XPost: alt.activism.death-penalty, talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement   
   XPost: alt.true-crime   
   From: richj7@hotmail.com   
      
   under_the_bridge wrote:   
   > Both life in prison without parole, and the death penalty are vile   
   > punishments.  Everyone should be eligible for parole after ten years,   
   > but parole boards should consider the nature of the crimes comitted,   
   > as well as prison record and interviews, and murderers paroled after   
   > 10 years would be few and far between, if any at all.   
      
   OK, which mass murderer do you want paroled to the house next door to you?   
      
   >   
   > But it would at least give all prisoners an _incentive_ to clean up   
   > their act.  At least they'd have a ray of hope, even if they didn't   
   > get paroled.  I guess philisophically, it's a nice idea.  It's a nice   
   > philosophy.  The reality is that they would sit and rot in prison in   
   > any case.  So I'm not really sure if it matters.  But it is a good   
   > philisophical argument.  More importantly, it is a step in the right   
   > direction towards a more humane system of criminal justice.  The   
   > question is - if that more humane system of criminal justice will lead   
   > towards a more civil and humane society (i.e. less crime).  My   
   > argument, is that (if anything is said to be "wrong") punishment is   
   > wrong.  Crime (regular crime) is wrong as well.  Violations of other's   
   > persons, bodies, and properties is "wrong" (if anything is wrong).   
   > However, my point is only a point if we get rid of crime.  If there is   
   > no crime, then my argument that punishment is wrong or unecessary is a   
   > point.   
   >   
   > Of course, tell it to the victims.......   
   >   
   > I don't know why I even care that much I guess I just believe in the   
   > sanctity of all human life.  Everyone has an unalienable right to   
   > life.  Of this we can be sure.  When we're alive we're alive, and when   
   > we're dead we'll realize life after death, or worry about death then.   
   > The question is if we have an unalienable right to freedom.  My   
   > argument is that ultimately we DO have an unalienable right to   
   > freedom, and that it is the work of "God" to be moving towards that   
   > right.  Obviously we don't often see people changing themselves into   
   > animals and things, so it is obvious that most in this world are   
   > imprisoned in some way - unless they are doing and getting what they   
   > _want_.  Then I guess they are truly free.  Personally I like the body   
   > I have, and don't wish to change into animals at the moment.  Doing   
   > something against someone else's will is a failure to acknowledge   
   > them, and is "wrong" (if anything can be said to be wrong).  And you   
   > should be most concerned with others because others are then only case   
   > in which "righteousness" and "morals" matter at all.  So it is obvious   
   > that the higher moral authority favors turning the other cheek so long   
   > as you are not imprisoned or harmed yourself.   
   >   
   > Dicking back is kind of pointless.  Monetary restitution is the only   
   > thing that makes any sense (and the only way to quantitatively make   
   > things better for a victim).  But then, tell that to a victim.  Maybe   
   > we should do extensive victim interviews to get a better idea of what   
   > it's like and what their feelings are.  If murder is legal then   
   > victims would be free to murder the murderers in any case.  Without   
   > some system of crime and punishment with some measure of authority,   
   > punishments would vary wildly.  Some criminals would go free, while   
   > others would be tortured.  At least with our present system we may see   
   > that punishments for the same crime are more equal, the only standard   
   > by which punishment may be called "fair."  The philisophical question   
   > is if punishment should be lighter than, equal to, or harsher than the   
   > crime.  For in our present system of criminal justice, the punishments   
   > are harsher than the crime for some crimes, and lighter than the crime   
   > for other crimes.  Should we have the death penalty for stealing?  For   
   > jay walking?  Or should we have 'an eye for an eye, ' or should we   
   > have light prison sentences for all crimes, or no punishment at all?   
   > What right does anyone have to punish someone?  What right does anyone   
   > have to violate another's person, body or property?  No right at all,   
   > for it is war and power makes things happen.  If this causes us to   
   > loose all faith in righteousness, (and God?) then we must look deeper,   
   > and consider that right makes might, and that all have an unalienable   
   > right to life and freedom.    Does the murderer or the kidnapper prove   
   > this statement false by comitting their crime?  Did the murderer's act   
   > of violence "prove" that he won or was "right?"  How do you explain   
   > violations of other's bodies, person's and properties, if all have an   
   > unalienable right to life and freedom?   
   >   
   > Unfortunately these lofty ideals hold little sway in our temporal and   
   > vulnerable world.  We are men as children building sand castles.  What   
   > is great and valuable to us, may be nothing to someone else, and   
   > easily destroyed.  Our lives can be ended quickely, but it is obvious   
   > that while we are alive, we are alive, so our unalienable right to   
   > LIFE is obvious as well.  When we are as dead I contend that we will   
   > _still_ find ourselves alive, and still observe our obvious and   
   > unalienable right to life.  However our unalienable right to freedom   
   > is much stranger.  For as castles can be destroyed, they can be built   
   > again, better, more glorious, perhaps never the same.  And every   
   > moment of life is different than the last, and entirely unique.  I   
   > said two paragraphs ago, most in this world are imprisoned in some way   
   > - unless they are doing and getting what they _want_.  Then I guess   
   > they are truly free.  So we see that getting what you _want_ is the   
   > only measure by which freedom means anything.  And this supposedly   
   > unalienable right to freedom can be tested every day; every moment.   
   > Are you getting what you want?  Are you doing what you want?  Are you   
   > where you want to be right now?  Is everything the way you want it to   
   > be at the moment?  Is there nothing that peturbs you?  Only then can   
   > it be said that you are "free."  Freedom is a concept which represents   
   > truth, and you are not free in concepts but in moments which are life.   
   >   
   > We can observe only the past, and our apparent observation of the   
   > present is really only an observation of the past as well.  It is   
   > impossible to change the past.   And yet knowledge of the past tells   
   > us where the present is, and where the future is going and may be.   
   >   
   > Thus the question arises, what is the cause of what happens?   
   >   
   > Your will is excercised through choice, and choices are yours.   
   > Through your will you have the power to make anything you want at all   
   > happen.  See where the past was, and make the future where you want it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)