About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In recent police abuse news:
A week ago or so in Richmond, MI, the police pulled over a highschool student and found pot on him. The police stole his pot. The police forced the kid into jail. The police stole his vehicle because it was being used for "drug trafficking".
Sorry, that is not related to the parent post.

Robert Bidinotto, any chance in giving us a little teaser of wisdom from your book?

What should we do with the criminals? Why don't we first sort out who the criminals are? : ) I would be up for a system which includes only use force against people who initiate force. Better to let ten thousand force initiators free than to remove freedom from a innocent man.

And then, when we handle them, we don't punish because they deserve punishment (because they do not). Instead, we remove their freedom from being able to physically perform whatever the did for a long time. If they do not choose to do their initiation of force for a long time, then we can increase their freedom, trusting them that they will not do it again. If they need to go to jail for us to be able to remove their freedom, then they will have to support themselves in jail. If they do not have the financial savings, or if they choose they can go to a special jail where they can work during their time off on freedom. If they cannot support themselves, then they can go to "criminal land", where they will have to fend for themselves in the wilderness.

Or something like that. I am more of a computer scientist that a person who chooses how to retaliate force against another.

Post 21

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You don't have to buy and read my whole book for a response to the views in your post. My essay "Crime and Moral Retribution" deals with the meaning of "justice," and why I believe that the criminal justice system must be based upon proportionate retribution -- not solely financial restitution -- for criminal offenses.

You should find that essay sufficiently provocative to generate about a year's worth of arguments here.



Post 22

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with MH. The publishing of names of convicted pedophiles is wrong.

It happened here in the UK a few years ago and innocent people were targeted and had their houses fire bombed. It brings out the mob mentality.

There is also a possibility that some convicted pedophiles will not re-offend. These people have served their time in prison and should afterwards be left alone by the rest of society. Of course law enforcement agencies should keep them on their records permanently, but they should not be put on a public register.


Post 23

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Adam,

This mob owns the political machine, and the political machine owns the township and county governments - including the county prosecutor's office. Do you seriously think that they will go and investigate and prosecute themselves?
Perhaps I'm being naive but I don't think it's impossible for corrupt officials to be rooted out. I'm sorry you didn't get justice in your case.


I do belong to Solo Law, and I've posted there on numerous occasions. But if I ever write at greater length about what passes for law in New Jersey, I'll probably submit my article for the masthead. That situation comes closer, than anything today, to a real-life illustration of how the anarchists' "competing defense agencies" would function in real life.
Just to clarify, the SOLO Law comment was directed generally at all contributors to this thread - I of course realise you Adam and a number of others here have posted there. Sorry if my comment appeared to imply otherwise. :-)

MH


Post 24

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"And then, when we handle them, we don't punish because they deserve punishment (because they do not)."

What I meant by "punishment" is killing or beating them or something. I guess throwing them into criminal land would be simular to killing them, but well, at least they have some sort of chance to survive for a little while. If they chose a quicker death (like by medication), that seems fine with me.

After reading through the first half of Robert Bidinotto's work, I realized that I forgot to mention that the initiator of force must also pay for the damages that he has done before his freedom is given back.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How expensive is murder?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
How expensive is murder?
LOL.

I don't know about the USA, but in Brazil, if you get into a financial jam and call people to help bail you out, they won't even answer the telephone a second time. But if you want to fuck somebody up real bad, they show up in droves to help - for free!

(I know, I know, I didn't understand the question properly...)   //;-)

Michael


Post 27

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Everyone:

     Again, the information here has been more than helpful. Thank you for the time you have spent. I am going to like mulling Mike Erikson's rock climbing analogy in my head (at the moment, it's working out for me ;o) and also Jennifer's comment:

"My issues with this registration law are numerous.  If we are scared to death of all the evil lurking in our neighborhoods, why don't we also have listings of every murderer, batterer, thief, etc.?  It seems that whenever children are involved, the laws become widespread because we must "protect the children."  Nevermind that some parents don't bother to keep an eye on their kids, or lock the door at night."

This is very true. It can sometimes get in our heads that parents do everything they can for their children to be safe. Clearly, if it were us we would. (We acknowledge that we have brains, and use 'em!) But for some, this isn't the case. I addressed this a bit once before when I brought up the fact that some left-wingers believe that women should be able to have children even if they have no ability to provide for the children whatsoever... safety or otherwise. They believe the state should do it. The same state that let the pedophile out in the first place... after he begged to be treated and admitted to recidivism being inevitable. Sheesh. You're right when you say it is a joke. It is crystal clear to me now.

