I started asking a "question of the day" a few weeks ago and today I want to devote an entire post on my latest. Just so you all know, these questions are there to help me. I need a lot of help. I really do want to know what you think the answer to these questions are. You can answer them...please answer them! They have started e-mail discussions (if you don't want to put an answer in the comment section just e-mail me), discussions at girls night, and Corbie and Kelly seem to be the only people willing to comment in public! So this last one (see to the right) was my question of the day because it was said on American Justice or maybe it was Cold Case Files, which is a part of our daily routine, and Jeremy and I both had to really think about it. I usually don't know the answer to these questions, that is why I ask all of you smart people and hope I can find it! Of course Jer and I both said it would have to depend on the crime. I also think that if the innocent person were my mom, husband or child, the number of guilty criminals would be in the range of ....countless! I do believe it is better that guilty people are being let go than to have an innocent person sit in jail for the rest of their lives. However given the ratio of 1 to 10, my opinion is it would definitely have to be more like 100 or more guilty let go free to the 1 wrongly accused. 10 innocent people rotting to 100 in the wrong walking free is too many innocent. I think there are many instances where a guilty criminal would actually NOT repeat the crime (not true with child molesters) so I feel like if those were the 100 criminals to 1 innocent stranger, this would be a more fair statement to me! Even still, I feel heartbroken for the 1 innocent stranger who has to suck it up (as Corbie put it)! It's impossible to get it 100% right. I know this question does point out that our judicial system is flawed and because of this 1 to 10 way of thinking there are many guilty murderers, or other criminals who get off because they just don't have the evidence to show ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’, and ‘our system’ can not send a possibly innocent person to prison, they would rather a guilty man be set free. This is where it's hard for me when a murderer goes home and my brother does his time. Does it seem right? So my latest "question of the day" sparked this e-mail along with a comment from Corbie (see previous comment section), and I have to share (thanks Tristan), and also ask for more opinions. I would love to hear from my CSI friend, and you know who you are!
"Wow...what prompted this most recent question? I love debating the law and the benefits and inadequacies of our justice system.
To answer your question, I don't have an answer. There are times, particularly when I've seen or heard a story about violent crime that I think it would be better for one innocent person to be imprisoned than 10 guilty men go free. But then I think how I'd feel if that one innocent person was Steve or someone else I love and I can't bear the thought.
I think your question brings to light the bigger issue, which is how effective is our judicial system? Does our system actually reform criminals? Is it equitable? I'm all a part of having drug dealers imprisoned, but when a small-time pot dealer is getting more time than a convicted rapist, I have a problem with that. But then again, in my mind, the answer to the rapist is clear-cut...castrate the a**hole! Sorry...my potty-mouth is my least redeeming quality. Likewise, I believe in the death penalty, assuming that there is adequate and convincing evidence, like DNA, that the person is guilty. I have more faith now that there are more scientific methods of examining a case. That being said, there is also more potential for abuse. It is possible to 'plant' evidence in some circumstances. Mark Fuhrman, anyone? And not that I am suggesting communism as an answer, but if you examine the more extreme methods used in countries like China, they clearly have far fewer instances of crime despite having a much larger population. While I don't endorse their methods, I do believe that a system that imposes harsher penalties would be more effective in dissuading some offenders from criminal behavior.
I also think our system needs to seriously reexamine how we deal with repeat, violent offenders. We have a 3-strikes-you're-out policy for lesser felony offenses, but often release murderers and rapists only to have them repeat their behavior. In some cases, I feel that we need to find the money to institutionalize mentally ill offenders. Unfortunately, as much as we'd like to believe that the people capable of committing these types of crimes are insane, they are not. And it is these cases that, for me at least, require change. So much of our judicial resources are sucked up by our endless appeals process. Again, this system has its place, and if my loved one were convicted, I'd want the security of knowing that they had adequate opportunity to plead their case. But 'adequate' does not mean 50 years on death row. "
It's amazing how many times Tristan has answered my questions with so many of my own thoughts. She answers every single one. I agree with both of her and Corbie's answers, that the system is flawed and needs to be changed. The three strikes your out policy for lesser felony offenses sent my own little brother to prison when he was still a kid. His first offense was a violent crime, and the next two were not. However, because of the 3 strikes the first came back as #1. He has unfortunately come away from prison a more refined criminal and I wholeheartedly believe there was a better option than prison for him. 'The system' failed my brother, not that he couldn't have chosen differently, but if you are incarcerated your options are limited. Now he's a different man because of it, and it makes me mad, mad at him and those who put him there.
Tomorrow, I'll ask a more trivial question...today think about this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Okay, given your readers, I think it is safe to assume I will be standing on my own here but, alas, I often find that to be the case. I will answer your question (you know I cannot resist these) and put in my two cents worth. Tristan and I have known each other a long time and sat through enough classroom debates to be able to politely disagree...this will be one of those instances. Many questions were asked in your post...I would like answer a specific one and, in doing so, address Tristan's thoughts.
I do not agree that harsher punishments are the answer, however tempting as it is to fry the a**hole as she put it (I, of course, would have spelled it out :). While some evidence shows that the death penalty deters crime, an equal amount of evidence shows that it does not. The facts being debatable then, I am left to use my own logic. I am left to ponder whether a person who is irrational enough to kill a child (or several), rape a woman (though the Supreme Court recently adjudicated that capital punishment for rape is unlawful), or any one of a number of unthinkable crimes, would actually be rational enough to be deterred by the death penalty. My answer is 'no'. If you have succumbed to the depths of hell such that you value human life so little, I highly doubt you are weighing the pros and cons of law and order.
Other negatives to harsher punishments for criminals, particularly the death penalty? 1) The proven fact that immediately following the execution of an inmate, violent crimes actually increase measurably in the areas surrounding the execution. It is as if the public is reacting accordingly to a state that does not value human life itself. 2) The simple mathematical fact that it is many times more costly to allow people to be represented by counsel and go through the appeals process leading up to their execution than to simply house them for life without parole. While certainly we would not want to deny someone the chance to prove their innocence via appeals, it is worth noting that the greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences. 3) The margin of error. The death penalty is carried out almost always with a racist hand. A 1998 study of the city of Philadelphia found that, even after making allowances for case differences, the odds of receiving a death sentence in Philadelphia are nearly four times higher if the defendant is African-American - this type of disparity is true in all 50 states. And this fact only addresses the race of the perpetrator...not the possiblity that said perpetrator may actually be innocent.
