07-07-2003, 10:21 PM
Hi,
Somewhere, in the back of my head, the idea of punishment need fitting the crimnial --makes sense to me-- gets caught in slippery slope arguments where "tailored" sentencing evolves into "if you are Hispanic, you get four years, Asian, you get 3, Anglo, you get 2, and Black gets 7" or abuses of that sort.
There is a fine line between discrimination and *discrimination* :)
"Blacks can't ride this roller coaster" is *discrimination*.
"People under 4' 6" can't ride this roller coaster" is discrimination.
The difference? One is arbitrary, the other one is not.
The "slippery slope" argument seems to be able to be used against anything. Race, religion, national origin, etc. have nothing to do with whether a person is a criminal or just made a mistake. Previous crimes do. For each previous conviction, double the penalties for the present crime. On the third conviction, a ten year sentence becomes forty -- might as well be life.
As for fines, I think a percentage of disposable income would be a much fairer way to asses them. If two people pay the same amount for the same action, but for one it means less food and for the other less time on the golf course, then they aren't being punished equally. Perhaps fines should be eliminated completely and corporal punishment used instead. Ten lashes with a cane will "cost" the beggar and the millionaire about the same. ;)
--Pete
Somewhere, in the back of my head, the idea of punishment need fitting the crimnial --makes sense to me-- gets caught in slippery slope arguments where "tailored" sentencing evolves into "if you are Hispanic, you get four years, Asian, you get 3, Anglo, you get 2, and Black gets 7" or abuses of that sort.
There is a fine line between discrimination and *discrimination* :)
"Blacks can't ride this roller coaster" is *discrimination*.
"People under 4' 6" can't ride this roller coaster" is discrimination.
The difference? One is arbitrary, the other one is not.
The "slippery slope" argument seems to be able to be used against anything. Race, religion, national origin, etc. have nothing to do with whether a person is a criminal or just made a mistake. Previous crimes do. For each previous conviction, double the penalties for the present crime. On the third conviction, a ten year sentence becomes forty -- might as well be life.
As for fines, I think a percentage of disposable income would be a much fairer way to asses them. If two people pay the same amount for the same action, but for one it means less food and for the other less time on the golf course, then they aren't being punished equally. Perhaps fines should be eliminated completely and corporal punishment used instead. Ten lashes with a cane will "cost" the beggar and the millionaire about the same. ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?