Adam,

     You deserve to be told that your story there affected me deeply... in a troubling sense, but also in a rather uplifting manner. I am incredibly appalled that anything of that sort could happen to you, and particularly that the perps would go unpunished. You wrote that you experienced "torture" in even your small-time prison. This is a very scary fact. When you associate yourself with mostly civilized individuals as I do, you sometimes begin to think that most everyone is that way... that uncivilized is a rather rare occurrence. But clearly from your perspective, it is not.

Thank you so much for sharing. I admire your ability to move beyond this troubling incident. You are what I am always talking about when people try to downplay the power of human beings to triumph. People don't give themselves enough credit by any stretch.... and statists just love to capitalize on their perceived weakness in order to keep them playing this ridiculous game. More should be made of what we overcome. That is what I plan on doing in my life. That is what Objectivism has shown me. 

*warm, fuzzy feelings replacing the angry ones...*

But I've got to hold on to some of them for tomorrow, when I return to Marxism 101. Thanks for the recommendation, Mr. Malcom!

~Nicki T.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kitten,

Don't be sore at Adam. I think he understands where you are coming from and knows you were a bit excessive because of Brother Jim. He just doesn't want to chuck out the entire trial system all at once.

To tell the truth, Jennifer hit on something very important as regards this:
If there is a danger of recidivism, the rapist, pedophile, etc. should not be out on the streets in the first place.
We put people in jail as punishment. How about the possibility of adding a new legal concept of confinement, non-punishment confinement? After punishment has been served, society could still remain free from these offenders by keeping them in an "improved" custody. That would keep them off the streets.

This is just an idea. A lot of these poor bastards know that they are sick anyway and would even welcome something like this.

Michael


Post 29

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 11:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole,

"I am going to like mulling Mike Erikson's rock climbing analogy in my head (at the moment, it's working out for me ;o)"

Thanks! One point I didn't make in my post was that I also think many human predators are "thrill seekers", also analogous to the rock climber. And I believe they cannot be rehabilitated. If the very real threat of death doesn't deter the rock climber, why do we think a child sexual predator can be deterred by anything short of death? As far as the "mob mentality" goes, I certainly don't believe anyone should go off "half cocked" on any of these issues, and there should be strong deterrents to discourage that as well. I sometimes think that if we didn't already have a jury system and someone suggested it, someone else would say "mob mentality!"

Thanks again for your feedback.

Post 30

Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This has been a very interesting sting.  I'm looking to get involved with a citizens action group in Florida advocating either life imprisonment or death for any sexual predator who is convicted of physical abuse of a minor.  Can anyone help me out?

Thanks,
Red Anjin


Post 31

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nicole, the Jews had it about half right 2.5 thousand years ago when they said "an eye for an eye." It should be "two eyes for an eye," since one party is a victim and the other party is not. So if we can double Robert's "proportionate retribution," then I think we are doing just fine.

In my book, that means that convicted pedophiles must be castrated and then spend the rest of their lives in prison with the option of death, if they wish it. If we are to have such a system of retribution, I think we also should construct a legal system that can virtually ensure that we have the right monster in hand. If it can be ascertained with near certainty that the monster did it, then goodbye to his testicles and goodbye to freedom.

The alternative is the little Jessicas of our world.

P.S. Developing a "two eyes for an eye" proportionate justice system would require a legislative process in which potential criminal actions were dissected thoughtfully and the proper justice for each was rigorously designed.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Provided, perhaps, that it is understood that 'child' properly means one who is pre-pubertant..... else is insult to the individual as a young person - regardless of how present laws are...

Post 33

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David Elmore: Who is going to pay for the life imprisonment option?

Post 34

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

It doesn't really matter all that much, does it, if it's the right thing to do? I'll help pay for it, if necessary.

But now that you mention it, I suppose private prisons could be allowed to use the criminals for labor (hard labor, preferably, in a sealed-up capitalistic enterprise) for the criminals to earn the right to eat every day. They don't work; they don't eat. The prisons can become a part of the capitalistic engine.

If we couldn't have a privately run prison network, then I'd gladly chip in for the monsters to remain behind bars -- as long as I knew they didn't have cable TV.


Post 35

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David: Ok, just as long as you were not implying that free people be forced to pay for the criminals' care free life in jail.

If jails were profitable, they wouldn't be full. Wouldn't that be nice?
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 4/25, 5:09pm)


Post 36

Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I don't think the government can force us to pay for anything. Hell, if there aren't enough of us who are rational enough to know that we have to voluntarily pay for a rational security apparatus and judicial system, then we're fucked anyway.

Oh yeah, that's where we are now.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.