 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Does Martha Deserve it?
> wrote in message > Sentencing MS to jail would only serve > to waste tax payers' dollars. She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If you or I did the same thing and would be sent to jail, she should also. If we would be given probation, they that should suffice for her. No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher punishment than anyone else. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Chris wrote:
> Personally, I like Martha and would hate to see her talents wasted in > prison. She can afford a hefty fine and some community service. > She's already suffered plenty (her empire's value dipping, her tv show > getting dropped by Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged her. Sure she can afford it. That is why it is unfair to levy the same fines against the average Joe as to the rich. The rich can easily afford to pay fines that would break most people. Back in the middle ages, you could get away with murder by paying 20 pounds in silver, but poor people would be hanged for lesser crimes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:02:31 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> Sentencing MS to jail would only serve >> to waste tax payers' dollars. > > She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If you or I did > the same thing and would be sent to jail, she should also. If we would be > given probation, they that should suffice for her. Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking they will not get *caught*. It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism rates show it doesn't work. And it's not a proper punishment since it doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In Stewart's case, a more proper punishment would be heavy fines commensurate with her income. Jail doesn't do anything except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her punishment. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:02:31 +0000, Edwin Pawlowski wrote: > > >> Sentencing MS to jail would only serve > >> to waste tax payers' dollars. > > > > She should be sentenced the same as any other person. You mean, just like Ken Lay who is "any other person?" Who is still walking around, free, along with a bunch of his cronies? Who ruined countless lives with his greed, including a lot of the state of California? Or the other Enron couple who got special consideration -- serving their sentences at separate times so their children would have a parent at home? Do you think any poor person would get that consideration? Heck no, their kids would be slapped into foster care. She lied while not under oath - the charges and prosecution are ridiculous, compared with, for example, Bill Clinton who lied under oath. She has drawn this kind of prosecution because there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have such unmitigated envy of what she's accomplished (while being as business-aggressive as any successful male CEO) that they can't stand it. It's all bull-hockey and even though she could have been smarter about what she did, I don't think she deserves jail time. N. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
As a Clinton friend who donated hundreds of thousands of
dollars to the Democratic Party, Ms. Stewart has few friends in power these days. As the son of the President, Mr. Bush faced regulators who were loyal not only to his father, but to him. The greatest difference between them is that Ms. Stewart, a self-made success, will spend months--if not years--in prison, losing hundreds of millions of dollars and her reputation. Mr. Bush, whose business achievements were owed largely to others, suffered not even a paltry fine. Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. This is why I am quite intrigued with Martha Stewart's Internet Jury. Can the Democracy of the Internet restore the justice that is denied? There are only 3 simple steps to joining the jury: A/ You must read the closing argment. B/ You must vote guilty or innocent C/ You can say or publish anything you wish, regarding your input on the Martha Stewart, Internet Jury. http://skakel.tripod.com/martha.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
> > Sentencing MS to jail would only serve
> > to waste tax payers' dollars. > > She should be sentenced the same as any other person. If you or I did the > same thing and would be sent to jail, she should also. If we would be given > probation, they that should suffice for her. > > No special deals, but nor should she be given harsher punishment than anyone > else. I agree. I don't think a non-celebrity would be sent to jail for a first offense of a crime such as insider trading. But I could be mistaken about this. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"John Gaughan" > wrote in message ... > Chris wrote: > > She's already suffered plenty (her empire's value dipping, her tv > > show getting dropped by Viacom, public humiliation, etc.). It's aged > > her. > > Wow, the suffering. Just think, I worry about putting enough food on the > table not to starve my family. Yes, Martha's "empire" dipping in value > must be difficult. Maybe she will have to fire her servants or go > without the personal chef. > > Suffering plenty is going to jail, eating the crappy prison food, and > being forced to think about how she screwed the little people in the > stock market just so she could get away with a few extra dollars. > Sheldon has it right. Her crimes are much larger than they appear at > first. I have no sympathy. Prison life is not exactly difficult for > non-violent offenders, but being caged up and thinking about how > everyone else is free sucks. Wishing you could do something simple like > sleep in, drive someplace, eat decent food, spend time with your > family... prison is more psychological than anything. > And what were those crimes you think she committed that are "much larger than they appear at first"? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:48:52 -0800, Nancy Dooley wrote:
> "Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>... <snip> Can with fix the attributions, please? Your message had the above in it, but *nothing* your message was a quote from me. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> And what were those crimes you think she committed that are "much > larger than they appear at first"? Read any of Sheldon's posts in this thread. No need to repeat everything he said. -- John Gaughan http://www.johngaughan.net/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Jack Nichols wrote:
