From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Coerced Anti-Drug Commercials
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:10:15 -0500

In article <1992Apr13.174349.7684@gordian.com>, mike@gordian.com (Michael Thomas) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.000859.994@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> |> [...]
> |> Of late, we see an increasing number of so-called 'celebrities' convicted
> |> of minor crimes being sentenced to creating pro-"War-on-Drugs" TV spots.
> |> Notables in this category include Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Reubins and most
> |> recently rocker Billy Idol. 
> 
>    I'm glad to hear that I am not the only one who has been viewing
> this ugly spectacle with great unease...
>    I think that the essence of the argument is whether the government
> should have the ability to give out non traditional forms of punishment
> when a person is convicted of a crime. Clearly, when convicted, coersion
> is a necessary and desirable consequence. Prison is certainly a form of
> [...]
>    On the other hand, you can easily see that the consequences of such
> propoganda is pretty frightening. One wonders just _what_ is to be set 
> up as the public good in the community services that one makes  "restitution"
> with. Does the judge have arbitrary power to dispense punishments that
> he sees fit? Does that include doing service to his local religious 
> institutions if he feels like it? To his country club? 

	I think this sort of question forms-up as "What should the
	goverment allow to be exchanged in return for a shorter prison
	sentence or lower fine ?". Once upon a time, it was legal for
	convicts to offer themselves for medical experimentation. This
	was supposed to get them brownie-points. Alas, faced with the
	prospect of hard time ... even Dr. Mengle could have obtained
	'volunteers'. At what point does the pain of your sentence make
	you unable to offer completely free and informed consent ?

	I personally see it as totally improper to even accept or suggest
	that a citizen offer an insincere political statement in return
	for leinency. It is like when the Inquisition forced all those
	Jews to 'renounce' their religion and affirm their obediance to
	the christian church (and Pope) and its doctrines. Political
	beliefs are often of the same depth and sincerity as ones religious
	beliefs. The moral crime in encouraging or coercing unbelieved
	statements about politics is just as bad as doing the same for
	a religion. All this isn't even including the damage false speech
	can do to opposition political parties (and reality for that matter).

>    If you look carefully though, all of the examples which bother you
> are punishments stemming from laws which are invalid in the first place.
> What you (and I) have found is yet _another_ reason why illogical victimless
> crimes need to be repeled though. My proposition is that with rational laws
> (and proper guidelines on what constitutes restitution) you would not be
> asking this question. What we have here is just another deadend of the 
> victimless crime fallacy.

	Be careful, lest you declare murder a 'victimless crime' because
	the victim didn't survive to appreciate their victimization.
	The surviving family and friends ... well, it's *their* problem
	if they feel emotional trauma - which is non-real ... 

	Actually, I do agree with you about 'crimes' that are really
	nothing but a formalization of minding your neighbors personal
	business (a popular American passtime) so they will have to be
	just as miserable as you are. 

	Of course, this political coersion may apply even to 'real' crimes,
	even if they are minor. This area is one in which the govt should
	not tread. It will take a lawsuit to break them of the habit now - 
	and an amendment to deal with it if we wait ten years.

-- Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers
-- Disclaimers may seem wimpy, but when using an institutional account,
   they are the only truly ethical thing to do. I am not a spokesman,
   official or implied, for either my employers, their institution as
   a whole or any other person employed or associated with said 
   institution that I am aware of. [ This stuff needs to be spelled-out
   every once in a while ]
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs