was given a glass of orange
juice to drink first, and then they put on special hats.
It was a movie about people who lived in a castle on the edge of a
dark forest.
Children were playing.
We saw them being warned that when it becomes dark, they should hurry
back to the castle right away. But even though the castle is
surrounded by a force field at night, to keep the wild animals away,
they should not be afraid; special microcircuitry in their clothes
will let them in through the force field.
One of the children, a young girl, wandered into the forest, and
became lost.
A bad wild boy started throwing things at her.
She ran and tried to get back to the castle.
But then the wild boy peed on her spotless white dress.
It began to smolder and turn black. She could not get through the
force field to get back to the castle.
And then we saw, in the morning, what was left of her after the wolves
came and ate her.
<end little story>
In other words, it shows that Americans are not fixed so that the
thought of rape acts on their brains... like the thought of causing
harm to a human, or, through inaction, allowing a human to come to
harm acts on the positronic brain of a robot in an Asimov story.
As long as this remains the case, rape will continue to exist as a
possibility. This violently unnatural crime threatens the survival of
humanity by poisoning relations between the sexes.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> So anyways, bottom line, I dunno if you want to call it a "lack of mercy",
> but I suppose a "perception of rampant leniency" is much the same thing.
Obviously, if you _want_ a society to be more merciful towards
criminals, the _first_ thing you need to do is show that before
appealing for mercy for criminals, you have demonstrated concern for a
far more deserving group - their victims.
Thus, once the criminal justice system demonstrates that it cares
about victims by NEVER allowing the perpetrator of a non-victimless
crime to walk on the basis of a technicality (since police errors
aren't the victim's fault, and thus cannot be used to deprive the
victim of his or her right to justice, which supersedes any rights the
accused might have if he is in fact guilty)...
once victims of crime receive full compensation by the government
whenever possible...
and when it is not possible (i.e., when the crime is something like
rape or murder) the rage of the nation against the criminal, and thus
the severity of the punishment, knows no bounds...
then it just might be possible, with great difficulty and care, to
coax the people to at least consider, say, a measure that would allow
the criminal records of juvenile shoplifters to eventually be erased,
so that they can better find honest employment.
It would also help, of course, if honest, law-abiding citizens were
not facing high levels of unemployment, facing a constant struggle to
earn a decent living, so that they would be more content and relaxed.
If people are content because their own lives are happy, then they
won't view everyone else as competition - and those who make things
worse for everyone by committing a crime as candidates for immediate
execution in order to yield up a little room for the rest.
So it's as simple as that. If you want a more generous, liberal, and
forgiving attitude from people - fix the economy.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> More like a lack of empathy and respect for the law.
People's lack of empathy with criminals is often born of the presence
of empathy with their victims.
If violent crimes were very, very rare, and most people were content
and happy with their own lives, someone who commits a property crime
for reasons connected with disadvantaged circumstances might well
receive some compassion - because people would have some _left_. At
the moment, the victims of terror and the victims of violent crime are
sort of blotting up what little compassion a harried population coping
with a malfunctioning economy have left.
John Savard
Quadibloc
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
> mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
Well, if people are just biological robots that act because of
electrical and chemical processes, so that it's possible for an action
to result from a wiring defect rather than a conscious choice for
which they are personally responsible...
then they're things, so no moral issue is raised by how we treat them.
So, if it's _useful_ to punish him for his actions, because this
deters others from similar actions, then we can still do so without
doing anything wrong.
Of course, this is a false dichotomy... usually, though, the bar is
set high for mental incompetence, and to have carried on for years
with keeping a woman hidden as a prisoner implies an ability to
function mentally. To be excused from criminal responsibility for the
crime of sexual assault... one would have to be unable to speak in
coherent sentences, to be essentially equivalent to a raging wild
animal, incapable of organized thought. And, even then, it would be
expected that such a one would be placed in a very secure
institutional setting.
Here, we're dealing with someone who might have the ability to
convince a psychiatrist that he has changed. This eliminates anything
but prison as an option.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Note that Garrido was ALREADY convicted once for kidnapping and forcible
> rape. Why this non-human was on the street when he abducted an eleven
> year-old is a mystery to me.
It is indeed mysterious to me as well why a legal system that produces
such results is tolerated.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> What about his wife? She certainly shares full responsibility for what
> happened.
I don't know that. It's possible that shortly after the marriage
began, she became as much a prisoner of his as the girl was. If that
is not true, I would expect that she will face charges, much as Karla
Homolka did along with Paul "Bernardo" Teale.
John Savard
Gray Ghost
@panix2.panix.com:
Oh so you have pity for the bastard? You think he was unfairly treated? I
guess that 11 yo was asking for it, right?
David Mitchell
Almost certainly true; but OTOH I think that many of the things we put
down to "evil" are the result of mental deficiencies of one sort or
another - from full-blown mental illness to lack of ability in basic
cognitive skills.
David Mitchell
> On Aug 29, 2:27 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might
>> be mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
>
> Well, if people are just biological robots that act because of
> electrical and chemical processes, so that it's possible for an action
> to result from a wiring defect rather than a conscious choice for which
> they are personally responsible...
>
> then they're things, so no moral issue is raised by how we treat them.
>
> So, if it's _useful_ to punish him for his actions, because this deters
> others from similar actions, then we can still do so without doing
> anything wrong.
>
> Of course, this is a false dichotomy... usually, though, the bar is set
> high for mental incompetence, and to have carried on for years with
> keeping a woman hidden as a prisoner implies an ability to function
> mentally. To be excused from criminal responsibility for the crime of
> sexual assault... one would have to be unable to speak in coherent
> sentences, to be essentially equivalent to a raging wild animal,
> incapable of organized thought.
Not really. If what we would call rape is not seen as such by certain
societies, or subsets of them, then members of those subsets would not
bear "criminal responsibility" for rape, as it isn't a crime, to them.
If Garrido sincerely believed that "God made him do it", or that there
was some higher moral reason for him to do it, that doesn't make him a
raging wild animal, just wrong.
Quadibloc
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> If Garrido sincerely believed that "God made him do it", or that there
> was some higher moral reason for him to do it, that doesn't make him a
> raging wild animal, just wrong.
That may be, but my point is that to maintain discipline and morale in
the ranks of society, in such a circumstance, he would still be held
criminally responsible, regardless of any theoretical injustice that
might do him as an individual. For a crime of such severity, the
public would only stand for his not being sentenced as a criminal, but
merely being locked away for treatment, if he was obviously unfit for
trial by virtue of being a gibbering idiot or something on that order.
John Savard
mrbig
"BamaBrian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h7cg5i$aq4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Mitchell wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:33:12 -0400, Frank Galikanokus wrote:
>>
>>> bill later wrote:
>>>> Jaycee was just freed from Phillip Gorrido's backyard prison with the
>>>> two children he fathered.
>>>>
>>>> As an oppenent of the death penalty I say:
>>>>
>>>> Kill the fucker
>>>>
>>>> And make it hurt.
>>> Na, just lock him up with the general population of a nice state prison.
>>
>> Not to start a pointless debate; but have you considered that he might be
>> mentally ill, and therefore not morally responsible for his actions?
>>
>> He certainly seems... damaged to me.
>
> We're not going to try him for his acts done during his mental state
> today; just for acts done during his mental state back eighteen years.
>
> Note that Garrido was ALREADY convicted once for kidnapping and forcible >
> rape. Why this non-human
Human he was and human he is. Just an evil malignant example of the species.
>was on the street when he abducted an eleven year-old is a mystery to me.
I can think of several but mostly because the laws he violated did not have
as penalty a lifetime incarceration.
mrbig
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:5d0e12e4-1679-4497...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Of course, this is a false dichotomy... usually, though, the bar is
> set high for mental incompetence,
It seems to me that at some point mental competence simply does not matter.
If you are that much of a danger to others, I don't care if you are stone
cold sane or a raving delusional. You are need to be spearated from the
herd.
mrbig
On Aug 29, 2:55 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>> What about his wife? She certainly shares full responsibility for what
>> happened.
> I don't know that. It's possible that shortly after the marriage
> began, she became as much a prisoner of his as the girl was.
That is a good point. The Austrian girl who was similarly imprisoned had
opportunities to escape but was so brainwashed she could not. Some news
sources have said Jaycee felt guilt over bonding with Garrido. No one would,
if it came to light Jaycee did have opportunities to escape but did not, no
one would claim she was in any way willing or complicit.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in
> news:4a9af65d....@news.supernews.com:
>
>> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>> news:3abb7dda-
>>> 2cc7-4a9e-936...@q5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Besides, let's grant that it is symptomatic of an absence of
>>>> mercy. Where was an absence of mercy proven wrong in some sort
>>>> of final sense?
>>> I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a
>>> society that DID have mercy, even with the occasional
>>> disadvantages, and would hate to live in one that didn't.
>> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well
>> - but also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond
>> the pale forever.
>>
> I believe his point is that what you describe isn't really mercy.
>
> Anybody ever come to a conclusion on whether or not said terrorist
> actually *has* cancer?
>
One would presume that as he was a prisoner, they had more then
adequate opportunity to check.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Quadibloc
> I can think of several but mostly because the laws he violated did not have
> as penalty a lifetime incarceration.
Yes, but why those laws did not give that penalty for such an offense
is mysterious.
Of course, not completely. Blackstone's _Commentaries_, in reference
to the laws on armed robbery in France and Britain, notes that for
practical reasons one may give a more lenient penalty for a crime than
it deserves... simply to give the criminal some incentive not to
murder his victim.
John Savard
William December Starr
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) said:
> Oh so you have pity for the bastard? You think he was unfairly
> treated? I guess that 11 yo was asking for it, right?
I'm not going to talk to you any more until you've had at least
your seventh birthday.
-- wds
Gray Ghost
@panix2.panix.com:
So you think I'm the defective one and are defending the indefensible in
order to make a personal attack. Nice to know what drives you to defend child
rapists.
Let's look at the record:
Garrido was 25 in 1977 when he kidnapped a 25-year-old woman from South Lake
Tahoe, the same town where authorities say he later snatched Dugard.
He raped the woman in a Reno warehouse outfitted with pornographic magazines
and sex toys.
He served about 10 years of a 50-year federal sentence for kidnapping, and
less than a year for a concurrent Nevada sentence of five years to life in
prison for the sexual assault.
Gail Powell, spokeswoman for the Nevada Department of Public Safety, said
Garrido met his wife, Nancy, while he was serving time for the rape at the
federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan.
After four parole hearings, Garrido was finally relased in 1988, according to
records from the Nevada Department of Corrections.
Just three years later, Garrido and his wife were trolling South Lake Tahoe
looking for a little girl, authorities said. They found Jaycee Dugard.
Phillip Garrido was on federal parole at the time of the kidnapping.
