ruminations on court imposed punishments
Nov. 17th, 2009 09:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serynIn my search for understandable legal news, I did find Jonathan Turley's blog. It's interesting because it usually hits the highlights of what's going on courts-wise and talks about the small cases elsewhere. Just like I'd talk about minutiae of my profession (back when I still felt like I had one.)
I disagree with Turley on a lot of things when we look at lifestyle. I would never want that many children. But at least his personal views and legal views suggest he thinks children should be parented, which is usually my main problem with people who have more children than they have hands to hold them back from attacking the populace.
Today he had a discussion about shame as punishment. A while back there were these people who stole money from a 7 year old. The judge sentenced them to wear sandwich boards admitting their crime.
Turley thinks this is ineffectual and something we should have grown past as a nation.
I suppose if I think about it, when I was shamed as a child, I often felt like I should do whatever it was again since shame is permanent. If you have to feel ashamed of your behavior forever after, what's the incentive to stop doing it?
But how are we supposed to punish people? We can't imprison them for minor crimes. It's not affordable. Most people who steal do so because they don't have money, so fining them isn't effective. We don't even kill mass murderers or people who are multiple child molesters, so that's obviously not a viable solution. We think caning people or whipping them is an abomination. Various deprivations are considered torture. So how do you hold people accountable for what they did? How do you convince them NOT to keep doing it?
I don't know the answer to that, but I think people who steal less than $100 from a 7 year old child should not take up room in jails while California is letting rapists out on the street before they've served their whole sentences.
I'm also of the opinion that the California prison system is so overcrowded that incarcerating someone for 10-12 years, then releasing them into a world where they cannot get jobs, are barred from most leases, and such. That is crueler than killing them would be. People who get life sentences without parole possibilities should be given a choice to be put to death instead. And we should actually do it. A year to change their mind and evaluate appeal issues, then zap! Most murderers of children live longer on death row than their victims lived at all. That cannot be fair.
But if good people can do nothing to hold evil people to account, then everyone will be corrupted by unchecked evil. There must be punishments society can apply. Criminals who have "paid their debt to society" must have been rehabilitated in some way such that they will not turn around and go right back to doing it.
Which is my problem with the law in California that says sex offenders cannot live anywhere within 2000 feet of a church, school, park, library, or anywhere children gather. If you look at a map, that's 100% of most cities. Plus most sex offenders are people who solicited prostitutes. In backward states like Missouri and Georgia, sex offenders include people who own vibrators or other sexual toys. What does that have to do with children?
I don't see anything wrong with the people who stole from the child having to publicly admit what they did, via signs everyone could read. They didn't go to jail, they didn't have to pay fines. They should have known better, so something should happen to them.
I disagree with Turley on a lot of things when we look at lifestyle. I would never want that many children. But at least his personal views and legal views suggest he thinks children should be parented, which is usually my main problem with people who have more children than they have hands to hold them back from attacking the populace.
Today he had a discussion about shame as punishment. A while back there were these people who stole money from a 7 year old. The judge sentenced them to wear sandwich boards admitting their crime.
Turley thinks this is ineffectual and something we should have grown past as a nation.
I suppose if I think about it, when I was shamed as a child, I often felt like I should do whatever it was again since shame is permanent. If you have to feel ashamed of your behavior forever after, what's the incentive to stop doing it?
But how are we supposed to punish people? We can't imprison them for minor crimes. It's not affordable. Most people who steal do so because they don't have money, so fining them isn't effective. We don't even kill mass murderers or people who are multiple child molesters, so that's obviously not a viable solution. We think caning people or whipping them is an abomination. Various deprivations are considered torture. So how do you hold people accountable for what they did? How do you convince them NOT to keep doing it?
I don't know the answer to that, but I think people who steal less than $100 from a 7 year old child should not take up room in jails while California is letting rapists out on the street before they've served their whole sentences.
I'm also of the opinion that the California prison system is so overcrowded that incarcerating someone for 10-12 years, then releasing them into a world where they cannot get jobs, are barred from most leases, and such. That is crueler than killing them would be. People who get life sentences without parole possibilities should be given a choice to be put to death instead. And we should actually do it. A year to change their mind and evaluate appeal issues, then zap! Most murderers of children live longer on death row than their victims lived at all. That cannot be fair.
But if good people can do nothing to hold evil people to account, then everyone will be corrupted by unchecked evil. There must be punishments society can apply. Criminals who have "paid their debt to society" must have been rehabilitated in some way such that they will not turn around and go right back to doing it.
Which is my problem with the law in California that says sex offenders cannot live anywhere within 2000 feet of a church, school, park, library, or anywhere children gather. If you look at a map, that's 100% of most cities. Plus most sex offenders are people who solicited prostitutes. In backward states like Missouri and Georgia, sex offenders include people who own vibrators or other sexual toys. What does that have to do with children?
I don't see anything wrong with the people who stole from the child having to publicly admit what they did, via signs everyone could read. They didn't go to jail, they didn't have to pay fines. They should have known better, so something should happen to them.