> Now George W. Bush is President, promising a new era of > corporate responsibility symbolized by Martha Stewart's > ruin. Such is justice in the age of irony. A Republican, promising corporate responsibility? Do you actually believe this? This is just a lie to gain respect from the little people, who outnumber the "important" people and as a group have more votes. -- John Gaughan http://www.johngaughan.net/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> > Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does jail > time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes thinking > they will not get *caught*. It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. > It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism > rates show it doesn't work. Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to support themselves without having to resort to crime. Martha has job skills. I don't think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so she can easily afford to pay a fine. I think a little jail time is called for. > And it's not a proper punishment since it > doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In Stewart's case, a > more proper punishment would be heavy fines commensurate with her income. > Jail doesn't do anything except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her > punishment. Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because someone grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. In this case, she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made through illegal stock deals. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:33:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
> wrote: >larry wrote: > >> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to >> go to JAIL. > >Why jail? Her's was a non-violent crime. Since it was financial in nature, >it would seem appropriate that the punishment should be financial as well. > >I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her >> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with >> plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. > >Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >*plus* a penalty based on income. > >> but some >> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do so >with the belief that they're never get *caught*. her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people spill that on the way to work. your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:33:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce"
> wrote: >larry wrote: > >> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she deserves to >> go to JAIL. > >Why jail? Her's was a non-violent crime. Since it was financial in nature, >it would seem appropriate that the punishment should be financial as well. > >I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her >> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with >> plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big deal.. > >Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >*plus* a penalty based on income. > >> but some >> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do so >with the belief that they're never get *caught*. her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people spill that on the way to work. your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
blake murphy > wrote in
: > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:33:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce" > > wrote: > >>larry wrote: >> >>> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she >>> deserves to go to JAIL. >> >>Why jail? Her's was a non-violent crime. Since it was financial in >>nature, it would seem appropriate that the punishment should be >>financial as well. >> >>I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her >>> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those >>> with plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big >>> deal.. >> >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >>> but some >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes >>do so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > spill that on the way to work. I wish I was behind them picking it up! > > your pal, > blake > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
blake murphy > wrote in
: > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 19:33:34 GMT, "Darryl L. Pierce" > > wrote: > >>larry wrote: >> >>> Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I guess she >>> deserves to go to JAIL. >> >>Why jail? Her's was a non-violent crime. Since it was financial in >>nature, it would seem appropriate that the punishment should be >>financial as well. >> >>I think they should fine the #%&$ out of her and put her >>> back to work to pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those >>> with plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine.. big >>> deal.. >> >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >>> but some >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes >>do so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > spill that on the way to work. I wish I was behind them picking it up! > > your pal, > blake > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
blake murphy wrote:
>>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >>> but some >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do >>so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > spill that on the way to work. Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered your question a priori at the top of this post. But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? Now who is really being punished? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't deter anybody. >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism >> rates show it doesn't work. > > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people > so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to > support themselves without having to resort to crime. Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the first place. > Martha has job > skills. I don't > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so > she can easily afford to pay a fine. And that would be appropriate given the crime. > I think a little jail time is called > for. And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and what was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was meant as a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? >> And it's not a proper punishment since it >> doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In Stewart's case, a >> more proper punishment would be heavy fines commensurate with her income. >> Jail doesn't do anything except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her >> punishment. > > Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though > crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because > someone grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. > In this case, she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made > through illegal stock deals. She would have to pay back the money she made and *then* a fine. Why should she be allowed to use ill-gotten gains to pay a fine for earning ill-gotten gains? That would be daft. If you steal X, you have to surrender X and then pay an additional Y in fines. That's appropriate. Throwing the person into jail when they aren't a violent offender is barbarism. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
blake murphy wrote:
