From: JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: gun control, kinda'
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:57:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

In article <tfilt355124@drew.edu>, Teddy Jack Eddy <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> wri
   tes:
> 1. I question your standard of measure.  Do you honestly believe that the
>    father is not significantly more important to society?  Not only because
>    of the direct effect in the children's lives but the effect of those
>    children on the rest of us.

once you say that a person with a family is more valuable than one
without one, you enter a minefield.  Maybe the children are scumbags.
Maybe the bachelor really has potential that will help society more
than a few kids.  Does having a family matter in other instances?
Like maybe those with families should get the benefit of the doubt if
their case is a close call.  All things being equal, each person
should be treated equally in a court of law, the victim and the
criminal.

> 2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, likewise ignorance of your victim is
> also no excuse.

excuses don't enter into the matter.  What is the justice or value of
punishing a person for the impact on victims that they didn't even
know existed? If I rob you, I should get a punishment, no matter if
you have a family to care for with the money or you are single guy
because that is what I did -- rob you, I didn't choose you out because
of your family.  Only if I choose you out or knew about your family
does victim impact come into the picture.

>  I'm wondering how you feel, since KAT hasn't responded,
> about the laws that mandate stiffer penalties for crimes against so-called
> minorities.  How can discriminatory sentencing be alright in those cases
> but not in these?

you mean bias crimes?  I wrote a post a little while back that spoke
of the flaws of such legislation.  If you attack a minority because he
is a minority, something is added to the crime you just committed.
You just didn't assault someone, you assaulted them to take away their
civil rights.  This is quite different from saying that if you rob a
Jew or a homosexual, you should be punished more even though you
didn't know the person was a Jew or a homosexual.  Bias crimes have
the problem of finding out that they are in fact bias crimes, which is
somewhat subjective and problematic.  Their value is somewhat
questionable, and an increase of enforcement against bias attacks plus
education would be important steps to take instead of just bias crime
legislation.

> Your approach leads me to believe that you would not
> prosecute criminals who were under the influence of drugs because they
> didn't understand what they were doing.

no, once someone takes drugs, they are liable for the crimes they
committed under them.  This liability isn't the same in some cases:
vehicular homicide isn't equal to murder in cold blood because though
the negilence is punishable, there is no intent to kill.  It is
comparable to murder and manslaughter -- one has intent to kill, the
other doesn't.

> I'm curious, why do you look for
> reasons and methods to make the life of a criminal more acceptable by
> discovering ways to lessen their risk?  Your treatment of the victims is
> a case of "insult to injury".

because all crimes aren't equal nor are all murders.  Apparently doing
this is an "insult to injury" but then why have the 4-6,8 amendments
since those requirements are such a bother to justice?

>
> 3. In either case, the killer is still a killer.  The verdict is not going to
> hinge on an impact statement.  If it did, the verdict would most likely be
> tossed out on appeal.

A jury trial is very much influenced by emotion, since they aren't
soulless and emotionless automans.  Many a jury gave certain classes
of people guilty verdicts or more punishment because of the type of
person tried like their sex, race, class, impact of crime, etc.
These days appeals of death penalty cases are frowned upon, even if
new evidence is found.  Victim impact statements is lower on the totem
pole.

>
> I'm sure that most of us had a problem with the King verdict.  But, we
> are not the jury.  They had the facts, we don't.
>
>
> ---Robert

      -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU