07-07-2003, 11:15 PM
Hi,
I suddenly had the mental image of Billy Barty, and extras from Munchkin land, picketing the line at the Santa Monica West Coaster.
Yeah. My solution: get them to sign a waver of all claims against the park. Then let them ride and let them die. We can't protect people from themselves and we probably shouldn't even try -- makes for a better gene pool. :)
I think fines need to be uniform. Otherwise, they would violate the equal protection clause. But, I do think that restitution based on your ability to pay could be included in addition to a fine.
Other than semantics, what's the difference between "fines based on ability to pay" and "uniform fines, plus (I presume mandatory) restitution based on ability to pay"? That's too fine (hehehe) a distinction for me. :)
The problem I have with the application of 3 strikes laws is that many times the 1st, 2nd, and/or the 3rd offense are classified as felonies, but are either trivially so, or are victimless crimes.
Mixing two issues here. One is the question of the difference between habitual criminals and people who've made a mistake. The other is the question of the screwed up laws we live under (and the USA as much or more than most). Because *some* of the laws are wrong (or at least "wrong-headed"), should we then throw out all the laws? That is what our mostly ignorant and stupid society has done -- thus the driving, drinking, and drug laws have succeeded mostly in making the USA an "outlaw" society. Observing what has happened and understanding why does not mean that one must accept the status quo.
I, for one, want both a reduction in unnecessary and intrusive restrictions and much increased punishment for violation of those things which indeed should be crimes. Maximum freedom coupled with maximum responsibility. In this, at least, I am no moderate.
The 16th century notions of justice while severe, also fully redeemed the offenders status with the community. Once justice had been served, you were considered to be of the same status as before the crime had been committed.
Ever hear the phrase, "Forgiven but not forgotten"? Each individual builds up a reputation. We do that financially (hence credit reports), we do that educationally (hence curricula vitae), and so on. If one has a reputation for honesty, one is believed. There is nothing wrong with judging a person by their past -- it is the best indicator of their future. If the past is mostly lawful marred with a mistake, that person committed a crime, but is not necessarily a criminal. If that past is filled with crimes, be they big or small, that person is a criminal. At worse, that person is a menace to society. At best, that person is only a nuisance (but even a buzzing fly gets swatted).
One cannot undo one's education. One cannot undo one's work history or marriage history. One is stuck with one's credit history. Why should not the history of abiding, or not, with the law matter?
--Pete
I suddenly had the mental image of Billy Barty, and extras from Munchkin land, picketing the line at the Santa Monica West Coaster.
Yeah. My solution: get them to sign a waver of all claims against the park. Then let them ride and let them die. We can't protect people from themselves and we probably shouldn't even try -- makes for a better gene pool. :)
I think fines need to be uniform. Otherwise, they would violate the equal protection clause. But, I do think that restitution based on your ability to pay could be included in addition to a fine.
Other than semantics, what's the difference between "fines based on ability to pay" and "uniform fines, plus (I presume mandatory) restitution based on ability to pay"? That's too fine (hehehe) a distinction for me. :)
The problem I have with the application of 3 strikes laws is that many times the 1st, 2nd, and/or the 3rd offense are classified as felonies, but are either trivially so, or are victimless crimes.
Mixing two issues here. One is the question of the difference between habitual criminals and people who've made a mistake. The other is the question of the screwed up laws we live under (and the USA as much or more than most). Because *some* of the laws are wrong (or at least "wrong-headed"), should we then throw out all the laws? That is what our mostly ignorant and stupid society has done -- thus the driving, drinking, and drug laws have succeeded mostly in making the USA an "outlaw" society. Observing what has happened and understanding why does not mean that one must accept the status quo.
I, for one, want both a reduction in unnecessary and intrusive restrictions and much increased punishment for violation of those things which indeed should be crimes. Maximum freedom coupled with maximum responsibility. In this, at least, I am no moderate.
The 16th century notions of justice while severe, also fully redeemed the offenders status with the community. Once justice had been served, you were considered to be of the same status as before the crime had been committed.
Ever hear the phrase, "Forgiven but not forgotten"? Each individual builds up a reputation. We do that financially (hence credit reports), we do that educationally (hence curricula vitae), and so on. If one has a reputation for honesty, one is believed. There is nothing wrong with judging a person by their past -- it is the best indicator of their future. If the past is mostly lawful marred with a mistake, that person committed a crime, but is not necessarily a criminal. If that past is filled with crimes, be they big or small, that person is a criminal. At worse, that person is a menace to society. At best, that person is only a nuisance (but even a buzzing fly gets swatted).
One cannot undo one's education. One cannot undo one's work history or marriage history. One is stuck with one's credit history. Why should not the history of abiding, or not, with the law matter?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?