TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Should Richard Hatch (survivor) really go to jail?
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Seriously, am I the only one that saw No Escape?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Sure! I think they should be in a position where they work to pay back the people/government for what they did. They should work hard labor for the rest of their lives to earn so much money just to give it all back as punishment. It's better for the economy than throwing them in an institution that I believe should have been designed solely for keeping dangerous criminals away from the public. I can agree with you do some extent that jailtime should be appropriate for these kind of behaviors (including the Enron scandal). But still, I think "jail" should be reserved for physically dangerous people and those who steal, commit fraud, evade taxes, should have some other form of punishment. Or to compromise with you, people who commit those kind of crimes should be allocated to an insitution separate from those who are physically dangerous. My statement regarding punishment does not imply that my opinion reflects the majority. Likewise, I'm sure you can agree with me that not all the rules, regulations and bans in the United States are based of logic and reason. 60 years ago, the majority were not for equal rights for black people. Was that reasonable? Likewise, today the minority is for equal rights for gay people (only 17 states have a ban against discrimination against gays in the workplace). Does that make the minority unreasonable? Lastly, I'm not here with an intent to change the law (at least not now), I'm just here to give my opinion and start discussions.

Ok I can see where you're coming from, and you're definitely spot on with your last argument ... the opinions of the majority don't necessarily reflect what can be morally considered "right" and "wrong" even when one takes into account the diversity of morality. However, I do think there are two problems with what you are advocating:

One is the issue of deterrance. Your punishment of reducing the individual to poverty (fines) and labor (community service) may deter those who were motivated by greed. However, white collar crimes are also perpetrated by individuals who are motivated by desperation. To those individuals, who may be facing a future of poverty, the punishment does little to ward off the potential benefits if that punishment is inevitable despite the fact that they did not committ any crime. To that effect, I think the deprivation of freedom is an appropriate deterrance to any type of motivation to comitt crime whether it is due to desperation or greed. I can understand the desire to seperate non-violent criminals from violent criminals and there is such a system in place in the form of light/medium/maximum security prisons within which offendors should be seperated.

The second issue I have with your model is equality. If I'm relatively well off, but I'm committing a crime to improve my material well-being, I'm more than likely to committ a white collar crime to improve my standing. A poor person, following the same motivations, is more likely to committ a "violent" crime to acheive the same results. I put violent in quotations because the poor person may have no ambitions to physically harm a person (such as a burglary) yet their crime is perceived as violent because it's tangibly physical. So why should rich people, who are guilty of the same fundamental crime of theft, be given greater latitude than poor people who lack the resources to be so "elegant" with their criminal acts? Regardless of whether you're stealing from a company or burglarizing someone's house ... regardless of whether you actually ruin their entire life-savings or only steal a few trinkets and mementos, you are fundamentally guilty of theft and thus should be subject to the same punishment. If a person is actually guilty of phsyically harming someone, well than we have the crime of assault and battery to tack on to their criminal sentence.

Occrider, I understand and agree with your first point. Here's what I have to say on the second:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The second issue I have with your model is equality. If I'm relatively well off, but I'm committing a crime to improve my material well-being, I'm more than likely to committ a white collar crime to improve my standing. A poor person, following the same motivations, is more likely to committ a "violent" crime to acheive the same results. I put violent in quotations because the poor person may have no ambitions to physically harm a person (such as a burglary) yet their crime is perceived as violent because it's tangibly physical. So why should rich people, who are guilty of the same fundamental crime of theft, be given greater latitude than poor people who lack the resources to be so "elegant" with their criminal acts? Regardless of whether you're stealing from a company or burglarizing someone's house ... regardless of whether you actually ruin their entire life-savings or only steal a few trinkets and mementos, you are fundamentally guilty of theft and thus should be subject to the same punishment. If a person is actually guilty of phsyically harming someone, well than we have the crime of assault and battery to tack on to their criminal sentence.

(From now on I'm going to refer to non-violent theft to keep that confounding variable out of the way of my point)

I think punishment for stealing should not be equal, but equitable. Here's why: If a poor person gets caught stealing, getting jailtime might not even change the quality of their life. After all, they'll now get to work out at a gym with no membership cost, watch TV, and get free meals. However, if a rich person get's caught stealing through some company, they'll lose their social network, much of their wealth, and their job, which means they might not be able to make car or house payments and can lose both. If that is the case, then it seems that jailtime for the rich is more catastrophic than for those who were not well off to begin with.

