There are ways in which it is possible to ensure that instances of corruption are few and far between. Certainly to ensure that the true and exact final will of the executed party is carried out correctly.
First of all I do believe that the DP should be reserved for persons showing a pattern of incorrigible AND seriously life threatening behaviour. And the criteria for it's enactment should be beyond
unreasonable doubt. One exception to the rule requiring a pattern of behaviour:- If a person (as a cop/prosecutor/other person of authority) is found guilty of manufacturing/creating evidence that leads to a DP conviction (even if ultimately justified) then that person (of authority) automatically shares the exact same fate as the person they "put away". The same criterion of beyond
unreasonable doubt should still however apply.
Finally the DP
should not be considered the
ultimate sanction. Only the guilty party and any gods that might exist can apply that particular penalty. What it is is society's final
option for those who would maliciously (or recklessly AND incorrigibly) damage its underlying fabric.
Chasing down the topic tree, I also agree in a variant of the three strikes rule. However, at least two of the three strikes should be for serious crimes which resulted in, or would likely result in, serious injury to an innocent (and legally non-complicit) party. eg. Selling drugs to adults would not qualify. Selling to kids would.
IIRC something like 2% of the US population is currently incarcerated. And other studies have shown that roughly 80% of crime can be attributed to some 20% of those who will be incarcerated (or found guilty) at some time in their lives. So ideally the criminal justice system should work towards incarcerating the actual 1/2 a percent or so who won't reform and spanking the remainder into being good citizens. (And I mean exactly that. No quotes. No nuances on "good".)
Debates about what should and shouldn't be a crime is for another place.
The path of "justice" trod by a miscreant should be something along the lines of:
- Fines assessed as a percentage of "income" NOT as an absolute amount.
- Significant Civic Service. I would think at least ten times what is currently assessed in "community service" judgments.
- Incarceration for those who refuse to contribute/repay or who are too dangerous to allow to roam free.
- Fair comfort should be made available to those who are their to protect society.
- "Bare minimum services only", for those who are there through their own "choice". If they wish anything further they must "earn" it and that only after first meeting basic room and board expenses. The point being made is that if you won't repay then you will have the "value" of that restitution taken from you. However, the additional "price of imprisonment" should never be assessed against the prisoner.
- Life imprisonment for cases where the potential for doubt exits, "one off unforgivables" and the generally irredeemable.
- And only finally the Death Penalty for those who are demonstrably a clear and entirely unacceptable risk to any society of which they are a part.
As best can be managed, a path should always remain open to "work" towards a mutually beneficial compromise. However, an absolute requirement is that the miscreant party expend considerable
personal effort to so better their condition. And contrawise, any individual who insists upon bucking the system violently enough can ultimately "commit suicide" by forcing society's hand.
And while I'm rambling, how is this for a reasonable compromise to the increasingly ubiquitous security camera.
- Any camera monitored in real time by a living operator is as if that operator was on the actual scene for evidentiary purposes.
- Stored recordings of "public" areas may only be accessed after the fact if certain specific conditions are met. A known "crime" of a defined "severity" being the primary one. No fishing expeditions allowed and solid cryptographic security with an equally solid audit mechanism to enforce this requirement.
The aim should be towards making every reasonable effort to protect privacy in the normal course of affairs, but not to another's undeserved detriment. Properly implemented such a system could even cover every single square inch of a prison and yet ensure a very high degree of privacy across the entire surveiled area unless and until the actual commission of a forbidden act makes itself evident. It could even conceivably be extended right up to the threshold of private residences without appreciable intrusion on deserved privacy.
Enough levels of properly implemented security could create a perfect nanny state which only ever spanked naughty little boys and girls and never ever looked over the shoulder of the good. An unacceptable extreme of oversight, but something which is technologically feasible.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(586 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