I think the answers to our judicial and criminal issues lie in education, education, education...which tends to be the answer to many of society's ills. Educate parents on how to raise emotionally healthy children. Educate children on how to become contributing and productive adults. Educate criminals on ways to acclimate into a productive society upon release. And for those who cannot be rehabilitated, and to be certain there are plenty, incarcerate them for their natural life and let He who gave life be He who decides to take it away.
As I finished up my political science degree, I wrote my final paper on the death penalty and happened to still have a copy of it in my filing cabinet. My final paragraph was as follows...and I still hold it to be true:
State-sanctioned murder is murder nonetheless. The taking of a life is irreversible and far too much power to give to bureaucrats. We have had 5000 years of human civilization to establish the fact that governments will, sooner or later, abuse power. In this time we have seen the death of Jesus Christ, the death of 6 million Jews, and countless other atrocities – all under the legitimate authority of the state. Government officials are, at best, human, and therefore prone to error, and, at worst, corrupt. It is irrational to extend any power to bureaucrats that cannot easily be reversed, and giving bureaucrats the right to kill puts us all at an increased risk. Indeed, at different points in history being Jewish, being homosexual, practicing ‘witchcraft’ all have been punishable by death - when governments have the right to dictate which lives are worth sparing, it is impossible to know when any one of us may find that it is our religion, our skin color, or our practices which constitute capital offenses.
Okay, let me brace myself while you guys aim and fire at me...:)
Love and peace,
Corbie
When Robyn asks her 'Question of the Day' more often than not, I end up sending her an agonizingly long response. While Rob asked my permission to post my response, I did not know that this would be the case when I wrote it. Thus, some of the points I made were less clear than they could have been and this decision was made in the interest of sparing Robyn yet another of my diatribes. So now I would just like to clarify some of my thoughts.
When I spoke of harsher punishment, I wasn't thinking of just the death penalty or castrating sex offenders. I envisioned in my mind the row of prisoners chainded together in the middle of nowhere on work detail. This, as opposed to the relative comfort of a prison with tv privelages, free college education etc. Now before you freak out, Corbie, I'm not saying that there aren't circumstances where education plays a key role in rehabilition. Nevertheless, it frustrates me that so many law abiding citizens are not given the same opportunity. And thus change is required on many fronts, not just the justice system. And your suggesion of educating parents and children before they have an opportunity to committ a crime is a plan that I support wholeheartedly. While in college I did research on welfare reform. I came away from that experience having changed my attitude completely on the subject. I am an absolute supporter of helping lower income families break the cycle of poverty by providing whatever resources necessary to provide a college education and work skills, as well as needed child-care and additional monetary support to make this possible. It is my belief that these early intervention programs are the ones that will help prevent the circumstances that tend to breed criminal activity.
Corbie's point about justice being carried out with a racist hand has some merit. This is one of the reasons that I embrace scientific develpments that offer more conclusive proof of guilt or innocence. While there is still room for human error, or even corruption, I sincerely hope that as time goes on there are greater safeguards put into place to drastically reduce these occurances. I suppose it would be idealistic to hope that they could be eliminated all together, but it is a goal worth working toward.
I agree that we need more scientific methods to guard against cases of wrongly convicted individuals but, even with the best of science, where humans are involved the possibility will always exist that the wrong man will be put to death. To this end, I answer my own question that I posted previously (you know the one that is totally out of place under all of Robyn's adorable family photos)...I can absolutely not accept that even one man be put to death who is innocent. I do not care what the ratio nor do I care the number of hypothetical crimes it deters...an innocent man killed by the state in the name of law and order is a reality I cannot accept.
Though he likely intended it to be used on a more global scale, this Benjamin Franklin quote seems to apply here:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Meaning, there are risks in life...risks that we (or worse, one of our loved ones) will be the victims of crime, risks that letting certain men go free will pose a heightened risk to society. However, I think we have to take these risks as part of the cost/benefit analysis of liberty...I would rather a guilty, even violent, man go free than run the risk of executing an innocent man. For this reason, and the inherent fallibility of humans, I stand opposed to the death penalty.
As for your take on prisoners receiving perks that are not available to society at large, I say that ANY day on the outside, be it a struggling, miserable, hard-fought day, trumps any day on the inside, hands down. And this is the beauty of freedom...both personal and on a global scale.
And, as Robyn has alluded to, what goes on inside those prisons often creates monsters out of lost men, criminals out of confused souls. Anything that we can do to steer them in a healthier direction is good by me because the reality is that the majority of them will get out...be it in 5 months or 5 years...and when that day comes, I want to say that we did all we could.
Is is fair that they get access to resources that many on the outside do not? Certainly not...but as my grandma always said...the fair only comes once a year and it is in September...:)
Hugs,
Corbie
Corb,
Part of me understands where you are coming from, but the other wonders how you'd feel if one of those guilty men set free raped or murdered your child. And while you can speculate on that, and I suspect you'll stand by your original answer, it is a situation that one can't accurately evaluate until they've actually experienced it.
And I suspect the homeless population might disagree with you on how great their freedom is right at the moment. The one room Hilton (a quote from 'Shawshank Redemption') where 3 meals a day are served might actually seem like a step up, but I'm just playing the devil's advocate at this point.
This is the nature of life, however...one cannot speculate on how they would feel if their child was the victim any more than one can speculate on how they would feel if their innocent child were lying on the gurney waiting to be put to death. See, again, these are the risks of freedom...beautiful, wonderful, painful risks.
What you are talking about when you mention the feeling a mother would have if their child was the victim of a homicide is very separate from state-sponsored homicide. See, the fact remains that I come from arms-bearing, proudly gun-toting stock. In addition, I am well-known for being hot-tempered and unpredictable. Would I want to kill someone who harmed my chld? You bet your ass I would...and several members of my family may actually do it. But this is retaliation and vigilante justice carried out by the hand of an irrational human. Which is exactly my point. State sponsored justice is supposed to be blind. It is supposed to be rational. It is supposed to be 'fair'. Citing the feelings of a distraught mother on either side of the debate does not create any other reality for me.