A parole violation sent Garrido back to federal prison from April to August
of 1993. It is unclear who was taking care of the captive Jaycee, but
authorities believe Garrido�s wife kept the home fires burning while he was
behind bars. Little is known about Nancy Garrido�s relationship with her
alleged captive.
10 years out of 50. Less than a year for a 5 to life sentence.
Now let me think for a minute, which group of soft hearted morons are always
for giving the felons another chance? Who is always in favor of parole and
consistently against the death penalty?
That's it! Neandertahl, law and order right wingers! No wait that's not
right. It's bleeding heart liberals. Congratulations on another succesful
parole.
Your defense of child rapists is noted.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:h7dr3a$kpe$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
The latest "rumor" is that the doctor who gave him weeks to live is
a) not a cancer expert, and b) working for the Lybian government.
Sounds like just the sort of thing that the psychotic assholes that
pass for pundits these days would make up, so it's hard to tell if
there's anything to it.
Louann Miller
>>I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that
>>DID have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate
>>to live in one that didn't.
>
> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
> also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
> forever.
Which would imply that some crime's DON'T put the perpetrator beyond it. I
live here, and I can't think of any. "Three strikes you're out" comes to
mind.
Louann Miller
> No one would,
> if it came to light Jaycee did have opportunities to escape but did
> not, no one would claim she was in any way willing or complicit.
Because no one ever claims that their actions or inactions, e.g. not
locking the windows, wearing a short skirt, being outside at night,
drinking alcohol, makes a rape victim complicit. That mindset is simply
foreign to our culture.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>"mrbig" <mr...@bighouse.net> wrote in news:h7dj9v$kb2$1...@news.datemas.de:
>
>> No one would,
>> if it came to light Jaycee did have opportunities to escape but did
>> not, no one would claim she was in any way willing or complicit.
Of course not, our understanding of human behavior has improved over
time.
>Because no one ever claims that their actions or inactions, e.g. not
>locking the windows, wearing a short skirt, being outside at night,
>drinking alcohol, makes a rape victim complicit. That mindset is simply
>foreign to our culture.
Yes, we have gotten better now, though such things used to be a very
common excuse on behalf of the rapist.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Jaywalking.
mrbig
On Aug 30, 7:01 am, "mrbig" <mr...@bighouse.net> wrote:
> I can think of several but mostly because the laws he violated did not
> have
> as penalty a lifetime incarceration.
Yes, but why those laws did not give that penalty for such an offense
is mysterious.
Not really. There are both practical and ethical reasons. First tell me how
long and for what crime someone should be incarcerated?
Before anyone says For Life! and for Any sex crime! consider both the cost
to lock them up for life and that such a sweeping judgement would banish a
teenager one day over the age of consent who had sex with his one day under
age of consent partner.
mrbig
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hMGdncAzpuNRLAfX...@giganews.com...
> "mrbig" <mr...@bighouse.net> wrote
[contextually relevant quoting reinserted]
Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:06a00909-fd2a-4fdc...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 2:55 am, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>>> What about his wife? She certainly shares full responsibility for what
>>>> happened.
>>> I don't know that. It's possible that shortly after the marriage
>>> began, she became as much a prisoner of his as the girl was.
>> No one would,
>> if it came to light Jaycee did have opportunities to escape but did
>> not, no one would claim she was in any way willing or complicit.
>
> Because no one ever claims that their actions or inactions, e.g. not
> locking the windows, wearing a short skirt, being outside at night,
> drinking alcohol, makes a rape victim complicit. That mindset is simply
> foreign to our culture.
I think people are missing my point. the issue I was addressing was the
complicity of the wife of - actual wife - wife of Garrido.
Brenda Clough
> Louann Miller wrote:
>> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in
>> news:4a9af65d....@news.supernews.com:
>>>> I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that
>>>> DID have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate
>>>> to live in one that didn't.
>>> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
>>> also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
>>> forever.
>>
>> Which would imply that some crime's DON'T put the perpetrator beyond
>> it. I live here, and I can't think of any.
>
> Jaywalking.
>
>
And there is such a thing as proportion. Consider LES MISERABLES.
Steal a loaf of bread for your starving children, and do twenty years
hard labor. I think we could agree this is excessive.
However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would- be
excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration? No
problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle only?
Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why not.
Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a steam
roller.)
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
My novel REVISE THE WORLD is now appearing at
www.bookviewcafe.com
Louann Miller
> I think people are missing my point. the issue I was addressing was the
> complicity of the wife of - actual wife - wife of Garrido.
Oh. Sorry about the miscue.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Louann Miller wrote:
>>> fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in
>>> news:4a9af65d....@news.supernews.com:
>>>>> I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that
>>>>> DID have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate
>>>>> to live in one that didn't.
>>>> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
>>>> also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
>>>> forever.
>>>
>>> Which would imply that some crime's DON'T put the perpetrator beyond
>>> it. I live here, and I can't think of any.
>>
>> Jaywalking.
>>
>>
>
>
> And there is such a thing as proportion. Consider LES MISERABLES. Steal
> a loaf of bread for your starving children, and do twenty years hard
> labor. I think we could agree this is excessive.
>
> However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would- be
> excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration? No
> problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle only?
> Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why not.
> Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a steam
> roller.)
>
Handing him over to Mr. Terminus?
Quadibloc
> And there is such a thing as proportion. Consider LES MISERABLES.
> Steal a loaf of bread for your starving children, and do twenty years
> hard labor. I think we could agree this is excessive.
