Re: What I would do as a Republican leader
- From: Neolibertarian <cognac756@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:56:31 -0500
In article <Xns9C1D61C1070ABbbyfield34caravelaxy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bert Byfield <bertbyfield@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Incarceration isn't the answer for ANY offenders.
Hunh? Then what happens to serial killers when they are identified?
How about instead of incarceration, we actually employ justice?
Are you (like a libertarian would) talking about restitution?
A libertarian, or a jew. Shari'a law is also based on restitution to a
certain degree.
But not Western law.
Restitution is logical, and what's called for.
Incarcerating someone for a crime is about as ludicrous as an idea could
possibly be.
Why do so few people think it insane that some elected officials get to
decide that crime A = X years?
And why are "we" always adjusting X?
Of course crime A doesn't equal ANY number of years, let alone the
arbitrary figure decided upon in a legislative committee, composed
entirely of people whose only claim to authority is getting elected.
The idea, of course, isn't punishment, restitution or any thing that
might approximate justice.
Justice isn't even in THEIR equation.
The idea is to "get these dangerous criminals off the streets."
Perhaps this is the greatest travesty of our age.
Prisons were first built only as holding facilities, where you kept
criminals until their punishment could be carried out. Later, they were
used to hold criminals until they could be tried, and either freed or
punished.
At some point, Western civilization lost the heart to punish anyone for
anything.
Now the holding facilities, themselves, are used as a default
punishment. And, as a punishment, incarceration is either far more
punishment than the crime deserves, or less than no punishment at all.
Sometimes, maybe even often, incarceration is both.
Worst of all, there is no human dignity in incarceration.
Which, as we all know when we consider it, is why employers wish to
avoid hiring anyone who's ever been incarcerated.
It isn't just the crime they committed that makes them a liability. It's
the fact that they weren't ever held to account--just merely put in a
life destroying "time out." When released, they've been treated as
subhuman for X amount of years, and have spent hour after hour, day
after day, month after month associating with other criminals--many of
whom are there for far worse crimes than they ever dreamed of committing.
By not dealing with crime, justice, restitution--society destroys fellow
human life, and wantonly so. All in the name of convenience, avoidance,
and self righteous greed--all of which are more dangerous, in the long
run, than the fuzzy-headed greed that led to the criminal act in the
first place.
It sounds
impractical. What if they run away, again and again, from their payback
regimens, as certainly they would?
Oh come now. One needn't give them the opportunity. Free men are
smarter, stronger and more clever than criminals.
Only Mrs. Grundy fears them, or refuses to do what's necessary.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What I would do as a Republican leader
- From: Bert Byfield
- Re: What I would do as a Republican leader
- Prev by Date: I would make better justice decisions about white people because I am white
- Next by Date: Re: The Illegal Alien living in the White House
- Previous by thread: I would make better justice decisions about white people because I am white
- Next by thread: Re: What I would do as a Republican leader
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