One very important point that I have failed to mention is this: whether our justice system suceeds or fails in this life, I do, with absolute faith believe in eternal justice. So while a guilty man may go free, or an innocent man may be imprisoned or even put to death, I have no doubt that both will get the punishment or reward they deserve in the afterlife. And that being the case (if one subscribes to my beliefs) I also feel strongly that the most important thing we can do in this life is help the victim.
But we cannot impose yours (or anyone's) religious or spiritual views on anyone. There are those, a large portion of society in fact, who do not believe in your version of the after-life. For these people, this is all they get...one chance at life. This being the case, I do not believe we can run the risk of robbing any innocent person of their 'once chance at life' if that is their belief system. Of course, victims need as much support as can be given them in every way shape or form. But alleged perpetrators need their own set of protections (as do convicted perpetrators), as we never know when we may find that they are innocent after all.
I won't even touch the whole argument that perhaps today's perpetrators are yesterday's victims because that is another bottle of wine altogether (or Diet Coke :).
First, I agree with both of you. Education is key and raising children in a proper environment. A life of crime can and will always be traced to failure in the home.
However, it still stands that the consequences for crimes need to be higher. A person can rape and murder a child and serve a short 2 year sentence only to be released and repeat the offense.
In my opinion the death penalty is a joke. Not because it is there, but because a person can be convicted of the most heinous crime and sit on death row for 50 years with appeal after appeal and never have the punishment given to them that they knew FULL WELL would happen before committing the crime. Yes, I do believe that if punishment, including the death penalty, was acted upon quicker once a person is found guilty, those thinking of committing equal crimes would fear the consequences. Right now, there is no fear of that. There is no punishment for the actions that thieves and murderers commit.
Since I work in the world of statistics, saying that crime escalates because of the death penalty is a little misconstrued. Case in point, the Rodney King beatings back in the 90's. If we look at the violence that followed the court case and came to a similar assumption, we could then say the following 2 points are true:
1) Cops are never innocent.
2) Blacks are always innocent victims.
My point is that when we give statistics to a company we work for, we make those statistics ALWAYS look in favor of the company to please them. By removing certain elements or only stating certain views of statistics, it's very easy to slide an opinion one way or another. That is really the whole point of statistics.
I'll have to disagree with Corbie on the point that any miserable day outside of prison is better than a day inside. After watching interviews with prisoners actually stating that prison life was much better that life on the streets, and continued to repeat crimes so they would stay in prison, I changed my viewpoint on this. The fact that they can make more money hustling and selling drugs inside prison as well as get 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep on and exercise equipment is a joke.
I may be alone on this, but in all honesty, if my innocent life should be taken to remove even 1 person who could be guilty of a crime that would save 10 people, then so be it.
I'm not trying to impose my spiritual or religious views on anyone. Just as I am infinitely grateful for my right to believe as I do, I respect everyone else's right to do the same. I simply meant to express that my belief system does in fact bring me some measure of peace on the subject. When I took business law in college, my professor wonderfully illustrated how impossible it is to write a law that will serve justice in every possible circumstance. No justice system in any country will ever be able to achieve this. So no matter how hard we try, the sad fact is that some guilty men will walk free, or if they are punished, it will not be proportional to the crime. And likewise, innocent men will be punished unfairly.
And I agree that often yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators, though I fear I am going to have to take up drinking if we go down that road. Let's spare Robyn and all of her poor readers that drama and save it for one of our marathon e-mail sessions at 2:00 in the morning :)
Yes, Ammon, lover of mayo and turkey, you are correct that statistics can be construed to fit nearly any one person's argument. Hence, my statement that, where these numbers are debatable, I am left to use my own logic. My logic says that we should save taxpayer money and simply lock these people up for life without parole. This not only saves taxpayer money, it eliminates the chance that we execute an innocent man, it shows our posterity that we value all human life, and accomplishes a myriad of other things that capital punishment does not. The ONLY thing that it does not accomplish that capital punishment does is retribution. In this regard, I can understand people wanting to execute prisoners - as stated above, I am not above this line of reasoning. However, I simply do not think it is the job of the state to play this role.
As for harsher punishments in general, outside of the death penalty I am not necessarily opposed. If the death penalty were abolished, I would not care if child rapists got an automatic life without parole. I am not soft on crime...I am simply soft on state-sponsored homicide. There are certain types of criminals, child rapists being in this category, for which rehabilitation is unlikely if not impossible. So up the ante for crimes, particularly violent ones, and remove all prisoners from death row.
I have no doubt Ammon that you are courageous and honorable and that you mean every word you say about being willing to lay down your life if it means protecting others from harm. You exude this kind of strength from every pore...and I mean this sincerely and would not throw around that kind of flattery lightly. However, I do not think that the state can choose this for any man...this type of honor or sacrifice must be the choice of the individual.
One more thing...you mentioned the prisoners on TV who say that life in prison is better than life on the streets. While you have indicated your feelings that statistics are easily biased toward the person doing the arguing, certainly you would not prefer this type of anecdotal evidence as proof positive either, right? For every one person on TV saying that jail 'rocks', there are another hundred attempting to escape through a wall with a stolen butter knife....okay, I made up that numeric statistic but you get the point...anecdotal evidence is inferior to even the already pathetic statistical evidence.
Tristan - I suppose the way that I see it is that, as your professor stated, "how impossible it is to write a law that will serve justice in every possible circumstance" - of course this is true. The fact remains, however, that life in prison without parole accomplishes nearly all of what society claims to want - lower tax bill, criminals off the street, safe society with consequences for criminal actions, etc. Again, the ONLY thing it does not accomplish is good old-fashioned revenge and I do not think it is the job of the state to engage in this. I actually respect people who simply say that what they want is a good olf-fashioned ass-whoopin rather than those who try to cite statistics and facts. The truth is, none of the facts support the death penalty so simply call it what it is...the ultimate form of retribution. While I don't agree with this logic, at least I can respect the honesty of it.
Also, as far as all laws not being able to serve justice in every instance (my original argument before I lowered myself to using the phrase 'ass-whoopin'), while this is true, the fact remains then that laws should seek to serve the majority, and to do the most good while doing the least harm. To this end, saving taxpayer money, providing some relief to victims, incarcerating offenders for life, protecting society, and still eliminating the possiblity that, God forbid, one of my sons or your sons is wrongly executed, all seems to outweigh a little additional revenge on behalf of the victim or the state.
corbie - It is because of my love for mayo and turkey that I am like that. I guess the real question is would I be willing to sacrifice my child to save others? Would I be willing to do it for 1 person? For 10? 1000? Spock was very right about one thing: The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Yes, I believe that. And my decisions in my life are based upon that very thing. It all comes down to what I believe 'the needs of the many' are.
I completely understand and agree that no state or person should be able to control whether a person lives or dies. But I see this in a different way. We have a death penalty that is given to those who commit certain types of murders. If I, knowing full well about the death penalty, go and commit a murder that would give me such punishment; who has now made the decision whether I live or die? I have. I made the conscious choice knowing full well that my actions may constitute the death penalty. To me it is no different than sticking my hand in the fire. I KNOW the consequences. I KNOW what can and will happen. But I do it anyway and I get burnt. Is this the fault of the fire? No, it is mine.
The problem that I see is that strangely, people are able to hold their hand in the fire without getting burnt. For some reason that fire is not hot. There is no consequence for this action anymore. The real question that I see is if I see 5 people before me put their hand in the fire and receive pain and unpleasant feelings, would I still do it?
Are other peoples experiences enough to deter me from making an unwise choice.
I absolutely agree that those that choose the prison life and want to stay there could very well be a minority. The problem I see with the prison system is that is technically a rehab center. A place for those who commit crimes go to so that they might learn to turn away from that lifestyle and come back to society a changed person. But as you stated, prison only makes one worse.
If it is going to be treated as a punishment facility, then remove the weights, the exercise equipment, the televisions, the ability to have the same rights we have due to the fact that they are there because they lost certain rights and privileges.
If it is truly a place to learn and grow and become a better person, then by all means, make the environment match the practice.
Corb,
I am well aware of the financial statistics of the death penalty and the fact that it is more expensive to carry out that punishment than it is to imprison them for life so I can understand your logic on that point, even if I don't necessarily agree. And from previous conversations we've had, there is no question that I generally support retribution, if that is what you want to call it. But assuming we decide that saving the taxpayers money contributes to the greater good this is where the harsher punishment comes in. If we agree that they should be imprisoned for life, it should not be in relative luxury, and please note my use of the word 'relative.' This is where my 'chain gang' suggestion comes into play. While I'm not suggesting inhumanity here, there would be no benefit to providing education if the criminals will not be returned to the street. And if their crime warrants life imprisonment, I don't think they should spend it watching cable TV or working out so they can beat up their fellow inmates. Put them to work in a way that has some hope of deterring others from making the same choices and provides a serice to the community.
Spammon:
Your comments are why I believe in the death penalty. If our nation taught personal accountability, this country would be a much better place!
I see your point, Ammon, as surely you see mine. I think we are actually arguing two different issues. You are looking at the criminal who, as you correctly stated, is the one who made the decision to commit the crime (though true liberals would debate this truth based on upbringing and whatnot...I will not take that approach). I agree with you on these points - I am a firm believer in accountability and that we are always at choice.
My point, however, does not relate to the perpetrator at all. If a man commits a heinous murder or any other unspeakable crime, I no longer give a rat's ass about him. Meaning, my focus is no longer on him, either good or bad. Lock him up - throw away the key. My focus is on society at large...does any good come from executing people? You see, it is society who deserves our efforts, not the vile prisoner. As I see it, society benefits by NOT executing him. We save money, we show that we value human life, we eliminate the risk that we kill an innocent man.
So, as I see it, and following your own logic, my argument actually supports the greater good, a point you said you value. The only thing that killing a man does is kill the man. One person. One vile human being. And all the while, it costs society more money, it dehumanizes us to nearly the criminal's level, and it puts the executioner in a position to quite possibly wind up taking an innocent life.
Again, I see that I am protecting the legitimate greater good.
And forgive me that I have posted more than anyone else but since I am the only one arguing this side, I am having to do twice the work :).
Corb, I just finished reading the last comment and watching your back would be best.
Ammon is a great debator, and now he has met his match!
And I forgot to mention, he is one of the arms-bearing, proudly gun-toting stock you spoke of. :)
Although, I bet you could have guessed that yourself.
Linds:
What if I belly up to a big fat juicy steak? Do you think I can win him back that way? Robyn's husband makes a take-no-prisoner-tasty hotdog (so I hear at least). How about that kind of personal sacrifice? Will he like me then?
And yes, I already guessed that...though I saw the Bob Marley truck of yore and it was distinctly missing the visible gun rack...my relatives still have him beat.
And I did mean 'yore' as in 'days of yore' not 'your' as in 'yours'.
You are a fast learner, meat is the way to Spam's heart (real meat, not canned). I'm guessing he'd want you to devour a bloody rare piece too, in order for his complete forgiveness.
As for the take-no-prisoner hot dog, sign me up!
I see exactly what you are saying. And I think that is where I was going with when I said
'The real question that I see is if I see 5 people before me put their hand in the fire and receive pain and unpleasant feelings, would I still do it?'
Back in my teenage days, I used to shoplift. A lot. It became a habit because quite frankly, I never got caught. My friend and I stole everything from CD's, clothing to thousand dollar watches because we had no consequence. That is until one day my friend was busted and had to serve the night in jail. His parents found out and had to come get him and the results were not pretty. Now I was not caught, but I witnessed his ordeal. Because of that, I completely stopped doing it. Part of it was fear of jail, the other was I knew what my parents would do if I got caught. Once my friend went down, I knew I was going to be next.
Does society benefit by eliminating a person who no longer has anything to do with them? I believe the answer is yes. I believe that if those who are thinking of committing murders see consequences come forth to those before them, even if it turns 1 person away from murdering another, that is one person saved at the cost of a person who has already taken lives.
And offering a steak is uncalled for. Let's keep this fair.
Aint nothing like showing up late to a party!
Corbie recently stated that the two of us don't exactly see "eye to eye" on issues, not so much the case here. Now while I do not oppose the death penalty (I strongly believe in the principle of justice, that was not really the question. Props to Corbie for not only being educated on rugby, but for the reference to my city in her final paper. Philadelphia has slapped me in the face with this issue numerous times…but I digress.
a utilitarian would argue that the ratio of ten to one, favors the greater good and therefore society would be urged to act in the direction of sacrificing the one.
Reality is that the areas where the system is broken do not shake out evenly across society. What generally happens is the poor and minorities are consistently the ones sacrificed. The introduction of DNA evidence has released hundreds in Texas alone, the extreme majority of those being black men. Now that is not to say a black man may not have been the true criminal, but when dealing with minorities the criminal justice system errs at a disproportional rate, catching the wrong one.
Harsher penalties do no real good unless you are consistently catching and punishing the actual perpetrator.
A just judicial system is not designed around economy but around fairness. There does not need to be a trade off. Just because something is, does not mean it must be (how’s that for rhetorical?).
When the one sacrificed comes from the same group every time, that group becomes disenchanted with the system and either fights to change it, or works outside it. That is what is happening to us now.
As for castration, I'm all for it, as long as we know its the right guy.
(I just realized this seems to be an estrogen charged response board... I should cool it with the castration reff)
Okay, so your view is that executing prisoners is a deterrent to crime, right? So, here is how I see it - neither right nor wrong - just my take. As I stated above, those who are so evil and so vile that they would take another life deliberately and premeditatively (usually conditions for execution), they probably are not exactly playing with a full deck anyhow. Take Bundy or Dahmer or any of these un-human humans. I cannot imagine a reality where they would sit there and think to themselves, "maybe I won't kill this seventh victim lest I get caught and killed". A moot point perhaps but one that I had to make.
Now, take the rest of 'normal' society. This would include you in your shoplifting days (hats off for that admission by the way - I love a 'real' person). The reality, as I see it, is that these 'normal' people will be deterred by life in prison just as easily as they are deterred by the death penalty. In fact, I would prefer to be killed then to live out my days in prison. Just like you were deterred by a punishment that stopped shy of the 'worst' possible scenario (i.e. you being caught yourself was a real possibility but not a necessary one), the punishment of your friend was sufficient to stop you. Because you, my friend, are a normal person with a normal level of morality. I would argue this to be the case for most of society. Life in prison is sufficient to deter them from committing capital crimes (if their conscience is not already sufficient).
So, I guess my point to put it in terms you can appreciate, why use a cannon when a rifle will do? Especially when, following the weaponry metaphor, the cannon stands to do so much additional harm?
I do know I stand alone here...though hats off Ammon on the debating skills...an artist and an academic...Porter has impressive genes from both sides.
Hey Brohammas! Didn't realize you had jumped in! Though my entry is placed just below yours, I was addressing Ammon's response just above. Welcome! And as for castration, if I had a pair, it would be mine being taken off.
Brohammas:
I hate to turn it into a race issue but, as you can see from my original post above, it inherently is one. After over twenty years of blind faith in capital punishment – a span of time in which he repeatedly supported the death penalty in landmark decisions such as Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia, – Justice Harry Blackmun, in what would end up being his last case, decided against capital punishment in Callins v. Collins. Justice Blackmun wrote a 7,000-word dissent, perhaps his most famous opinion ever, stating,
“From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored…along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the Court’s delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self evident to me now that no combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies.”
Amen Justice Harry Blackmun
Hey Robyn -
Tomorrow, how about you float the idea of bunny vs. vagina. It gets just as many posts and no one will be trying to castrate my metaphorical balls.
Kisses,
Corbie
I don't have a whole lot of experience in the civilian legal system, but I was a paralegal in the military (as a Reservist). It is an extremely detailed thing. The punishment fit the crime, innocents being damned can happen, but are rare. Scientific means are used probably more often than in the civilian world.
I participated in a couple of horrid Military Justice cases (murder and rape), and can unequivocally say that the punishment wasn't strict enough. Life in prison, no parole, and Leavenworth is certainly not a piece of cake. The part of it that is wonderful, at least from a taxpayer's POV? No free education, no free cable, no free this and that. Just hard time on a very strict military schedule. It's like living the rest of your life in boot camp.
That said, the people that I saw go to trial were the ones who had lax discipline growing up, were allowed too much freedom at very young age, were never "guilty" in their parent's eyes. They got away with everything when they were young. There were those who had minor infractions were brought up in a very good home, but the operative word is "minor." And they admitted guilt. They never did it again. If they spent any time in the Brig, they knew it sucked and never wished to see those walls again.
There are those out there who will commit a/the crime again simply to get back into the prison system. They can't assimilate into the real world again. Prison provides a structured environment AND they get the aforementioned free stuff. It's not an easy life, but it's easier for them than freedom is. But it's expensive for us and provides for the overpopulation problem that causes those who probably shouldn't be released to be let out onto the streets. It's a vicious cycle that never seems to end.
Sexual predators are a totally different genre. I don't believe they can be rehabilitated, and I believe we are entirely too easy on them. They are the type who should just have the key tossed and be forgotten about. My own opinion, but...
I'm not sure if any of this makes sense...that's a rare thing for me. But it's an interesting subject!! Okay, back to reading....
Talk up about show up late to your own party!! I posted this morning and left for a dang root canal, and come home to this! I love it!
I just don't know where to jump in!
I feel like I have to thank Spammon (and welcome everyone from Corb's blog), because I agree with him on just about everything, and he is a fine debator, much more than myself! Corbie however, has thrown in some punches that would make my mother proud! This is why I ask these questions so that the more educated, can teach me a thing or two.
Spammon, please come over for a J-Dog...you will love!
I disagree with Justice Harry Blackmun that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is the justice system itself that has failed.
We allow rapists and murderers to be expunged of crimes because of technicalities in the wording of the law. They are given the least amount of punishment because their lawyer cost more money.
Yes, as Denise stated, it all starts at home. The problem is that it continues in society. We let people get away with crimes with a slap on the wrist. Yes I support the death penalty. But even if it was done away with, I will support whatever they decree is the worst penalty for these people who commit those types of crimes. What I want is fair punishment and a justice system that follows through with it.
robyn and corbie - You had me at hot dog.
Finally Spammon, a point where we can agree (though let us not forget that I have thrown all kinds of uncharacteristically nice commnts your way) - it is the justice system that has failed. Make harsh punishments, particularly for violent offenders, follow through on those punishments, and hold people accountable. See, it is true that people are more alike than they ever realize - take away the death penalty and you and I are like twins. Except you are German-Samoan and I am a red-headed Heinz 57. Oh and you like meat and it makes me gag. Oh and you shave your arms and mine are hairy (somehow that seems backwards).