>
> However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would- be
> excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration? No
> problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle only?
> Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why not.
> Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a steam
> roller.)
Emotionally, I am in complete agreement.
I recognize there might be legitimate arguments made from the other
side. I am not opposed to a degree of humanity and restraint in
dealing with even serious criminals like him... *as long as* we do not
allow this to go to an excess that demonstrates a lack of concern for
their victims, and the safety of everyone else that could become a
victim of such a one.
Thus, if a very severe punishment for him would actually help deter
such crimes in future, I would be all for it. But crimes like this are
committed by people so sick that additional deterrence will likely
have little impact. What is astounding is what someone else noted -
that he had a previous conviction for sexual assault, and this didn't
result at that time in him staying locked up so that he would have no
chance to cause further harm.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Before anyone says For Life! and for Any sex crime! consider both the cost
> to lock them up for life and that such a sweeping judgement would banish a
> teenager one day over the age of consent who had sex with his one day under
> age of consent partner.
It's true some sex crimes may be poorly framed, but *real* sex crimes
- such as for any form of non-consensual rape as opposed to "statutory
rape" - natural life imprisonment would seem advisable.
A bullet in the back of the head would be cheaper, but we need to
provide them with some reason not to make detection harder by killing
their victims.
Since, though, such crimes are often committed by people so sick that
deterrence isn't really the answer, we have to consider other
prevention strategies. Thus, how about a "must-carry law" for women
only?
John Savard
Aardvark
> Thus, how about a "must-carry law" for women only?
What are you suggesting, man? Don't you think that unarmed women with PMS
are dangerous enough?????
--
“Every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little
country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious.”
Michael Ledeen, an architect of the neocon program being implemented
under the nose of the U.S people in the name of freedom and democracy.
mrbig
On Aug 30, 2:54 pm, "mrbig" <mr...@bighouse.net> wrote:
>> Before anyone says For Life! and for Any sex crime! consider both the
>> cost
>> to lock them up for life and that such a sweeping judgement would banish
>> a
>> teenager one day over the age of consent who had sex with his one day
>> under
>> age of consent partner.
> It's true some sex crimes may be poorly framed, but *real* sex crimes
> - such as for any form of non-consensual rape as opposed to "statutory
> ape" - natural life imprisonment would seem advisable.
The problem with that is the so-called date rape/regret, he said/ she said
edge cases. He says she was willing and now is simply feeling regret. She
says he is a horrible beast who forced himself violently on her. Rape is a
special case in crime in that there can be such ambiguity over whether or
not the crime ever occurred. There is never much doubt when an armed robbery
has occurred. Rape is not always so clear cut.
> Since, though, such crimes are often committed by people so sick that
> deterrence isn't really the answer, we have to consider other
> prevention strategies.
It is well established almost to unity that molesters were themselves
molested. Shall we imprison all those molested as a preventative measure?
Derek Lyons
You either aren't thinking very hard, or you're much more vicious than
the general run of the population.
To start with, very few people seem to think that white collar crime
places one beyond the pale. (Unless done by a CEO.) The same goes
for misdemeanor drug offenses and a wide variety of other petty
crimes.
Etc... etc...
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Quadibloc
> The problem with that is the so-called date rape/regret, he said/ she said
> edge cases. He says she was willing and now is simply feeling regret. She
> says he is a horrible beast who forced himself violently on her. Rape is a
> special case in crime in that there can be such ambiguity over whether or
> not the crime ever occurred. There is never much doubt when an armed robbery
> has occurred. Rape is not always so clear cut.
This is why some feminists wanted *less* severe sentences for rape, so
that juries would feel more free to risk convicting innocent men. I
don't agree with _that_ strategy.
John Savard
David Mitchell
>
> However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would- be
> excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration? No
> problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle only?
> Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why not.
> Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a steam
> roller.)
Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's barking
mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
What are you, Texan?
By all means, lock him away (since we can't cure him), but he's ill, and
deserves compassion.
David Mitchell
> Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote in
>>news:4a9af65d....@news.supernews.com:
>>
>>>>I think Stross's point was that he was proud to live in a society that
>>>>DID have mercy, even with the occasional disadvantages, and would hate
>>>>to live in one that didn't.
>>>
>>> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
>>> also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
>>> forever.
>>
>>Which would imply that some crime's DON'T put the perpetrator beyond it.
>>I live here, and I can't think of any. "Three strikes you're out" comes
>>to mind.
>
> You either aren't thinking very hard, or you're much more vicious than
> the general run of the population.
>
> To start with, very few people seem to think that white collar crime
> places one beyond the pale. (Unless done by a CEO.) The same goes for
> misdemeanor drug offenses and a wide variety of other petty crimes.
>
True, and this is why three strikes is cruel; but I think a reasonable
compromise is that the "rehabilitation" and "punishment" elements of
every sentence a criminal has ever served, (say 80% of the total length)
should be added to their sentence for each successive crime, as they
hadn't "taken" the first time.
So, they might serve one year for their first offence; but then 1.8 years
for a second identical one, 2.6 for a third, and so on.
David Mitchell
> On Aug 30, 1:03 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> If Garrido sincerely believed that "God made him do it", or that there
>> was some higher moral reason for him to do it, that doesn't make him a
>> raging wild animal, just wrong.
