From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Perot ?
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:38:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.190424.11850@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>: DO you want to prevent crime or NOT?  Don't pussyfoot around with criminals-
>: they'll never learn.  If the US had a 95% conviction rate and a prison
>: system that treated people like dogs, the crime rate would PLUMMET.  By
>: the way - tha is a GOOD thing.  If there was a mandatory death sentence
>
>It is a BAD, BAD thing.  The US is the symbol for freedom and human
>rights in the world.  Or at least it seems to be.  Human rights don't
>stop at prison walls -- Treat everyone well.  Everyone.  Even the
>criminals deserve their basic human rights...  We hold these truths to
>be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

The may be 'created equal', but their actions do not show that.  You cannot
tell me that the best way to prevent crime is to be SO SO nice to them in
prison that they get all cozy inside and forget that they are a public menace?
Why should I, as a taxpayer, allow my taxdollars go to treat convicted rapists
, murderers, and drug dealers 'well'?  Do you realize what you are saying? I
am all for my a nice guy - but I'm _not_ going to pull some Jesus crap
and 'turn the other cheek' after getting hit in one cheek by a tire iron
during a mugging.  Would you?

>And a 95% conviction rate doesn't mean that those people were all
>actually guilty.  The current system is there to make as sure as

True. One could interpret as meaning that 95% of all people determined
by a Grand Jury as warranting a trial were conveivted of their crime,
or that 95% of all crimes were successfully prosecuted.  I took the 95%
figure as generically 'tough on crime'.

>possible as the innocent ones DON'T go to jail.  If that means not
Don't think now that I'm for convicting innocents...heh heh, of course not!
I advocate cleaning up the judical system to stop fooling around
with the guilty and move on.  
>
>: for planned murder (execution within a week of failed first appeal), the
>
>Sure, murder the murderers.  Aren't we beyond that "eye for an eye"
>crap of the 17th century yet?

Aren't we beyond that 'turn the other cheek' crap of the 1st century? 
Strong measures must be taken to curb strong crimes.  It is all a
matter of economics in a way, if I may take an extreme example:  would it
be better to convict an occaisional inncocent of mass murder, or be
so lenient in prosecuting mass murderers that some go free to murder some more?
Depends on how you look at thing, I suppose.


>: murder rate would plummet.  Good grief, that is what I mean if I ask 'what do
>: you propose?' - I mean that you complain about crime, but holler when people
>: like me calmly point out just _what_ measures would need to be taken.
>
>Those aren't measures, they're next-to-criminal acts.  You're talking
>about taking away a select group's individual human rights, and
>murder.  I hope that if anyone proposed changes like these they'd get
>shot to hell.  And as to the death sentence, I hope it's totally
>abolished.  Murder is wrong, whether done by the government, the
>prisons, or any other system or person.

I'd rather an alternative to the death penalty.  Unfortunately, it is the
best deterrance to murder.  Or would be, if it was actually carried out more
than once in a blue moon.         


>(:	gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu			Gregory R. Block         :)

--
Dan Stephenson das9674@usl.edu 
"Is it that Blake has a genius for leadership, or merely that *you* have a 
 genius for being led?" -Avon, from Blakes 7                           
Xref: sparky comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:21853 comp.sys.amiga.misc:12843