Thanks for the good debate Spammy - who knows? Maybe tomorrow I will eat a lamb chop just to see another point of view - and to see if it tastes like chicken :)
I, much to my surprise and dismay, have to disagree with Spammon on the issue of technicalities. Yes some people will get off too lightly or with no punishment at all because someone made a mistake. But without the safeguards, corruption would be rampant and we need to have these checks and balances in place. Otherwise, our basic rights, both of the innocent and guilty, would be violated.
And, Brohammas, I will gladly accept any support on the castration issue :)
Why thanks Corbie. Your words are too kind. I guess you are right, we are quite similar except for the few points you shared. Even though I thought you were going to take care of the arm hair. You are a worthy adversary. Let's just make it clear that I am a Master Debater. And that's all.
It's also interesting that you say you are going to try a lamb chop as if they were readily available for you.
Nice Tristan! I little liberalism from the staunch conservative :). I agree with you here. We must have stops in place to protect all of society, lest we ever find ourselves on the side needing protection. As you know, Tristan, I always converse in quotes - Wendell Phillips said that "Governments exist to protect the rights of the minoriites" and Albert Camus (probably plagiarizing from the good Wendell or vice versa :) said that "Democracy is not the law of the majority but the protection of the minority". We must protect the weakest of our citizenry (the accused, the poverty-stricken, those without adequate representation) or we are living in a house of cards.
Spammon - you lost me at the Master Debater comment. Remove the "D" and the subsequent "E" and I will agree. You admit that I am brilliant and charming and on so fun to have as a worthy adversary and I will take away the self-gratification label I gave you above. You should stop doing that, by the way - you will go blind.
And it is readily available to me...I have a friend who golf's naked and your wife who told me that if we went to prison she would protect me (remember the ecard I sent you?) but that your anus was on its own. And they are both smokin hot. Okay, I will stop now. Really, someone should have stopped me several sentences ago.
tristan - Let me explain my technicalities. It's not the safeguards that I am concerned about. By all means, use them. It's when a drunk driver who has killed someone is let off the hook because technically, it's the beer's fault not his. Because if the beer didn't taste so good, he would have only had 1 beer and would not have killed the family he t-boned. Because the comma in that sentence that says that drunk drivers will be convicted of negligent homicide is technically in the wrong place and so he can't be convicted because the punctuation is wrong. It's the lawyers that find technicalities and twist the cause of the guilty so they are let off the hook. These are the things that I am against. I am against avoiding the crime in court and focusing on technicalities in wording, NOT the crime.
Hey look! It's some of my favorite opinionated people from days of yore! Thanks for the invites, Tristan and Corbie!
For what it's worth, the state has no place acting as murdered. And judges, juries, and law enforcers make mistakes - sometimes on purpose. The older I get, the more corruption I see, the less I want anything to be permanent, certainly anything enforced by state governments.
The number of people exonerated of crimes here in Texas is frightening. Nevertheless, DNA evidence is not infallible. Under controlled, laboratory conditions, there are almost no mistakes. In the real world, I dare say there are still many.
And by 'on so fun', I meant 'oh so fun'
Welcome Claudia! Spammon, for the record, there is no one I would rather have a lengthy political discussion with than this woman (though you now hold the very close second title and are gaining on her with your inapproriate references and snide inside jokes). Claudia and I have had many equally charge exchanges and I am always better for it. Happy to see you Claud! And to see that we are on the same page on a charged topic - rare, huh?
This will easily be a discussion another time...but as I agree the government should protect all, including the poor, there are those who take advantage of the government and use it to their advantage. As I stated in my blog post about tolerance, a single person, a minority amongst thousands, can and WILL take the rights away from those people because they do not know or practice the word tolerance themselves.
Spammon:
I guess the technicalities I was speaking of were of the 'gung-ho cop with a hunch executing a search without a warrant' variety to which I am violently opposed. To your credit, however, there are plenty of high paid attorneys who twist the law. Just so you know, drunk driving is one of my biggest pet peeves because of the accountability issue. If one chooses to drink, then take the responsibility to plan ahead, designate a driver, surrender you keys, whatever, long before you are in a compromised state and can't make a rational decision regardless of how good the beer tasted.
No, no, no...Master(de)bater. It is the very protection of that one obnoxious, whiny, pathetic little minority who is demanding 'tolerance' for his bizarre agenda that guarantees right to the majority. For, we never know when we will find ourselves on the other side of the fence, a newly appointed 'minority', and suddenly grateful that we protected another when they needed protecting.
Congrats, Rob!
I think you now hold the record for most responses to a single post!
corbie - Ah see? That undermines the whole meaning of tolerance. Tolerance is letting people believe and practice what they want. When a minority comes in and says 'I don't believe in God' and then the school says 'nobody can sing songs with the word god in it', that has just taken away my right to sign what I want to sing for the minority. True tolerance is the minority letting people sing what they want to sing and learning to NOT be offended.
And Corbie, as for the (de)Bater comment, it's not the blindness, it's the hairy palms. And now you know why I shave.
I also informed Lindsey of your desire to try her lamb chops.
Spammy:
You have probably headed home from work but, after eating your/my lamb-chops, please read this and know that we are on the same page to a large degree. I am speaking of the type of tolerance that you speak...though I may take it even one step further...let whomever, wherever, do whatever, so long as it doesn't measurably harm another. So, yes, that person should allow you to sing any song about God that you want...but you, as a member of the majority, should make sure that you afford the minority the same protections so that your rights are maintained when you are no longer in the 51%. Life has always been about compromise, about give and take, and so long as the majority protects the minority, I see no reason for the majority to have to give up their own liberties either.
corbie - I work from home on Wednesdays. I absolutely agree. It should always be about not causing harm to others. The problem is that there are people out there looking to be harmed so that they can shout their minority voice and take away mine. It's so bad now that in all reality, minorities have a bigger say now due to the groups and laws that are there to protect them. I am not against protecting them, but I am when it eliminates my rights of freedom. Nobody told that girl she had to sing the song. Nobody would have cared if she decided not to sing the song. But she took it upon herself to take away the rights of others to satisfy her own.
Spammon - then you should start the German-Samoan naked dancing troupe and insist on doing said activity only in public places. It really is the only way to meet fire with fire and, if they try to stop you, I'm sure the two of us can debate them to death.