>
> That may be, but my point is that to maintain discipline and morale in
> the ranks of society, in such a circumstance, he would still be held
> criminally responsible, regardless of any theoretical injustice that
> might do him as an individual. For a crime of such severity, the public
> would only stand for his not being sentenced as a criminal, but merely
> being locked away for treatment, if he was obviously unfit for trial by
> virtue of being a gibbering idiot or something on that order.
>
> John Savard
Just because "the public wants it" does not mean that they should be
given it.
I suspect, given the tone of comments in what is a slightly more
civilised than average newsgroup, that the public would like him fed to
hungry pigs.
Quadibloc
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's barking
> mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
extended period of time.
He could well be crazy enough, though, that we should recognize that
dealing with such as he more severely is not really a useful way to
decrease the frequency of crimes such as his.
Punishing a criminal severely, though, imposes a cost only on the
criminal. Other types of preventive measure impose costs on innocent
people, and thus are legitimately controversial.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Of course, the public's concern is that the *deterrence* element of
criminal sentences doesn't seem to take.
One person is convicted of holding up a convenience store. Because he
was caught, and subjected to the punishment decreed by law for that
crime... we expect that everyone else who might do such a horrible
thing in the future now hears of the terrible penalty this abominable
wretch has faced...
and, thus, it NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. Not ever.
So if that doesn't happen, if crime still exists despite our penalties
for it, obviously they must not be harsh enough. Every time a crime is
committed, Parliament should go into emergency session to double all
the sentences in the Criminal Code!
Now, of course you might say that this is vengeful and ridiculous.
Why is the social sentiment in favor of this?
Well, in Canada, we used to have, back in 1962, a very low crime rate.
We had the death penalty back then. Rapists were sent to jail for ten
years - and they received "the lash" at the beginning and end of their
sentences. Provinces made up their own special rules for juvenile
offenders based on local circumstances.
But then Canada became too civilized for that sort of thing. Other
factors, such as a high unemployment rate - and, bizarrely enough,
opening the country to immigration _while_ it was suffering
unprecedented (in the postwar era, of course) levels of unemployment -
led to a soaring crime rate. As it happened, due to demographics, the
crime rate peaked at the time, in 1971, that the death penalty was
_formally_ abolished (the last actual hanging took place in 1962) so
there are those who try to claim there is no problem.
It doesn't matter what party one votes for, even the Conservatives
don't seem to take seriously the need to put the country back the way
it was. Abolish compulsory metrication! Get the steel mills and
automibile plants working again the way they did in the early 1960s!
Ensure that the enlightened tolerance of Canadians is not overtaxed by
unwise excesses, so that unseemly displays of bigotry are not provoked
by real causes.
The problem is that Canada faces many difficulties. An international
treaty regime denies countries the freedom to respond to economic
conditions by modifying tariffs. As a result, we can't simply choose
to cut off the flow of cheap imports the moment unemployment edges a
tenth of a percentage point above target levels.
World problems have led to Canada accepting many refugees from the
Uganda of Idi Amin and from Vietnam. One would hardly want Canada to
turn these deserving people away. But when people try to build new
lives, starting from nothing, not all will succeed right away. Thus,
Canada has a visible problem with youth gangs having a noticeable
Vietnamese ethnic character. This sort of thing can give rise to
unseemly sentiments coming from people who really aren't deranged
racist lunatics, and thus creates a danger of a horrible embarrassment
to our nation.
If the normal economic conditions of the early 1960s had been
continuously maintained by the government - instead of being lost
through Bensonomics in 1968, and failing to return since through
various causes, such as the oil embargo that began in October, 1973 -
a much higher fraction of those immigrants we needed to admit would
have found jobs quickly, and such problems would not have arisen.
If you have an ethnically distinct, and worse yet, visibly distinct,
group that is disadvantaged, then many of those within will be
alienated from the larger society, and this is an extremely dangerous
situation. One expects a sensible government will have the sense to
_never let that happen_ if it can possibly help it. This doesn't mean
some bigoted policy that bans all non-white immigration. Of course we
will admit a handful of university professors from places like India
and Taiwan. And since there are so few members of any visible minority
in the country, _no one will feel threatened by them_, and we can
boast to the world how tolerant we are... like Sweden, or Switzerland,
Switzerland in particular supplying the model for our immigration
policy.
Well, it does do our politicians credit that they were not quite so
cowardly as to go _that_ far. But why would the transition to a
multiracial society take place in anything but a period when an
economic boom is present to smooth over any problems of adjustment?
About the only explanation one can come up with is that big businesses
wanted a cheap labor force, and the government listened to them
instead of to the great masses of ordinary people, who want a labor
market that strongly favors the ordinary working man, and who want a
peaceful and tranquil country so that as little as possible of their
hard-earned money has to be taxed to support policemen and judges and
prison guards, to say nothing of the devastation caused by crime
itself.
And so we now have a country where there is tension and conflict
between working people and businessmen, instead of happy smiling
faces, full employment and constantly rising living standards, that
help everyone to recognize how wonderful the free enterprise system is
and how everyone contributes to the harmonious working of the economy,
both workers and investors, all having a valued function.
Some kind of a badly wrong turn has been taken. Apparently, the
details of getting back on the right track have not been worked out
yet, because clearly a politician who could manage that would be
popular.
John Savard
David Mitchell
> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>
> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
> extended period of time.
Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
>
> He could well be crazy enough, though, that we should recognize that
> dealing with such as he more severely is not really a useful way to
> decrease the frequency of crimes such as his.
Agreed.
> Punishing a criminal severely, though, imposes a cost only on the
> criminal.
