From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Punishment vs Restitution   was Pro-abortion's view on life
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:28:21 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA


I removed talk.politics.theory from distribution, as I am somewhat 
embarassed to find myself in the following conversation.


In article <1992Aug18.041856.9212@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.185253.7078@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug16.042538.6698@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug14.173917.4633@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>>>
>>>>I prefer the idea of actual monetary
>>>>compensation of the victims by the criminal to the idea of punishment
*>>>>by society for vengeance's sake, even if we assume that the
*>>>>criminal is locked up.
>>>>
>>
>>>What happens if the criminal has no money or has so little money?
>>
>>He will have his prison wages garnished, if he has no assets.
>>I am speaking here of a violent crime which leaves victims in its wake.
>>
>
>Prison?!?  I thought you preferred monetary compensation?  

12 lines up the page, [look for the *]  I stated that I 
assumed that locking up violent criminals is appropriate.  

>And surely, prison wages are way too low to be of any significance.  

Any amount of restitution is more significant than zero, by definition.
Tim Starr has a good handle on the details.  I was attempting to 
elucidate the concept involved.  Thanks, Tim.

>
>Isn't prison "punishment by society for vengeance's sake?"
>

I prefer to think of incarceration as protecting me and my family from
proven violent criminals, by physically removing them from society
(and keeping them there).  That is
of real value to me, one of the tangible benefits of government.

As a taxpayer, I seek protection from predators, not punishment
mills.  Humane incarceration accomplishes this.  Penal colonies
were utilized for the same purpose.  If I were a victim, I would
also want to know that the perpetrator would be compelled to
compensate me appropriately, if only so that he be reminded of the
people he has harmed.

If you want to think of incarceration as punishment of the criminal
instead of protection for you, feel free.  Maybe you can explain
this mentality to me, because I have a hard time comprehending it.
Is this some kind of "wrath of God" syndrome?  

>>
>>>(perhaps lack of money is part of the cause of the crime?) 
>>
>>There are many alternatives to crime when one is low on money,
>>especially in a nation as wealthy as ours.  
>>
>>A great many crimes are committed by drug addicts who are not
>>sensible enough to consider the alternatives, or who are desperate
>>enough to take a chance on jail.  (80% of bank robberies in LA,
>>for example).
>>
>>Re-legalizing drugs would prevent a lot of crime, but that is another
>>topic.
>>
>
>No!  First homosexuality, then abortion, then now legalizing drugs?
>

Homosexuality is a fact of life.  Abortion is a fact of life.  
Recreational drugs are a fact of life.  Prohibiting humans from
doing or being what they will (or are) simply doesnt work.  


>Can't we have at least one trivial debate?
>
>Steve Bono for starter!!!!
>

I like Bill Musgrave.  Check his stats.  When Bono goes down,
Musgrave will show that he is Montana incarnate.

>>
>
>Wait a minute.  I thought you were opposed to "punishment" for 
>"vengeance's sake?"  Victims would be paid by the state (no harm to
>the criminal.  Lots to the taxpayer) while the criminal gets only
>a "short term?"  With this set-up, being a criminal can be a profitable
>undertaking.
>

Re-read what I said, and please dont bother to respond.

>
>But your solution still involves some sort of non monetary punishment.

If that's what you want to call it.

>>
>>Rich criminals would be especially loathe to see their assets
>>go to their victims, I would think.
>>
>
>Not when the money they have to pay is insignificant compared to their
>total worth.  Rich criminals can think of a crime in terms of a pay scale:
>On this crime menu, the rich criminal can choose between the various crimes:
>   Rape: $5,94...
>   Tax Evasion: Value of Tax evasion * 5;
>   Manslaughter: $3,910.77
>
>So after one crime, the rich criminal reaches for his/her menu and picks
>another new one.  
>

In my mind, a violent rapist or murderer should be locked up forever and 
have to give 

    a) a large amount of money, or 
    b) all the money he would ever make hammering license plates

to the victim/family, whichever was appropriate to the circumstances.
In either case, they stay behind bars not "to be punished," but to
keep them away from potential victims.  Can you see the distinction?

Manslaughter may not be the kind of case where you throw away the 
keys, but compensation by the perp to the family of the victim seems
to be in order.

>By the way, there are specials offered.  If you happen to choose a crime
>never before performed, you get a whopping 40% discount!
>
>So what would it be:
>   Breaking and Entering public property or Second Degree murder?

It all depends on the extent of the damage done.
My intent is to convert the concept of punishment to get something 
positive out of it for the victims.  Of course, this presumes that if
there is no victim, there is no crime.


--Al Date
Newsgroups: ba.politics