You mean that on Wednesdays, Porter has to eat three square meals of red meat? I'm calling child protective services.
Other than a few 'bunny' comments, this has been very educational, so much so, I think I might have to let my 12 year old read these comments and let him decide for himself what he thinks. He was just a part of the State Science Fair because of his project on DNA, and how crimes are solved. Funny that the reason he was so interested was that he read about a man who was wrongly accused of a murder, and put to death. Later to find out through DNA evidence that he was innocent. (along with his father's obsession with forensic files) He wanted to find out how something like that could happen. Hopefully one day he will have a hand in figuring out something to help 'the system'!
I needed the fun, after the shots in my mouth...thanks!
Not that the bunny comments weren't educational, just not something I want to teach Alec right now!
Wow step away from the computer for a minute and you miss everything.
It seems Corbie and Spammon are now buddy buddy when I came here looking for a fight.
Its now not just showing up late for the party, but showing up so late that everyone is passed out except the angry drunks, and they are looking for a fight because all the girls have passed out or left...so here goes.
Democracy is not about protecting the minority. Democracy is about preserving the individuals right to participate in their own governance. This is done by protecting the rights, not feelings of each individual. Majority vote works on the assumption that most people favor fairness, and is meant to give the “people” a check against those in power seeking to oppress. Equal rights is not the same as appeasement. The individual, not the minority group, deserves the same “right” as any other individual. The government should only act to protect when those individuals rights are being violated.
You have every right to be offended by my religion and I yours, but you have no right to dictate or prohibit my personal views.
Back to the original question… Juries are meant to serve as a check to a Judge’s power, thereby protecting the “innocent” one in ten. Of course this all goes to pot when the majority culture is antagonistic toward the defendant or the group the defendant belongs too.
I come to this conversation by a tip from Claudia that such a discussion is taking place. Despite a long day at work, I welcome the opportunity to share my views. As noted by many, the question poses a faceless and crimeless 11 person group. Many of the comments have attempted to give the faceless a race, religion, upbringing, education level, and socio-economic status to forward a litany of complaints against the justice system. Many have attached crimes, most notably being murder which carries the possibility of the death penalty in many states. I don’t disagree with the notion that the system is imperfect, almost all systems are. I do object to some, I believe, misguided statements. First, the references to decisions, death penalty or otherwise, being made by the government, state, and/or bureaucrats. That may be the case elsewhere, but in the United States criminals are indicted by the state but convicted by juries. The same goes for the laws imposing punishments. As an academic matter, which this is since we aren’t dealing with facts but theories, we elect representatives who create and change laws. The complaints are better directed at the society we live in and the regular people making the difficult decisions regarding another person’s liberty, and sometimes life. The system is only as good as its members and all human beings are flawed.
There were many comments on the death penalty. Many, including my wife, have strong opposition to the death penalty. I personally am somewhat ambivalent. I understand why it exists. It exists as a statement of a shared conviction about the value of human life. The deliberate taking of another human life is so serious, so unfair, and so incapable of repair that it demands the forfeiting of the life of the perpetrator. Does it deter other criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. That isn’t the point. The death penalty isn’t about deterrence or vengeance. The damage can’t be repaired, it can only be answered.
The costs of defending the accused are the costs of defense of any taking of liberty. The system is set up to provide multiple opportunities for due process so that the accused has the opportunity to plead innocence. These costs of protecting liberty would exist for life in prison or death-penalty punishments so, for me, a cost comparison of the two crimes seems pointless. This, like many other issues, simply can’t be reduced to dollars and cents.
Our system of justice has many protections, especially when liberty is at stake. Those protections are not perfect. The question posed is what I believe the reality of the current justice system shows. Many guilty people are freed because the evidence against them doesn’t rise to the level society requires to imprison and take away liberty. Even if convicted, the system allows for multiple appeals and other safeguards to ensure that innocence is protected as much as possible. Before everyone thinks me in love with, or delusional about, our justice system let me tell you the failings I see. Race appears to still be a factor in criminal convictions, although the trend appears to, thankfully, be going away from this being a salient factor. The largest problem is legal access. Too many can’t afford quality legal representation and legal rights are not forcefully taught in primary and secondary education. As a lawyer, I am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge about individual rights and ability to adequately defend those rights. Unfortunately, many people can’t afford a lawyer at all, let alone a good one. Many can and don’t consult one anyway, I feel less sympathy for them. Increased funding of the Courts, legal aid, and public defenders could go a long way to repairing the economic inequities which I believe create the majority of wrongful convictions. The system attempts to find the truth, but only if someone is looking.
Hey Robyn!
Thanks for letting us spew all over your blog - guess you might not have anticipated the free-for-all! It's great to see you and your family - looks like a wonderful life.
Glad to be in touch again.
All the best,
Claudia
In summary...there is no right or wrong answer, hence the never ending debate. There will always be an angle or a situation that will make you doubt even your strongest views. Still, the need for discussion is ever important as we can all better ourselves through deep consideration of what our true believes are. I feel that it is necessary to establish a base opinion, being ever so changing, before something happens that will directly effect our lives, and at that point it is a little late for reflection. Thanks for the brain food!
Okay, I have to say that Tristan's responsible for bringing me here, although a bit late in the discussion, since she knows I'm a Public Defender and (rightly) thought I might want a piece of this. (And hi, everyone!)
I haven't read everyone's comments in depth, but I have to agree with what I've read of Corbie's comments. I won't take space reiterating what she said, but I want to make a few points:
1) Most of my clients are drug addicts, a significant number are mentally ill, and very, very (very) few had what you might call a "good upbringing" or a "happy childhood" with "quality parents." Most often, normal citizens such as ourselves look at this question from our own perspective and assume that all criminals know what we know, have the same moral foundation we do, and break the law with a full knowledge of the consequences. Well, they don't. Our society holds them to the standards it expects of good citizens, but so many of them have never seen good citizenship modeled in any meaningful way. Their parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, and cousins have all done drugs, committed crimes, and spent time in jail or prison, and though they dislike being locked up (none of my clients have ever wanted to be locked up--I agree with the comment that freedom in poverty is better than three squares without it) they don't consider that consequence as a possibility when they act. Most of the time, they (and their relatives and friends) don't get caught. It is laughable to try to select a jury comprised of their "peers" because their "peers" are all ineligible for jury service. So instead they are stuck with "normal" citizens who can't understand that their friends really do leave meth in the glove box when riding in their car, that, when you live the life they live, the odds that you'll be in the wrong place at the wrong time increase incredibly, or that someone can look like a criminal (or even be a criminal) and still be "good people." There are almost no true sociopaths--the intelligent criminal who truly knows better and does horrible things because he likes it and because he can. They get all the press, but they really are few in number.