Or the innocent man being punished by mistake (not that this applies in
this case, I think).
Kurt Busiek
<david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, David Mitchell
>> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>>
>> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
>> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
>> extended period of time.
>
> Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
"Barking mad," however, suggests a value of crazy.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
James Nicoll
David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, David Mitchell
>> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>>
>> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
>> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
>> extended period of time.
>
>Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
It can, if I recall the biography of a defense lawyer I read 20 years
ago, mean a considerably longer time in pokey. Criminals can hope for
parole (now that there's only a Democrat in the White House, it's safe to
let Squeaky Fromme out) but the insane generally have to convince someone
they are better now.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
>> He seems to have missed, somehow, that the US has mercy as well - but
>> also believes that some crimes put the perpetrator beyond the pale
>> forever.
>
> Which would imply that some crime's DON'T put the perpetrator beyond it. I
> live here, and I can't think of any.
Our current President admits to being a coke-head when he was
younger, and our last one probably was as well.
Of course, once they got into power, they continued the same
oppressive regime of drug prohibition that could've destroyed their
lives if they'd been caught.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
David Mitchell
Well, YMMV, but I class anyone with overriding religious conviction as at
least "whimpering-mad", and they are generally capable of functioning in
normal society.
Sociopaths and psychopaths, similarly, generally manage well (sometimes
extremely so), but you wouldn't want one behind you in a dark alley with
a steak knife.
Ditto people suffering from bipolar disorders (at least part of the
time), and schizophrenia (when they're not at its mercy).
Brenda Clough
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:01:03 -0700, Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-31 07:51:55 -0700, David Mitchell
>> <david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 31, 1:19 am, David Mitchell
>>>> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>>>>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>>>> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
>>>> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
>>>> extended period of time.
>>> Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of
>>> crazy.
>> "Barking mad," however, suggests a value of crazy.
>
> Well, YMMV, but I class anyone with overriding religious conviction as at
> least "whimpering-mad", and they are generally capable of functioning in
> normal society.
>
> Sociopaths and psychopaths, similarly, generally manage well (sometimes
> extremely so), but you wouldn't want one behind you in a dark alley with
> a steak knife.
>
> Ditto people suffering from bipolar disorders (at least part of the
> time), and schizophrenia (when they're not at its mercy).
>
Note that he was perfectly sane enough to hide his crime. For instance,
to squirrel the kidnap car in the deep brush behind his house. In any
case, if he is as crazy as you allege, he will not miss his testicles.
Brenda Clough
> In article <h7go2b$117$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 31, 1:19� am, David Mitchell
>>> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>>>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>>> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
>>> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
>>> extended period of time.
>> Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
>
> It can, if I recall the biography of a defense lawyer I read 20 years
> ago, mean a considerably longer time in pokey. Criminals can hope for
> parole (now that there's only a Democrat in the White House, it's safe to
> let Squeaky Fromme out) but the insane generally have to convince someone
> they are better now.
>
>
John Hinckley is more or less out, with long weekends away from his
mental facility.
David Mitchell
> Note that he was perfectly sane enough to hide his crime.
Apparently. But as I've said, crazy<>incompetent.
> In any
> case, if he is as crazy as you allege, he will not miss his testicles.
So, you'd be happy to torture the mentally-ill for their "crimes"?
Nice.
I hope you never suffer mental illness, and meet someone like yourself.
Quadibloc
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So, you'd be happy to torture the mentally-ill for their "crimes"?
>
> Nice.
Clearly his brain isn't functioning properly. It didn't send signals
to his muscles to produce the desired behavior from him.- that of a
responsible citizen who respects the rights of others.
But "mental illness" in the sense of something that diminishes a
person's responsibility for his actions, is difficult and complicated
to define.
We can't, therefore, be _sure_ that someone who displays competence is
"mentally ill" enough not to be responsible for his actions.
We can be sure that rape is a horrible crime, and we should do
everything we can to decrease its incidence. One of those things we
can do is punish it severely - and make it clear that those who commit
the crime have little chance to escape punishment. Making it easy to
escape punishment through a claim of mental illness would work against
that.
To be raped is so terrible a fate that one would have to torture an
awful lot of mentally ill people who don't really deserve to be
punished before this would cause more unjust harm to humans than would
be eliminated by even a slight decrease in how often rape is
committed.
But what we really need an answer for is why rape is a failure mode
that men have, so that we can redesign men so that it just doesn't
ever happen. So, for example, we might wish to eliminate alleles for
MAO insensitivity, the so-called "warrior" gene.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
> To be raped is so terrible a fate that one would have to torture an
> awful lot of mentally ill people who don't really deserve to be
> punished before this would cause more unjust harm to humans than
> would
> be eliminated by even a slight decrease in how often rape is
> committed.
You're volunteering to be tortured unjustly, then, on the off-chance
it would help?
David Mitchell
> On Sep 1, 12:25 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, you'd be happy to torture the mentally-ill for their "crimes"?
>>
>> Nice.
>
> Clearly his brain isn't functioning properly. It didn't send signals to
> his muscles to produce the desired behavior from him.- that of a
> responsible citizen who respects the rights of others.
>
> But "mental illness" in the sense of something that diminishes a
> person's responsibility for his actions, is difficult and complicated to
> define.
>
> We can't, therefore, be _sure_ that someone who displays competence is
> "mentally ill" enough not to be responsible for his actions.
This is all true; but there's an important principle at stake.
>
> We can be sure that rape is a horrible crime, and we should do
> everything we can to decrease its incidence.
