From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #278 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, October 10 2000 Volume 09 : Number 278 Today's Subjects: ----------------- kid a question [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Happy Birthday [steve ] RE: Happy Birthday ["Brian Huddell" ] A Kids ["Alex Wettreich" ] Re: Happy Birthday [Capuchin ] RE: Happy Birthday [Capuchin ] from 32% to .2%? quite a statistic [Eb ] more punning band names [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Happy Birthday [Eleanore Adams ] prison ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: from 32% to .2%? quite a statistic [steve ] Re: prison [Eleanore Adams ] Re: prison ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] BBC News | SCI/TECH | Giant trilobite discovered ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: BBC News | SCI/TECH | Giant trilobite discovered [Michael R Godwin ] Lennon: What is to be done? [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:29:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: kid a question has anyone figured out just what the hell any of the booklet under the tray is about? ===== "[I]t's important for the maintenance of consensus that some people keep on being scared of what might happen and probably won't; otherwise, they would not be such easy prey for what can happen and actually has. There is even a name for this tactic -- it's called 'triangulation' -- and eight years of it have been much more than enough." -- Christopher Hichens in Mother Jones, Sep/Oct 2000 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:29:55 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Capuchin: >But you live in Texas where incarceration is the national >pastime, so I don't know what I expect. Shit, somebody's in an even worse mood than me! Marcy's only been here a few years, so I think she's still able to resist the corruption. You people have the chance to help prevent the rest of the nation from becoming one big Texas. - - Steve "I hear this Republican message that we're rich as hell and we're not going to take it any more. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm paying taxes at a lower rate than my secretary ... and frankly I think that's crazy." - Warren Buffett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 20:52:52 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Happy Birthday Capuchin: > But you live in Texas where incarceration is the national > pastime, so I don't know what I expect. I get a lot out of your posts, I really do, but what the fuck was that? You dis someone because of where they live? Weak. Awaiting a lengthy justification for ascribing traits and orientations to a person based upon where they dwell, Brian (in Louisiana) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:59:33 GMT From: "Alex Wettreich" Subject: A Kids Jason wrote: I'm not really sure what to expect from a "stereotypical" Radiohead fan either - I've always assumed (and I could be way off base) that there are a large number of U2 fans sprinkled about their fanbase. If so, they would've been "dragged" into the "new genre" of electronic music years ago. I write: Well, there's electronic music and there's electronic music. No doubt plenty of Radiohead fans listen to Aphex Twin, but I'd venture that most of those who turned OK Computer into a multi-platinum record don't have much in the way of a reference point for Kid A -- even those who own Zooropa ;-) And yet, (and I may be universalizing here -- although Amazon user reviews bear me out), the trust in the band is such that many fans have been receptive to a style of music that they would have switched off in a hurry had it come on the radio sans attribution. This phenomenon may not result in Warp compilations holding the N'Sync Christmas LP off the top spot, but it's remarkable to me that it's occuring, given that abandoning the sound what brung you is something bands *just don't do*. And of course, it's true that electronic music per se is not new. This particular brand of electronic music, however, is probably new to most of the people that purchased Kid A last week. I'm really enjoying the record, and the fact that it rewards repeated listening. Figure 8 is probably the only thing that's close for me this year. Alex, who saw Modern Times for the first time tonight and has concluded that Paulette Goddard was just plain hot. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:11:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Happy Birthday On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marcy Tanter wrote: > There ARE too many people in prison, but not because the guilty are > still there. It's because many innocent people are convicted or > people guilty of minor crimes are given ridiculous sentences. And what percentage, would you say, Marcy, of the people in prisons are innocent? It's an insignificant number. Now, if you want to talk about ridiculous sentencing for political reasons, we're on a whole other topic, but of that 2 million, it's an insignificant amount (unless, of course, you count racial discrimination as a "political reason"). > I am perfectly happy keeping people who commit first-degree murder in > prison for the rest of their lives (I don't believe in the death > penalty). Read my second post on the subject. The death penalty is much more humane than keeping people locked up for their entire lives. YOU can feel good about it because the bible doesn't say "thou shalt not lock people up for their entire lives" or "thou shalt not enslave thy brethren" or the like, but that's an oversight. You can feel all warm and fuzzy about opposing the brutality of killing your undesirables, but instead you promote destroying their lives and forcing them to live without hope. I ask you which is more cruel. > The population of our prisons would, in fact, be fairly low if > sentencing was done properly and the punishment did fit the crime. > Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way. Sentencing is only a tiny part of the problem. Mostly it's the way prison makes former prisoners into criminals. > A petty thief gets 15 years and a rapist gets 2 yrs of house arrest. You're right. They're way too hard on both of them. Realize that the rapist has to deal with life-crippling registered sex-offender laws and public notification of every move for the rest of their lives. This would drive anyone to crime. At least in prison, they don't have to worry about finding a job or renting a house with a felony charge. > Most murderers who are released from prison commit another felony > within 2 yrs or less of their release. I'm talking about first > degree, not crimes of passion or things like that. Why not? It's not like the outside world is welcoming rehabilitated former criminals. Your ability to become a useful, accepted member of society after spending time in a penitentiary is all but ruined. The whole system could close 80% of the prisons and replace them with a competent network of employment placement services and mental health professionals. Making these services public (available to ALL) would not only improve their service but remove the stigma associated with prior convictions because employers, in most cases, wouldn't need to know and would eventually stop caring to ask. > I live in Texas where people are gun happy What does this have to do with ANYTHING? > and convicts get ridiculous sentences, esp. if they are black or > hispanic. That keeps the prison population up, nothing else. Now, if you're going to point to the racial disparity, put credit where credit is due: economic structures that keep minorities depressed and judicial, executive, and legislative systems that target minorities. Only a person who has what are generally considered racist beliefs (that blacks and hispanics are somehow hardwired to be more prone to violence and other crime) could look at our prison population and not say we have a deeply racist culture. And while these are the root causes of the arrests and sentences, it is the ability to arrest and the ability to sentence to imprisonment that keeps the prison population high. A change in the ability to arrest and imprison (at least one that continuously attempts to integrate people into society) would not only decrease increase the amount of freedom in our country, it would, in its very function, destroy racist notions of segregation and predisposition to criminal activity (or establish those notions once and for all... either way). No, really. I'm done with this topic. Go ahead and have the final word. No, wait... let me just use them up for you: victims gun control children protection (or, as I would interpret them: revenge mistrust irrationality fear) Looking on the brighter side, J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:17:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: Happy Birthday On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Brian Huddell wrote: > Capuchin: > > But you live in Texas where incarceration is the national > > pastime, so I don't know what I expect. > I get a lot out of your posts, I really do, but what the fuck was > that? You dis someone because of where they live? Weak. > Awaiting a lengthy justification for ascribing traits and orientations to a > person based upon where they dwell, Nah... that was just a cheap shot. :) The State of Texas and its legistlation, as much as that represents the people of Texas (and if it doesn't, you should really do something about that... and soon), would lead a person to believe that incarceration and execution are some kind of sport, however. Of course, what with voting at an all-time low, a person's likelihood of representing the notions carried forward in their state's actions are extraordinarily low. (Don't tell me you vote, that'll just make it more likely that you belive in what your state does... unless, of course, you tell me exactly how you voted and give me time to research. But don't make me.) Heck, you could say that because I live in Oregon I'm somehow in support of giving money to the power companies to reimburse them for their mistakes and pollution and I'm opposed to breaching dams... and that simply wouldn't be true. So I apologize to any particularly offended Texan, but not to Texas. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 14:25:44 -0700 From: Eb Subject: from 32% to .2%? quite a statistic [Not that I disagree about American music kicking Britain's arse, in recent years.... Eb] UK THE SUN Brit pop's a flop in America BRITAIN'S pop stars are failing miserably across the Atlantic, according to a new U.S. survey. Disturbing figures show UK acts are grabbing just 0.2 per cent of the charts in America. By contrast, in the Eighties the figure was 32 per cent - thanks to the success of bands such as Dire Straits, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Culture Club and Spandau Ballet. Culture Club main man Boy George said: "What we're sending over there is rubbish, and if they've got their own rubbish why do they need ours?" Robbie Williams has said: "I think the best music at the minute is coming out of America." Prodigy were the last Brits to have a No1 in the U.S. album charts, way back in 1997. The world used to look to us for musical inspiration. What's happened? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:03:21 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: more punning band names following the Beatles "band names with two meanings" thread... Edison lighthouse The monochrome set The able tasmans James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:51:02 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Ok, I have not been following the thread carefully because I have been swamped...But I must concur on your point. I work at the SF Public Defenders office and I have to say that the DA's (and the DAs in SF are famous for being weak on crime) still over charge people in their complaints, and that non-violent crimesw have much heavier sentences than many violent crimes, especially with the new 3 strikes law. A rapist will get 6 years, out in 3, because it is only his first strike, while someone who has multiple felony convictions for rock or H will get real time in state because it is his 3rd. CA prisons are packed with drug addicts. Its a little F*cked up. elenaore Marcy Tanter wrote: > There ARE too many people in prison, but not because the guilty are still > there. It's because many innocent people are convicted or people guilty of > minor crimes are given ridiculous sentences. I am perfectly happy keeping > people who commit first-degree murder in prison for the rest of their lives > (I don't believe in the death penalty). The population of our prisons > would, in fact, be fairly low if sentencing was done properly and the > punishment did fit the crime. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way. > A petty thief gets 15 years and a rapist gets 2 yrs of house arrest. Most > murderers who are released from prison commit another felony within 2 yrs > or less of their release. I'm talking about first degree, not crimes of > passion or things like that. > > I live in Texas where people are gun happy and convicts get ridiculous > sentences, esp. if they are black or hispanic. That keeps the prison > population up, nothing else. > > Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 22:19:48 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: prison >From: "Jason R. Thornton" >rock-electronica hybrid albums a great deal more than many people. Even >highly ehhh-ed works like "Lift." Love & Rockets? I was surprised at how much I liked that album. I was even more surprised at how much I liked Sweet F.A. after I gave it a chance. >Also, I am finally going to see Radiohead live in a few weeks, at The Greek >up in beautiful Los Angeles. >From: Capuchin >If you just want to remove people from society, you may as well remove >them from existence. Prison is worse than death [You'll probably tell me >to ask a given prison inmate if that's true and I'll point out that an >overwhelming majority of prisoners are a) members of some sect or other >that belives in post-mortem punishment for crimes against god and >b) guilty of at least one of those crimes... so they're a bad set to ask >about how long they'd like to postpone death]. >If you want to be compassionate, set them free. If you want them never to >return to society, let them die. Well, I've had thoughts along these lines myself. But I don't quite feel that a life lived in prison is worse than death. - - If the Marquis de Sade had been put to death instead of sent to prison, we would never have had _120 Days of Sodom_. (Arguably this is an argument for capital punishment, not against it.) - - Oscar Wilde, _The Ballad of Reading Gaol_. Granted, prison ruined him, but it was slower than death. - - I'm sure there are more examples. The point is that it appears that one can still live a productive life in prison if one has access to the means of productiveness. This is usually easier for writers and poets today than it was for de Sade personally. If I were sent to prison for life, I would still be able to write. I might write more than I do today. I might even retain the spirit to write. - - If one is really into rough trade and has no real hope, I imagine prison could be sexually fulfilling, if extremely dangerous and painful. And so on. I suspect also that if one found prison too difficult to accept, one could probably arrange to die. My beef with our penal system is that it _is_ a penal system. This may be naive, but I'm given to wonder how it really benefits us to act as though someone who wrongs should be wronged in return. It seems to me that it's just as valid to figure that someone who wrongs should be obligated to commit an equal (or proportional) right. Just seems like it would be better for everyone. Drew - -- - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:34:39 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: from 32% to .2%? quite a statistic Eb: >Robbie Williams has said: "I think the best music at the minute is coming out >of America." Did he name any names? I hardly need to point out that "being on the charts" and "good" don't necessarily go together. - - Steve "I hear this Republican message that we're rich as hell and we're not going to take it any more. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm paying taxes at a lower rate than my secretary ... and frankly I think that's crazy." - Warren Buffett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:00:01 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: prison Well, I would guess a lot of people don't realize that (at least in SF) along with a prison sentence, many who are found guilty or plead guilty are sentence to also pay restitution/damages to either the victims, or to a special victims fund, as well as pay for the room and board for the time served. The problem is that collection is piss poor. If, for instance, the sentence is time served and 1 yr of adult probation, and after sentencing the party is back on the street, chances are the state/victims fund will never see a dime toward restitution. And even in a city of means like SF, there is not enough money or man power to follow up on this. And even if there was, the majority of defendants are poor and don't have anything to attach. In our system the way to commit an equal right is through money damages and/or time served. For many crimes, wrongs, or torts, this is really the only pragmatic way to commit a proportional right. It can be implemented by force i.e. attach wages. And since most who are found to commit a wrong disagree that they have committed a wrong, this "works" (sort of, sometimes.) I'll shut up now.... eleanore "Andrew D. Simchik" wrote: > It seems to me > that it's just as valid to figure that someone who wrongs should be > obligated to commit an equal (or proportional) right. Just seems like > it would be better for everyone. > > Drew > -- > -- > Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com > http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 23:22:40 