tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3440885494128921653.post6585128600322189100..comments2023-09-21T02:24:12.453-07:00Comments on Rick's Cafe 45: Prison SystemAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00391535113209714025noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3440885494128921653.post-19331742334575638142012-02-29T06:53:24.342-08:002012-02-29T06:53:24.342-08:00Great clarifications. Thanks.Great clarifications. Thanks.Heroditus Huxleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11049569750742829144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3440885494128921653.post-82192327966603005322012-02-28T21:16:50.108-08:002012-02-28T21:16:50.108-08:00To be fair - there is no way I can cover all the b...To be fair - there is no way I can cover all the bases on a blog - but since you asked :)<br /><br />Sadly we put a value on things like a human life all the time. I'm not a big fan of the death penalty, mostly because we still make too many mistakes. But since we lack an island large enough to exile them to, I suppose we're sort of stuck. I'd like to give them a choice between a bullet and a life of hard labor. Rape is harder - if there is evidence (DNA + trama) or in the case of a child - just DNA, then give the victim (or gardian) a choice between having the SOB shot, or put to hard labor until he drops dead.<br /><br />If the crime is victimless - why is it a crime? <br /><br />Granted there are a few laws like DWI - that in theory have no direct victim. However, there is a clear and direct correlation between DWI and deaths/injuries caused by drunk drivers - so I'm ok with that. If you can't show that an action either has a direct or indirect victim, or at least a high likelihood of creating a victim - why bother? Dope charges - total waste of funds. DWI nail their ass to the floor. <br /><br />There are a few crimes that in most cases don't create a victim. Trespassing for example - but I view that as a violation of rights, and I think the way we handle it now is almost adequate. I'm not sure shooting trespassers is the best approach, although there are times I think it may be the only approach. <br /><br />So for that intermediate case where society has determined the risk to others is too high (DWI) then we stick with the time penalty + paying back the cost of dealing with it. <br /><br />If your only hurting yourself and not creating a situation where your likely to cause harm to someone else (or their property), then I view it as a non-issue. <br /><br />If you look at something like suicide - I think if you make a mess that someone else has to clean up, they have first claim on any assets - to cover labor+costs, after that - I really don't care if you want to kill yourself, just leave a big tip for the folks that have to clean it up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00391535113209714025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3440885494128921653.post-24359528602865928832012-02-28T19:53:52.426-08:002012-02-28T19:53:52.426-08:00Michael Z Williamson's Freehold book featured ...Michael Z Williamson's Freehold book featured a planet where criminal offenses were punished with indenture. Of course the system also re-instituted code duello, which was handy for those cases where damage was harder to quantify.Odysseushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16710666926746925370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3440885494128921653.post-47621111104650924302012-02-28T18:44:32.518-08:002012-02-28T18:44:32.518-08:00Great idea, here--but what about non-violent offen...Great idea, here--but what about non-violent offenders where there wasn't a victim (i.e., marijuana possession busts)? or would you just like to throw those laws off the books? <br /><br />And for certain offenders (i.e., murderers and child rapists), is it even possible for them to repay their victims? Should those be capital punishment cases?Heroditus Huxleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11049569750742829144noreply@blogger.com