Everything within reason - and I suspect that you and I differ in how far
we would go to prevent it, if only because it's a really difficult crime
to prove.
> One of those things we can
> do is punish it severely - and make it clear that those who commit the
> crime have little chance to escape punishment.
> Making it easy to escape
> punishment through a claim of mental illness would work against that.
The mental illness defence is not, I suspect, used very often, and I'm
fairly sure that few "one-off" rapists would be willing to make
themselves known to the psychiatric profession.
>
> To be raped is so terrible a fate that one would have to torture an
> awful lot of mentally ill people who don't really deserve to be punished
> before this would cause more unjust harm to humans than would be
> eliminated by even a slight decrease in how often rape is committed.
For the reason above, and others, I disagree rather strongly with this.
> But what we really need an answer for is why rape is a failure mode that
> men have, so that we can redesign men so that it just doesn't ever
> happen.
Unlikely, I think.
> So, for example, we might wish to eliminate alleles for MAO
> insensitivity, the so-called "warrior" gene.
Or we could have universal surveillance, right into the bedroom.
Would that be too high a price for you?
Quadibloc
<david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Or we could have universal surveillance, right into the bedroom.
> Would that be too high a price for you?
Yes, but if we implanted impersonal microprocessors into every man's
brain shortly after birth, which could watch over him and prevent him
from committing rape without getting any prurient thrills from his
legitimate sexual activities, _that_ would be not absolutely
unacceptable.
We would just need safeguards to prevent a dictatorship from using
them to control behavior more broadly. Not implanting females would be
one such safeguard.
John Savard
David Mitchell
> On Sep 1, 2:39 am, David Mitchell
> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or we could have universal surveillance, right into the bedroom. Would
>> that be too high a price for you?
>
> Yes, but if we implanted impersonal microprocessors into every man's
> brain shortly after birth, which could watch over him and prevent him
> from committing rape without getting any prurient thrills from his
> legitimate sexual activities, _that_ would be not absolutely
> unacceptable.
Perhaps to you; but I can't see anyone else volunteering.
>
> We would just need safeguards to prevent a dictatorship from using them
> to control behavior more broadly. Not implanting females would be one
> such safeguard.
Well, obviously you'd have to prevent murders too, right?
And, well assault can lead to accidental deaths, so we'd have to stop
that; and, come to think of it, why should people just be able to take
the very bread off the table of the hard-working man, so theft would need
to be included.
Then, obviously, you'd have to protect the system, make it impossible to
people to evade being chipped (that's everyone, of course, women steal
and assault too).
But who watches the system? It would have to be people we trust, perhaps
the people we already trust to run our lives: the Government, or law
enforcement - perhaps an agency of some sort.
Obviously they'd need to be exempt from control, wouldn't they?
I'm beginning to think that this would end rather badly, and it all
started so well.
James Nicoll
Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <h7go2b$117$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 31, 1:19� am, David Mitchell
>>>> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
>>>>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
>>>> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
>>>> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
>>>> extended period of time.
>>> Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
>>
>> It can, if I recall the biography of a defense lawyer I read 20 years
>> ago, mean a considerably longer time in pokey. Criminals can hope for
>> parole (now that there's only a Democrat in the White House, it's safe to
>> let Squeaky Fromme out) but the insane generally have to convince someone
>> they are better now.
>>
>>
>
>
>John Hinckley is more or less out, with long weekends away from his
>mental facility.
That began after Reagan died, right? 2004ish? So Reagan was
probably safe from Hinkley at that point.
I'd like to catagorically deny that Hinkley's attempt on Reagan
or his current privledges has anything to do with the fact that his father
was one of George H.W. Bush's political and financial supporters in his 1980
primary campaign against Ronald Reagan. The failed assassination was
in no way an attempted coup by former CIA chief Bush, the verdict was
not a thinly veiled way of keeping an agent alive and Hinkley's current
lax situation was not a belated pay-off arranged while Bush's kid was
President. Also, I would like to point out that the historical connection
between Hinkley's brother and Neil Bush is just a side-effect of the fact
that their parents are associates.
Bill Snyder
You realize that the conspiracy theorists will take that in all
seriousness, and run with it, right?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Don Bruder
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
Somehow, I suspect that was the reason for posting it!
--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.
Kurt Busiek
<david.robo...@googlemail.com> said:
Ha!
And so, "install behavior modification chips in half of humanity"
becomes another plank in Savard's platform to enforce freedom by
disposing of it.
aaron
"Don Bruder" <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:h7jag5$6dt$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I wonder what conspiracies will be in vogue in 50 or 100 or 1000 years.
FTL warp travel is a hoax!
Slow boat suspended animation colony ships are really being launched into
the sun to get rid of trouble makers!
ZOG is of course still responisble for suppressing superior Aryan white
folk but now the Blacks they are using to push drugs in oppressed white
minority communities are Black Antareans.
James Nicoll
I don't see why they would. I said it wasn't true.
Christopher Henrich
We should not take seriously any suggestion that "accidents" happening
to James Nicoll are in fact pro-active damage control by Skull & Bones
agents.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Michael Stemper
>OBSF: Science fictional crime and punishment?
I recall a short story, in which a convicted killer is "hung by the
neck until dead" annually.
Also, I believe that one of the Slow Glass stories has an ex-dictator
(or something like that) punished by being fitted with contact lenses
that had a full buffer of scenes from his torture chambers.
