Most of a nation on probation?

[Paul H. Merrill]

There are two aspects which need to be considered.

1.  Rehabilitation must be a goal that is worked
toward, else we will need to give life sentences
to all participants in every bar brawl, for where
would we place the line over which one shan't
cross.

2.  Scaled punishment is necessary, else one may
as well kill as punch.  Rapists may as well kill
the victim - no witnesses, etc.

Between the two, "violent offended" becomes too
vague a grouping.

PHM

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 01:30:06PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > Yes, that's correct.  I am arguing against that collectivist viewpoint.
> > It's the individual's suffering I'm most concerned with.  I think it would
> 
> I haven't followed this discussion closely, and I am sympathetic to
> the position that far too many non-violent activities are crimes. But if
> someone is a violent offender, I don't see why we should be concerned
> at all with their "suffering" in prison.
> 
> We can argue about mandatory minimums, rehabilitation, and whether
> violent crimes should be state or federal offenses, but my instinct is
> to say I'd far rather see violent criminals behind bars than on parole.
> Right?
> 
> Or am I just going collectivist-conservative in my advancing old age?
> 
> -Declan

-- 
Paul H. Merrill, MCNE, MCSE+I, CISSP
PaulMerrill at ACM.Org