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: prison At 11:00 PM -0700 10/9/00, Eleanore Adams wrote: >In our system the way to commit an equal right is through money damages and/or >time served. For many crimes, wrongs, or torts, this is really the only >pragmatic way to commit a proportional right. It can be implemented by force >i.e. attach wages. And since most who are found to commit a wrong >disagree that >they have committed a wrong, this "works" (sort of, sometimes.) I don't know about pragmatic, but in my little dream world the debt would be paid to society, perhaps in an unrelated way, and absolutely NOT through money. I would think that taking money from people would not discourage them from committing crimes. Labor restitution wouldn't either, but it wouldn't take anything away from the criminal that prison doesn't. Paying money is not committing a "right". It can't replace a person, or undo a rape, or heal an assault. It can replace property -- maybe -- but that's not all that should be done. That system supports the idea that crime is a private transgression between two parties, as opposed to a "debt to society." I don't know. It's kind of vague in my mind and probably not very well thought out. Most fegs seem better informed about government and law than I am and I'm probably just sounding sophomoric. Drew - -- - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:02:04 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: BBC News | SCI/TECH | Giant trilobite discovered http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_964000/964027.stm ... and they haven't even asked it its name yet; bah. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:19:12 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Happy Birthday Capuchin: > And personally, I think the best reason to keep Chapman in jail is to > protect his ass from nuts like you, Marcy. The only person to whom > Chapman was a danger is dead. You know this for a fact? The guy is a nut case. He had a list of celebrities a mile long he went through before he settled on Lennon. Not that I'm suggesting he'd start knocking off some of the others on his list, but anybody that unstable can't be considered harmless just because you think he's already reached his quota. > If you just want to remove people from society, you may as well remove > them from existence. An overwhelming majority of the people in this country (and many others) would like to see this happen to Chapman. > If you want to be compassionate, set them free. If you want them never to > return to society, let them die. Good argument. I'm not in favor of killing anyone so let's just set him free. I mean, what other choice is there? What the hell, let's let Manson out too. Maybe they can both stay at your place for a while, you know, just untill they get on their feet again. Listen, I don't give a fuck how miserable these guys are in confinement. They're assholes and I don't want them living next to me and the government has my permission to use my tax dollars to make sure they don't bother me. The real problem isn't the prison system, it's the increasing number of assholes who don't give a damn about how they treat other people. We can't keep up with them any more. I blame the parents (and of course loud rock music). - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:56:03 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: BBC News | SCI/TECH | Giant trilobite discovered Well, I'm more worried about this _Longisquama insignis_ business! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_802000/802009.stm) - - Mike Godwin On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_964000/964027.stm > > ... and they haven't even asked it its name yet; bah. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:56:44 -0400 From: bocce ball Subject: 3 new dates a few new additions to robyn's itinerary (from the auditorium): 22 november -- newcastle-on-tyne (solo), uk 22 december -- stampen, stockholm, sweden 25 december -- bommens salonger, gothenberg, sweden 26 december -- bommens salonger, gothenberg, sweden woj ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:14:25 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Lennon: What is to be done? Capuchin grumps, >Who CARES? I do. I think it is important to remember the dead, and a birthday makes a perfect time. Last night, LJ and I were walking home from the opera -- midnight in upper Broadway. And someone had rented a projection truck, and all night long was projecting a *huge* picture of John Lennon against a building, looking down over Coloumbus Circle by Central Park. It was lovely..... It is good to remember our dead. They are still with us, and can still teach us things. >And personally, I think the best reason to keep Chapman in jail is to >protect his ass from nuts like you, Marcy. Ach, that was just rude, Cappy, and you know it! You owe her an apology for calling her a nut, you grumpy old man! You really should have eaten some honey in your crank-flakes this morning. (Says the Quail, who has written more than his shares of "letters to the editor" of the local paper.) >The only person to whom >Chapman was a danger is dead. This is essentially unprovable, no? I think there are other reasons to keep him in jail than the (no matter how small) possibility his next target might be Yoko or Mick Jagger or Dr. Who. Those include his open desire for fame, the peace of mind of Yoko and her family, and the real possibility the Parole Board was right, and he is not rehabilitated at all. I was not there, so I can not make a firm decision; but I am certainly not going to weep over Lennon's assassin. (And peace of mind of the victim's family is only one reason -- certainly not a deciding issue. Victims must heal, too, and get on with their lives, or no one would ever get out of jail!) >But you live in Texas where incarceration is the national >pastime, so I don't know what I expect. And you live in commie Oregon, where they vote Nader, frolic with squirrels, and are afraid to eat hamburgers. Big deal? >If you just want to remove people from society, you may as well remove >them from existence. Prison is worse than death [You'll probably tell me >to ask a given prison inmate if that's true and I'll point out that an >overwhelming majority of prisoners are a) members of some sect or other >that belives in post-mortem punishment for crimes against god and >b) guilty of at least one of those crimes... so they're a bad set to ask >about how long they'd like to postpone death]. Cappy, man, you *must* be in a bad mood. This is ridiculous! First you make a general statement "prison is worse than death," an opinion you trot out as a fact. Then you parenthetically offer a possible refutation, only to end that prisoners are a "bad set" to ask the one question that concerns them like 1,000,000% more than it concerns you - -- Prison or death? "Robyn Hitchcock sucks and has no talent. (But don't ask the Fegs. They are avowed Robyn fans, and are a bad set to ask.)" This logic coming from a programmer? Tsk. >If you want to be compassionate, set them free. Compassion does not equal stupidity, oh Cappy-Bodhisatva. Setting a murderer or rapist free is not compassion; or if it is, it's a blind and selfish form that does not take into account factors such as the victim's suffering, the society's sense of self (image, safety, sense of justice, social contract, etc.), and especially any possible future victims. Nor is it particularly compassionate when you view the state of the offender's moral health, spiritual life, etc.; of course there will be exceptional cases, but just letting a serial killer go scot-free is hardly compassionate regarding either the society at large or the killer's psychological state of unhealth, is it? > If you want them never to >return to society, let them die. Lifetime sentences make jailors (in our >case, the people of the United States and the people of any state in the >Union) feel like they're better than murderers while they're actually much >worse. Another opinion dressed as fact; and a fairly unsupportable one at that -- Personally, I feel that a lifetime sentence does not make me worse than the person I would hand it to. (Again, in theory; each case must be judged on its own merits, which is something this country -- no country -- is particularly good at.) But take, for example, and extreme case like Dahmer. What, I'm going to feel guilty throwing him in jail the rest of his life? This makes me worse than a murderer? Well, you know what? I can live with that. In fact, I believe in capital punishment -- in theory. In practice, it is too compromised by issues of race and economics; not to mention the fact that executing someone years after the crime is really not executing the person who committed the crime. (And yes, of course, reasonable doubt is an issue.) But I am certainly one of those people who could gladly execute, myself, anyone murdered someone I know. (Exceptions such as manslaughter and such apply.) I say this not to start the dread Capital Punishment Endless Flame of Doom, but to clarify my position and possibly throw light on my opinions expressed in this letter. >We could go on and on about this, but realize that whether you're >Conservative or Liberal (upper-cased to represent the common political >terms in the US as opposed to their true meanings) it makes sense to >decrease the number of people in prison in this country. It is both more >economically sensible and compassionate. True, and I agree with the many others who already mentioned that sentencing is unfair. What the hell is with our drug laws? And with mandatory sentencing? Draconian sops to please the frightened soccer mothers and middle managers. (And yes, this is an opinion!) >A prison system that is focused >neither on rehabilitation for re-entry into society or execution for >elimination from society is wrong-headed and going nowhere. Well, there's a lot to debate here, including (a) not all of our penal system is unconcerned with rehabilitation, and (b) I don't consider simply removing violent criminals from society to be either wrong-headed or bound for nowhere. Catching that subway pusher and locking him up, whether in a hospital or prison, makes me feel safer. (And you know what? I would rather have him in a hospital, to get drugs and treatment. But really? When it come down to it, whether they lock him in a prison or not doesn't cause me to lose any sleep. So he's mentally ill. He also killed a woman by shoving her, a perfect stranger, into a subway train. Fuck him. There are millions of mentally ill people. Regarding non-political violent crime? Treatment is nice, but in my opinion, public safety is first.) >You're right. They're way too hard on both of them. Realize that the >rapist has to deal with life-crippling registered sex-offender laws and >public notification of every move for the rest of their lives. >This would >drive anyone to crime. Well, you know, I am not sure about registration and laws such as that, occurring as they do "post-punishment." It makes me queasy, and I have to think about this more before I come to a firm opinion I can live with and preach to others. But right now, it really doesn't worry me all that much; the act of rape or sexual molestation bothers me far more. And to say that these laws "would drive anyone to crime" is really one of those statements that sounds more deliberately provocative than any real expression of a thought-out opinion. Crime? What crime? Fudging your papers or changing your identity? Yeah, sure, maybe.... But more rape, or murder, or burglary? And you said you were done with the topic? Fine, I'll take the last word, because I am not going to get into a flame war about this. But some things you said I feel are just wrong-headed, so I hope you forgive my strong words pout forth to counter yours. I still like you, even if you want to set the prisons free and play with communist squirrels. - --Quail, revenge oriented lunatic PS: Happy birthday Brian Blessed! - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #278 *******************************