I'm not advocating special or better treatment for those who are rich than those who are poor. But I do want to point out that (in psychological terms) jail is both a negative and positive form of punishment. This means that jail is the removal of a positive stimulus (quality of life outside and freedom are taken away), and the application of a negative stimulus (behind bars and severe living restrictions). So, I propose that based on the assumption that the quality of life of a rich person was better than a poor person, the idea that the rich have more to lose than the poor should be taken into consideration before coming up with a punishment plan.

In summary, if both a rich person and a poor person steal the same amount of money, punishment may be equal, but is it equitable?

Note and disclaimer: I don't fully agree with my above argument (funny I say that), but I'm arguing for it because I can't find a logical reason disagree with it. I guess the moral question is: What is the most logical form or punishment for anyone who commits the same non-violent crime? Should punishment for the same crime be equal for all? Or should punishment for the same crime be equitable to the extent that every person suffers to the same degree in comparison to the quality of their life prior to committing the crime?

Actually, I agree with you now Occrider.

Even if I think equal punishment for the same crime might not be equitable or fair regarding the poor vs rich, the truth is poor people don't have much of a choice of who represents them in court while the rich have enough money to buy their way out of jail in many cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Note and disclaimer: I don't fully agree with my above argument (funny I say that), but I'm arguing for it because I can't find a logical reason disagree with it. I guess the moral question is: What is the most logical form or punishment for anyone who commits the same non-violent crime? Should punishment for the same crime be equal for all? Or should punishment for the same crime be equitable to the extent that every person suffers to the same degree in comparison to the quality of their life prior to committing the crime?

Let me give you a reason... it's something called the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


The inverse of your argument would be, if I had a porche and I was going 100mph I should be fined $500 a ticket because I drive a proche and therefore have a lot of money. Yet if I were to try a beat up old ford escort and so how manage to get it to 100mph and get caught, I should pay $20 because it would be equivalent.

Mr. Cheney, you'll be shocked (*cough*) to hear that I agree with you on all counts. I think. I read most of these posts but skimmed a few parts.

I'd like to comment on the idealist principles espoused by several people (Tranceaholic sticks out the most, although I am not saying you're the only one and please do not take this as a personal attack). Prisons rarely work for rehabilitation. Unquestionably, there are many people who emerge from prison with educations and far more social and career skills than they had when they went in; however, I'm under the impression that that is the exception rather than the rule. My understanding is that prison is mainly where criminals make alliances and plans for when they get out. As George Jung said, "I went into prison with a bachelors in marijuana and came out with a Ph.D. in cocaine." I think it's admirable that you envision prisons as a place for first-time felons, but there so many social, econonic and cultural changes that must occur before that can even begin to seem feasible. It's a wonderful thing to work toward, but we're discussing a situation that's occurring right now in a painfully flawed society.

Prison is a terrible, terrible place. Jake, it's not a free gym membership and free meals and is therefore an exceptional deterrant for non-violent criminals because it is a violent place. The 40-year-old family man from Westchester will fare much worse in prison than the street dealer from the Bronx and both of them know that. So many people are willing to die rather than go back to prison. How can anyone say that's not a deterrant?

I would have to say fines are not a particularly good deterrant. If you're already wanting money, whether for need or greed, and come up with an embezzling scheme, you probably consider yourself a skilled business man. You're not afraid of being flat broke on welfare, ever. Monetary penalties are intangible and simply don't induce fear the way the threat of prison can.

Richard Hatch deserves to spend some time in prison. He committed several crimes and knew he was committing crimes. Practically, it's a minute amount of money for the U.S. Government and they probably spent more money prosecuting this case and incarcerating Richard Hatch than they will recoup from his tax payments and fines. That's irrelevant because this case, much like the Martha Stewart/ImClone case, is about principle.

So, yeah. Send him to prison for a bit. I don't think he deserves 13 years--seems like a few would get the point across. This man has flagrantly and publicly flouted the law and if punishment is not timely and significant it sends the message that breaking the law isn't all that bad.

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil Mr. Cheney, ....

My stalker!

How does she keep finding me??? Ok maybe it�s not that difficult considering I�ve stayed in the same place for 5 years

quote:

Originally posted by occrider My stalker! How does she keep finding me??? Ok maybe it�s not that difficult considering I�ve stayed in the same place for 5 years

finding you? as if i ever lose you...

quote:

Originally posted by daffodil This man has flagrantly and publicly flouted the law and if punishment is not timely and significant it sends the message that breaking the law isn't all that bad.

What it really boils down to is that it really sucks for him that he's not in politics, or at least friends with a politician.

In other words, breaking the law is great just so long as you're above it.

I liked the Boston George quote, BTW.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.