Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
1- Why does he deserve to spend quality time with his daughter?
|
I agree HE does not deserve time. The mere fact, however, that, by providing for the innocent, the State creates a benefit for the guilty should not, IMO, be reason for the State to mercilessly allow the increase of harm to an innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
2- What happens when the serial rapist and murderers decide they need to go see a dying relative too? Once you set that precident, then what? Where is the line drawn?
|
When a serial rapist and/or murderer is in the same situation, we can address it then. There is simply no need to assert that every criminal is granted an expedited transfer if they have a dying relative. Every day the courts and government can, and does, apply rules and regulations on a case by case basis with consistency and fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
3- (or more a 2b question) Did anyone call the families of who this guy sold meth to, to ask thier opinions? I can safely assume there are plenty of families out there that he ruined...maybe some daughter / son out there without a father, or some family in shambles due to this guy selling that drug...did anyone ask them if it was OK that this dealer should be allowed out to see his daughter die?
|
Probably not. But then, do we let the victims of ANY crime be the FINAL authority as to the punishment of the criminal? It is a fair question to ask “have we consulted the victims?” It is, however, also fair to say – regardless of these particular victims, we as a society choose to be more merciful than they might. As part of its duty to “protect and serve”, it is the governments duty to be the societal intermediary between the criminal and the victim.
(Just as a side note – the concept of “an eye for an eye” was an example of the government acting as the intermediary and softening the punishment. Prior to this code, if a victim lost an eye, the victim would seek and eye, an arm, and kill your first born creating a cycle of violence. Hammurabi’s code stepped in and said – NO it is not for the victim to decide, it is for the government)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
What if it was you? (a general hypothetical question) What if your wife had an addiction to meth and it ruined her and your life, and it trickled down to your kids, would you be so easy to forgive and forget and allow this guy one ounce of leniancy? What if your kids took it, and it killed one of them...would you still be able to say, "sure, let this guy see his daugher"? I hope none of you has ever gone through that, but I am willing to wager that if someone did go through that, they would not be able to agree to such a thing. A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
|
Yup. I’d want to murder the guy, then I’m sure his wife, daughter (or other member) would want me dead, and so on, and so on and so on. That’s a criminal justice “system” sure to enhance the general welfare.
Here’s where the rules come into play. What do they allow? Why? Are they applicable? Do they include an opportunity for the victims to be heard? If not, why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
A lot here are solely seeing the daughter, and not many are seeing the victims of this mans actions.
|
I would suggest that a lot are seeing
both and finding that the present good that may be accomplished outweighs the past harm that cannot be changed.
This man is in jail and will be in jail well after his daughter’s death. Regardless of whether or not he is transferred, and for the rest of his life he will know that he failed his daughter. I can only imagine how that would make me feel and, in doing so, would suggest that this man will be paying for his crimes well after he is released from jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsarno
When did PCness start ignoring blatant crimes?
|
About the same time calls for compassion became seen as being PC.