> Sheffield in - I think - his Aftermath books had a concept of 'Judicial
>Sleep' which was as much a practical decision as one of 'humane'
>incarceration. the thought was that if it was discovered they were innocent
>they could be woken up and freed with not even time out of there life taken.
And Larry Niven, in "The Patchwork Girl", showed that there could be
problems even with that approach.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
Bill Snyder
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <9qaq95h5varbr37qs...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:03:23 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to catagorically deny that Hinkley's attempt on Reagan
>>>or his current privledges has anything to do with the fact that his father
>>>was one of George H.W. Bush's political and financial supporters in his 1980
>>>primary campaign against Ronald Reagan. The failed assassination was
>>>in no way an attempted coup by former CIA chief Bush, the verdict was
>>>not a thinly veiled way of keeping an agent alive and Hinkley's current
>>>lax situation was not a belated pay-off arranged while Bush's kid was
>>>President. Also, I would like to point out that the historical connection
>>>between Hinkley's brother and Neil Bush is just a side-effect of the fact
>>>that their parents are associates.
>>
>>You realize that the conspiracy theorists will take that in all
>>seriousness, and run with it, right?
>
> I don't see why they would. I said it wasn't true.
I see. So you're branching out into making Nicoll events happen
to *other* people, now? 'Scuse me, been a long time since I
checked on the supplies in the fallout shelter.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would- be
> excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration? No
> problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle only?
> Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why not.
> Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a steam
> roller.)
>
Shhhh. You're going to blow your cover as a CIA interrogator.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> In article <0uYmm.526$Jd7...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
> Brenda Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> John Hinckley is more or less out, with long weekends away from his
>> mental facility.
>
> That began after Reagan died, right? 2004ish? So Reagan was
> probably safe from Hinkley at that point.
>
As long as Jodie Foster is making movies, how can we be sure anyone
is safe?
> I'd like to catagorically deny that Hinkley's attempt on Reagan
> or his current privledges has anything to do with the fact that his father
> was one of George H.W. Bush's political and financial supporters in his 1980
> primary campaign against Ronald Reagan. The failed assassination was
> in no way an attempted coup by former CIA chief Bush, the verdict was
> not a thinly veiled way of keeping an agent alive and Hinkley's current
> lax situation was not a belated pay-off arranged while Bush's kid was
> President. Also, I would like to point out that the historical connection
> between Hinkley's brother and Neil Bush is just a side-effect of the fact
> that their parents are associates.
>
Why would anyone believe such connections. It'd be like pointing out
Jack Ruby was tight with the mob -- complete coincidence.
Juho Julkunen
(jdni...@panix.com) says...
> In article <h7go2b$117$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Mitchell <david.robo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:25:03 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry to belabour the point, but do you really not care that he's
> >>> barking mad, and not really responsible for his actions?
> >>
> >> That is not obvious. If he were that crazy, he wouldn't have been able
> >> to commit a crime that required planning and thought and care over an
> >> extended period of time.
> >
> >Crazy doesn't necessarily mean incompetent, for certain values of crazy.
>
> It can, if I recall the biography of a defense lawyer I read 20 years
> ago, mean a considerably longer time in pokey. Criminals can hope for
> parole (now that there's only a Democrat in the White House, it's safe to
> let Squeaky Fromme out) but the insane generally have to convince someone
> they are better now.
In Finland, once you are committed as criminally insane you are
effectively out of the bounds of justice system, and may never be
released. I don't think there are flagrant violations currently, but if
we ever decide we need to remove dissidents from the public eye we have
the system ready to go.
Life imprisonment, by contrast, comes with automatic parole hearing
after twelve years.
--
Juho Julkunen
Brenda Clough
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Brenda Clough declared:
>> > However, I cannot think of anything applied to Garrido that -would-
>> be excessive, and I am noted for a powerful imagination. (Castration?
>> No problem; convict him and hand me a razor blade. Broken bottle
>> only? Well, as long as I get to wear heavy gardening gloves, sure, why
>> not. Death penalty? I'm there. With prejudice? No huhu, find me a
>> steam roller.)
>>
>
> Shhhh. You're going to blow your cover as a CIA interrogator.
>
I saw a great steam roller today. It had rectangular knobs on the
roller, and was evidently meant for compacting soil. Leaves a waffle
pattern behind.
David DeLaney
>David Mitchell <david.robot.mitch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Or we could have universal surveillance, right into the bedroom.
>> Would that be too high a price for you?
>
>Yes, but if we implanted impersonal microprocessors into every man's
>brain shortly after birth, which could watch over him and prevent him
>from committing rape without getting any prurient thrills from his
>legitimate sexual activities, _that_ would be not absolutely unacceptable.
"I want this V-Chip out of me / It has sti-fled my vo-ca-bu-lary!"
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
> And so, "install behavior modification chips in half of humanity"
> becomes another plank in Savard's platform to enforce freedom by
> disposing of it.
Freedom is the ability to do whatever you like that doesn't violate
the rights of others.
Eliminating the opportunity to commit crimes against others,
therefore, in principle enhances freedom, since now one's freedom is
not limited by the danger of being a victim of crime.
You are quite correct, though, that limiting crime in this way
provides the State with an instrument of immense power, highly liable
to misuse. This is why I suggested using it only for rape, and not
even for murder. Murder can be dealt with harshly in the old-fashioned
ways. But it's been pointed out in this thread that some kinds of rape
don't lend themselves to an unambiguous determination that a crime has
even been committed... unlike murder.
John Savard