>>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >>> but some >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do >>so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > spill that on the way to work. Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered your question a priori at the top of this post. But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? Now who is really being punished? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't deter anybody. >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism >> rates show it doesn't work. > > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people > so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to > support themselves without having to resort to crime. Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the first place. > Martha has job > skills. I don't > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so > she can easily afford to pay a fine. And that would be appropriate given the crime. > I think a little jail time is called > for. And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and what was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was meant as a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? >> And it's not a proper punishment since it >> doesn't fit every crime to have the person jailed. In Stewart's case, a >> more proper punishment would be heavy fines commensurate with her income. >> Jail doesn't do anything except to make the *taxpayers* pay for her >> punishment. > > Consider that the US has laws to seize property and assets obtained though > crime. I have read stories of old people losing their farms because > someone grew a little bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. > In this case, she would be paying a fine out of the money that she made > through illegal stock deals. She would have to pay back the money she made and *then* a fine. Why should she be allowed to use ill-gotten gains to pay a fine for earning ill-gotten gains? That would be daft. If you steal X, you have to surrender X and then pay an additional Y in fines. That's appropriate. Throwing the person into jail when they aren't a violent offender is barbarism. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does > >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes > >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. > > That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's > what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It > doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who > commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't > deter anybody. You need to distinguish the difference between the fear of getting caught and the fear of the penalty. Paying a fine or doing jail time is the penalty that people pay for getting caught committing crimes. So you are right, that is the penalty, not the deterrent. Given the fact that the person committed the crime, the penalty was not a deterrent ...for that person. Awareness of the penalty was a deterrent for the people who had the opportunity to commit the crime but didn't because they knew about the consequences. Similarly, the person who committed the crime was not deterred by the fear of getting caught. Yet, many people are deterred by the fear of getting caught. I have seen people who argue that the police should not hide to catch speeders. Instead, they should locate themselves and their speed enforcement equipment in high visibility locations. I would suggest that this would encourage people to obey speed limits only where it is obvious that they will get caught. > >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism > >> rates show it doesn't work. > > > > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people > > so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to > > support themselves without having to resort to crime. > > Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the > first place. There are lots of things that make people criminals. In her case, it was greed. She wanted more money. Maybe we could use torture people like her. We could use some negative reward system like giving her a shock every time she reaches for money. > > > > Martha has job > > skills. I don't > > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so > > she can easily afford to pay a fine. > > And that would be appropriate given the crime. In that case, how big a fine would it take to make it hurt? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" wrote:
> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does > >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes > >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. > > That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's > what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It > doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who > commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't > deter anybody. You need to distinguish the difference between the fear of getting caught and the fear of the penalty. Paying a fine or doing jail time is the penalty that people pay for getting caught committing crimes. So you are right, that is the penalty, not the deterrent. Given the fact that the person committed the crime, the penalty was not a deterrent ...for that person. Awareness of the penalty was a deterrent for the people who had the opportunity to commit the crime but didn't because they knew about the consequences. Similarly, the person who committed the crime was not deterred by the fear of getting caught. Yet, many people are deterred by the fear of getting caught. I have seen people who argue that the police should not hide to catch speeders. Instead, they should locate themselves and their speed enforcement equipment in high visibility locations. I would suggest that this would encourage people to obey speed limits only where it is obvious that they will get caught. > >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism > >> rates show it doesn't work. > > > > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train people > > so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can find a way to > > support themselves without having to resort to crime. > > Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the > first place. There are lots of things that make people criminals. In her case, it was greed. She wanted more money. Maybe we could use torture people like her. We could use some negative reward system like giving her a shock every time she reaches for money. > > > > Martha has job > > skills. I don't > > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, so > > she can easily afford to pay a fine. > > And that would be appropriate given the crime. In that case, how big a fine would it take to make it hurt? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and what > was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was meant as > a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., > *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to > go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? What do you suggest we do? OK, I drive just above the speed limit at times. I'm willing to risk a $50 fine to do so. I don't drive so fast that I'd get a $200+ fine as I'm not willing to take the monetary risk. If I could rob banks instead of working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk anything that has jail time attached to it. Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a multi-millionaire? With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is laughable. 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. I'd like to hear your suggestion and solution. Ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and what > was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was meant as > a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., > *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to > go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? What do you suggest we do? OK, I drive just above the speed limit at times. I'm willing to risk a $50 fine to do so. I don't drive so fast that I'd get a $200+ fine as I'm not willing to take the monetary risk. If I could rob banks instead of working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk anything that has jail time attached to it. Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a multi-millionaire? With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is laughable. 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. I'd like to hear your suggestion and solution. Ed |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a > multi-millionaire? With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is > laughable. 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. As has been mentioned here before, in Norway they do hand out punishments based on the personal wealth of the perpetrator, but we don't do that here. Our hands are tied in that regard. Hence the possibility of 20 years, or some other sentence that might seem too harsh. We haven't got any other tools for handing out justice. I think torture or humiliation would be a great idea. It would spare the taxpayers the expense of incarceration, and it would satisfy the strange sort of blood-lust in the air about Martha these days. (A blood-lust that seems to be as much fueled by her image and style, as opposed to any actual wrongdoing she may have committed.) But again, our hands are tied. We haven't used whipping or the stocks in a long time, and there would be an international outcry if we did. We get enough enough abuse from other countries for continuing to practice the death penalty. If Martha gets 5, 10, or 20 years, it might not seem fair or the most appropriate punishment for her, but that's the way it has to be. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a > multi-millionaire? With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is > laughable. 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. As has been mentioned here before, in Norway they do hand out punishments based on the personal wealth of the perpetrator, but we don't do that here. Our hands are tied in that regard. Hence the possibility of 20 years, or some other sentence that might seem too harsh. We haven't got any other tools for handing out justice. I think torture or humiliation would be a great idea. It would spare the taxpayers the expense of incarceration, and it would satisfy the strange sort of blood-lust in the air about Martha these days. (A blood-lust that seems to be as much fueled by her image and style, as opposed to any actual wrongdoing she may have committed.) But again, our hands are tied. We haven't used whipping or the stocks in a long time, and there would be an international outcry if we did. We get enough enough abuse from other countries for continuing to practice the death penalty. If Martha gets 5, 10, or 20 years, it might not seem fair or the most appropriate punishment for her, but that's the way it has to be. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Dave Smith wrote: > > >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does > >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes > >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. > > That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's > what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It > doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who > commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't > deter anybody. > Yuor logic is completely faulty. You say that poeple who commit crimes do so with the belief they won't get caught. Do you have any evidence for this? I didn't think so. But even if it's true, it misses the point - what about the people who have decided *not* to commit a crime because they think they might get caught? There's the deterrence and you totally overlook it. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > Dave Smith wrote: > > >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does > >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes > >> thinking they will not get *caught*. > > > > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes > > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. > > That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because jailtime's > what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* offenders. It > doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, people who > commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so jail doesn't > deter anybody. > Yuor logic is completely faulty. You say that poeple who commit crimes do so with the belief they won't get caught. Do you have any evidence for this? I didn't think so. But even if it's true, it misses the point - what about the people who have decided *not* to commit a crime because they think they might get caught? There's the deterrence and you totally overlook it. Peter Aitken |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > blake murphy wrote: > > >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime > >>*plus* a penalty based on income. > >> > >>> but some > >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >> > >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do > >>so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > > spill that on the way to work. > > Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered your > question a priori at the top of this post. > > But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it > going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? Now > who is really being punished? Do you think that an armed robber's prison term should be related to his "take?" Punishment is for the action, not the benefit gained. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message
s.com... > blake murphy wrote: > > >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime > >>*plus* a penalty based on income. > >> > >>> but some > >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. > >> > >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes do > >>so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. > > > > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people > > spill that on the way to work. > > Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered your > question a priori at the top of this post. > > But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it > going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? Now > who is really being punished? Do you think that an armed robber's prison term should be related to his "take?" Punishment is for the action, not the benefit gained. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >> >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >> >> >>> but some >> >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >> >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes >> >>do so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. >> > >> > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people >> > spill that on the way to work. >> >> Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered > your >> question a priori at the top of this post. >> >> But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it >> going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? > Now >> who is really being punished? > > Do you think that an armed robber's prison term should be related to his > "take?" Punishment is for the action, not the benefit gained. And armed robbery is a violent crime. QED. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >>Make the fine commensurate with both the amount of the financial crime >> >>*plus* a penalty based on income. >> >> >> >>> but some >> >>> time in stripes scares nearly everybody. >> >> >> >>Prison isn't a deterrant. It never has been. People who commit crimes >> >>do so with the belief that they're never get *caught*. >> > >> > her 'ill-gotten gains' were what, $50,000 bucks? a lot of people >> > spill that on the way to work. >> >> Did you read the other sentences I wrote? I left the one that answered > your >> question a priori at the top of this post. >> >> But, you bring up a good point. Her illegal gain was $50K. How much is it >> going to cost *the taxpayers* to put her in jail for a number of years? > Now >> who is really being punished? > > Do you think that an armed robber's prison term should be related to his > "take?" Punishment is for the action, not the benefit gained. And armed robbery is a violent crime. QED. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> >> thinking they will not get *caught*. >> > >> > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes >> > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. >> >> That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because >> jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* >> offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, >> people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so >> jail doesn't deter anybody. > > You need to distinguish the difference between the fear of getting caught > and > the fear of the penalty. > Paying a fine or doing jail time is the penalty > that > people pay for getting caught committing crimes. So you are right, that > is the > penalty, not the deterrent. Given the fact that the person committed the > crime, > the penalty was not a deterrent ...for that person. Jail was never meant to be a deterrant. Those who invoke it as such need to take some time and study psychology and behavioral science. People who commit crimes do so for three reasons: 1) the repercussions of *not* doing the act is greater than the threat of jail, 2) the person believes they will not be caught or 3) the person is in some way deranged. In the first case the threat of jail is considered and discarded. In the second (as in the case with most criminals) it's not considered since they think they'll get away with the crime. In the last we have someone in a mental state. Do you see something I've forgotten? > Awareness of the > penalty was a deterrent for the people who had the opportunity to commit > the crime but didn't because they knew about the consequences. Who are those people? > Similarly, the person who committed the crime was not deterred by the fear > of getting caught. Yet, many people are deterred by the fear of getting > caught. Do you have some references for that assertion? <snip> >> >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism >> >> rates show it doesn't work. >> > >> > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train >> > people so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can >> > find a way to support themselves without having to resort to crime. >> >> Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the >> first place. > > There are lots of things that make people criminals. In her case, it was > greed. She wanted more money. And how will prison make her a "better" person when she comes out? > Maybe we could use torture people like her. > We could use some negative reward system like giving her a shock every > time she reaches for money. Why do you say that? >> > Martha has job >> > skills. I don't >> > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, >> > so she can easily afford to pay a fine. >> >> And that would be appropriate given the crime. > > In that case, how big a fine would it take to make it hurt? I don't know. What do you think? -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Dave Smith wrote:
>> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> >> thinking they will not get *caught*. >> > >> > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes >> > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. >> >> That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because >> jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* >> offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, >> people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so >> jail doesn't deter anybody. > > You need to distinguish the difference between the fear of getting caught > and > the fear of the penalty. > Paying a fine or doing jail time is the penalty > that > people pay for getting caught committing crimes. So you are right, that > is the > penalty, not the deterrent. Given the fact that the person committed the > crime, > the penalty was not a deterrent ...for that person. Jail was never meant to be a deterrant. Those who invoke it as such need to take some time and study psychology and behavioral science. People who commit crimes do so for three reasons: 1) the repercussions of *not* doing the act is greater than the threat of jail, 2) the person believes they will not be caught or 3) the person is in some way deranged. In the first case the threat of jail is considered and discarded. In the second (as in the case with most criminals) it's not considered since they think they'll get away with the crime. In the last we have someone in a mental state. Do you see something I've forgotten? > Awareness of the > penalty was a deterrent for the people who had the opportunity to commit > the crime but didn't because they knew about the consequences. Who are those people? > Similarly, the person who committed the crime was not deterred by the fear > of getting caught. Yet, many people are deterred by the fear of getting > caught. Do you have some references for that assertion? <snip> >> >> It's not about rehabilitation since recidivism >> >> rates show it doesn't work. >> > >> > Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate or train >> > people so that they can find meaningful employment so that they can >> > find a way to support themselves without having to resort to crime. >> >> Rehabilitation is about "fixing" what made the criminal a criminal in the >> first place. > > There are lots of things that make people criminals. In her case, it was > greed. She wanted more money. And how will prison make her a "better" person when she comes out? > Maybe we could use torture people like her. > We could use some negative reward system like giving her a shock every > time she reaches for money. Why do you say that? >> > Martha has job >> > skills. I don't >> > think that there is any question about that. She has a lot of money, >> > so she can easily afford to pay a fine. >> >> And that would be appropriate given the crime. > > In that case, how big a fine would it take to make it hurt? I don't know. What do you think? -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and >> what was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was >> meant > as >> a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., >> *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to >> go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? > > What do you suggest we do? Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. > OK, I drive just above the speed limit at times. I'm willing to risk a > $50 > fine to do so. I don't drive so fast that I'd get a $200+ fine as I'm not > willing to take the monetary risk. If I could rob banks instead of > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk > anything that has jail time attached to it. Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time since the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. > Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a > multi-millionaire? Multi-million dollar fine sounds like a good start. > With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is > laughable. Where did I say that? I said a fine commensurate with *income*. > 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? > I'd like to hear your suggestion and solution. I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get fines, community service, etc. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> And now we've come all the way back to why I asked in first place and >> what was not answered: why jailtime for non-violent offenders? Jail was >> meant > as >> a place to lock away those who are a *physical* danger to others; i.e., >> *violent* offenders. Why do those who commit non-violent crimes "need" to >> go to prison, except as a measure of barbaric justice? > > What do you suggest we do? Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. > OK, I drive just above the speed limit at times. I'm willing to risk a > $50 > fine to do so. I don't drive so fast that I'd get a $200+ fine as I'm not > willing to take the monetary risk. If I could rob banks instead of > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk > anything that has jail time attached to it. Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time since the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. > Just to use Martha as an example, just how do you punish a > multi-millionaire? Multi-million dollar fine sounds like a good start. > With a fine equal to the ill gotten goods? That is > laughable. Where did I say that? I said a fine commensurate with *income*. > 20 years in jail? No that is too harsh. Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? > I'd like to hear your suggestion and solution. I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get fines, community service, etc. -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> >> thinking they will not get *caught*. >> > >> > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes >> > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. >> >> That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because >> jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* >> offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, >> people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so >> jail > doesn't >> deter anybody. > > Yuor logic is completely faulty. You say that poeple who commit crimes do > so with the belief they won't get caught. I actually said there are three reasons, but the most common one is a belief that they won't be caught. > Do you have any evidence for > this? I didn't think so. Quite haughty. <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/> Have a look at crime rates. Look at the population growth and compare it with crime growth. If there were a deterrant value of *any* import than as the penalties grew the crime rates would shrink. They don't. > But even if it's true, it misses the point - what > about the people who have decided *not* to commit a crime because they > think they might get caught? There's the deterrence and you totally > overlook it. Do you have any evidence for this? -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> Why should *non-violent* offenders be sent to jail? What purpose does >> >> jail time server? It's not a deterrent, since people commit crimes >> >> thinking they will not get *caught*. >> > >> > It tunes in those who think that they can get away with crime. It makes >> > them realize that you may have to pay a penalty.... fine or jail time. >> >> That's circular logic. You're saying "they get jailtime because >> jailtime's what they get". I'm asking *why* jail time for *non-violent* >> offenders. It doesn't make *anybody* realize *anything* since, as I said, >> people who commit crimes do so with the belief they *won't get caught* so >> jail > doesn't >> deter anybody. > > Yuor logic is completely faulty. You say that poeple who commit crimes do > so with the belief they won't get caught. I actually said there are three reasons, but the most common one is a belief that they won't be caught. > Do you have any evidence for > this? I didn't think so. Quite haughty. <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/> Have a look at crime rates. Look at the population growth and compare it with crime growth. If there were a deterrant value of *any* import than as the penalties grew the crime rates would shrink. They don't. > But even if it's true, it misses the point - what > about the people who have decided *not* to commit a crime because they > think they might get caught? There's the deterrence and you totally > overlook it. Do you have any evidence for this? -- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Does Martha Deserve it?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message > Financial crime? Take a portion of her earnings for X years as a fine. That would be a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy. Some of the poor commit financial crimes to survive. OK, so we take 5% of their welfare checks. If a billionaire loses 90% of their wealth, they are still living pretty good by most standards of middle class America. Just does not seem all that fair. > > > If I could rob banks instead of > > working for a living, I'd risk a $50 fine to get caught. I'd not risk > > anything that has jail time attached to it. > > Armed robbery *is* a violent crime and as such would require jail time since > the person is a demonstrated *physical threat* to others. You can rob banks and not be armed. So as long as I give some of the money bak I'm off the hook? > > Jail for non-violent criminals is barbarism. Why *not* just flog them? OK, I'll go for the flogging. (oh, I think that was one of them rhetorcial thingies) > > I've already stated it: make the punishment fit the crime. Violent crimes > get definite prison time to protect society. Non-violent crimes get fines, > community service, etc. Agree to a point. The wealthy tend to have it easy even though they are doing community service. Instead of reporting to prison, they get to give speeches at schools to tell our youth not to follow in their path. Then they have the chauffer take them home and the cook has a nice dinner on the table for them. Maybe if they lived for some period of time next door to Joe Sixpack in the tenement building and did duty at the soup kitchen I'd agree a bit more. Ed |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