2) I love Robyn's perspective on her brother. We also tend to forget that most criminals have friends and family who care for them and want what is best for them. They all have redeeming qualities. We forget that they are real people and instead instinctively define them by the worst thing they've ever done. We find it strange that a "rapist" can have a loving wife or that a "murderer" might actually be a very good father. Three strikes laws which dictate a mandatory minimum sentence for a third felony are horrible. They blindly ignore the individual in favor of some election-year look-at-me-I'm-tough-on-crime political crap. (Pardon my ire.) The discretion to impose harsh sentences should always be left to the sentencing court, whether it is a judge or a jury. As I mentioned above, the individual defendant only rarely considers the possible penalty attached to his or her actions.
3) While I strongly believe that death is the right punishment for some individuals, there is no human or group of humans whom I would trust with such a permanent decision. Humans are fallible. The death penalty should never be the punishment until we have perfect people to impose it. (So, never.)
4)Touching on the original question and speaking as one who has gotten plenty of guilty people off (suppression cases are the mostest fun!) I'm absolutely of the opinion that innocent people should not be in jail. I've had dreams where I was falsely convicted of a crime and I never, never want to experience that agony in real life. The reality, though, is that, though I've seen people convicted who I believe were innocent of the charged crime, most of them aren't what most of us would call "innocent" people. Again, us "normal" folks think of everyone like ourselves, and we imagine (and forgive me if I offend your sense of your own sophisicated world view) a white, middle-to-upper-middle class individual who has offended no laws more serious than speed limits their whole life who is suddenly convicted of a heinous crime which lands him or her in prison. This ignores the fact that most first time convicted felons will get probation and that most people convicted of heinous, auto-prison-sentence crimes (rightly or wrongly) don't have much of a character to show to the jury. They have a hard time presenting themselves as the "boy next door" because, frankly, their definition of that term is too different from the "norm."
5) I especially agree with Corbie's comments on education. It should always, absolutely, be the first attempt. No one overcomes a lifetime of crap because a judge sticks them in a cell with a bunch of predators who will only teach them to be a better criminal. That said, some defendants flat don't care. They like the drugs, they like the criminal lifestyle, and they're not going to change. Many of them grow out of it in their 40's but others keep right on doing as they've always done. The trick, of course, is figuring out which will change and which just won't. The only way to tell for sure is to give them a chance to prove themselves. Put them on probation, make them go to class, and see if they can prove by their actions what they swore to the judge was true. If they're too far gone to trust out on their own, give them programming in prison, but don't make them wait too long before you let them try again. I hate lengthy prison sentences. They serve only to create more hardened criminals because most programming doesn't start until the last year of the sentence: one year of education to counterbalance 10 years of trading tips on how to not get caught next time.
Okay, I'll stop. There's more to this, of course, but the most important thing is the every one of the "rapists," "murderers," "drug dealers," and "robbers" in the world have aspects of their personality that you would admire if you had the chance to get to know them. They are deserving of respect, compassion, and the chance to improve themselves. They're mostly messed up, sure, and it takes a lot of effort and patience on the part of us "normal" people to help them reform, but very few of them are fit to be simply thrown away. That's our laziness talking.
robin - 'the most important thing is the every one of the "rapists," "murderers," "drug dealers," and "robbers" in the world have aspects of their personality that you would admire if you had the chance to get to know them'
As this may be true (if you read my comments above, I have had a friend commit murder and go to prison), this does NOT excuse the actions they have taken. If they have chosen to do this, then the consequences should be severe and they should be followed through to the extent. Whether it is the death penalty or life in prison. Just because a person is fun to watch the football game with, doesn't mean they deserve a free pass from their crimes. Part of the reform process and repenting of their crimes is taking responsibility and the consequences that come with what they have done.
Spammon--I agree with you for the most part. I point out that even "criminals" are human to support my point (which I really didn't say very well) that a debate about appropriate punishments for crime has no real-world application until you identify and understand the individual you're wanting to punish. It's not just about the nature of the offense: the nature of the offender is even more important.
The problem with a lot of criminal legislation is that politicians like to look tough on crime and so demand mandatory minimum sentences for all humans who commit certain types of offenses--when it is impossible for them to predict which individuals their law will be applied to.
I believe the point Spammon was making is that we need to be careful that we don't let our sophistication rob us of our own intelligence. Of course those engaging in criminal activity came from unhappy childhoods and bad parents. People don't end up criminals because they come from an extensive backgroud of love and sweetness. Criminal activity has a price and a difficult upbringing should not excuse such behavior. Many people experience the same, or greater, difficulties in life and do not resort to criminal behavior. We provide not incentive for self-restraint by providing a free pass based on circumstances. We shouldn't punish beyond the extent of the crime (and mandatory minimums and 3 strikes rules have legitimate problems in that regard). However, we shouldn't punish less than deserved just because the individual in front of us appears to have been dealt a difficult set of cards.
I'm with Ammon on that one too. Criminals are human, I understand that, by brother is one. However I am the first to say that if he ever was given a consequence of the death penalty or life in prison for something he had done and they could prove 100% that it was he who did it, then I would completely agree with that punishment. He grew up in the same home as me with loving parents (I know that more criminals than not are not as lucky) but most humans loved or unloved know right from wrong and actually do understand the consequences they could face. I still believe when he was seventeen he should have never been sent to jail and eventually prison for what he had done then. That is where I think the system failed him and maybe because of the time in prison or something else, he has since been in and out several times and turned into someone I don't even recognize. I love him, I know he absolutely had the nature you speak of here but I actually think it is more about the nature of the offense and not of the person.
Thank you j.d.s. I love the "we need to be careful we don't let our sophistication rob us of our own intelligence."
Unfortunately my brother is an exception to the criminal coming from a loving home! Sad to say he chose some pretty crappy friends.
I must've been overly distracted yesterday, or something. I had a whole lot more added to the convo....but it's not there! Oh well. :)
Post a Comment