From: davek@informix.com (David Kosenko)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:05:54 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.084131.28887@edwards-vax.af.mil> 
	becker@edwards-vax.af.mil writes:
I wrote:
>>What you must remember is that once a 
>>precedent has been set for the removal of basic rights, it becomes
>>difficult to stop.  Thus, when you get pulled over for drunk driving
>>and the police officer proceeds to beat the shit out of you (not that
>>any such event could happen in this great country of ours) because
>>"you are guilty of a crime against society" [drunk driving] and
>>should therefore "loose [sic] all rights," you might find that idea a
>>little less appealing.
>
>NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!  Knock it off!  You are saying it is ok for an
>officer of the law to do whatever the heck he wants!  NO!  THat it
>NOT what this is about.  Officers of the law should uphold it, and
>part of upholding the law is ARRESTING offenders, not BEATING them.

Your response (that I deleted) that you omitted the *proven* guilty part
from your original post makes me feel better.  I did not assume you
meant that as many posters seem to advocate blowing away burglars on
their own.

I AM NOT saying it is ok for an officer...  I am saying the exact opposite.
My point was that if you feel it ok to deny someone of their rights,
regardless of what they have done, without a trial, then others could do
the same.  The horrendous extention of this is that police people could
become cop, judge, jury, and executioner.  If a legal precedent has been
set, that precedent can be used.  That is why I mentioned in another
post that if you kill a burglar, you will probably be brought to trail
for manslaughter, and will have to prove that you acted in self-defence.
If this was not the case (i.e. if you were not charged because you 
simply stated self-defence), then what is to stop someone from murdering
someoone else in cold blood, but set it up so it looks like a burglary
with attack etc.  You gotta be able to PROVE you acted as you did because
you had reason to believe your life was in jeapordy (or the life of your
loved ones, etc.). I don't think defending the life of your television
would be a legally valid reason for killing someone.

I agree with your original contention (at least to a degree) that the legal
system is less than ideal ("sucks" is not the word I would choose).  
Sadly, it is difficult to make it tougher on criminals without making it
tougher on the innocent as well.

>I am saying that if you are proven guilty of a crime, you should lose
>your rights as far as 1. no you don't get to watch tv. 
If I was in a fiestier mood, I would argue that this is an inhuman
punishment.  If in a more flippant mode, I would argue that watching
television is a punishment (ok, only network TV allowed and no PBS -
No please!  Give me a lethal injection, anything but that!).

>2. No, you don't
>get free time to just do whatever the heck it is you want. 
Except for white collar crime prisons (Middlebury Correctional Facility
and Country Club), I think this is not the case.  From what I've seen on
documentaries, prison life is mind-numbingly boring.  Do you really 
expect these people to look at a wall all day, every day?

>3. No, you
>don't get to vote. 
I was not aware that prisoners were allowed to vote.  Is this really
the case?  Or are you speculating?

>4. No you don't get to have sex with your significant
>other once a month. 
A straight line if I ever saw one, but I will pass on it.

>5. No, you don't get to sue the person you committed
>the crime against or any person that came to the aid of the victim.  I'm
>not saying you lose your dignity.  A criminal should serve his time with
>the least amount of pleasure as possible, actually with no pleasure at
>all.

I am in 100% agreement with this.  I can't see the sence in letting a
*convicted* criminal sue anybody, esp. for things related to their crime
(one possible exception would be where their rights were violated during
the arrest, but in that case they would probably be freed anyway).
>
>>Followups should probably go to talk.law or somesuch.
>
>I don't get that group.

I doubt that it exists - my point was that this is rather marginally
realted, at this point, to consumers.house.  But, as long as noone
complains, I will answer respondants.

Dave
-- 
Disclaimer: These opinions are not those of Informix Software, Inc.
**************************************************************************
The heart and the mind on a parallel course, never the two shall meet.
						-E. Saliers