This guy writes for a paper whose website shows the temperature in
celsius. He obviously can't be trusted:
> Ian Mulgrew
> Vancouver Sun
>
> Monday, March 03, 2008
>
>
> I understand that it feels good when we whack an
> offender and make him or her hurt as much as the
> victim. But that should not be the goal of the criminal law.
>
> The law should strike a balance between
> punishment and rehabilitation -- a balance that
> assuages the victim's pain but at the same time
> provides the offender with an opportunity to
> reclaim his or her place in civilized society.
> Mandatory sentencing robs judges of their ability
> to balance those needs.
>
> Vengeance may be a popular and a feel-good
> emotion, but it is far too expensive in terms of dollars and sense.
He obviously cannot be trusted. Why does it this author write it "feels good when we whack an offender"? "We" in the above statement implies our society at large rather than claiming he feels good when an offender is whacked or victims feel good when offenders are whacked. I can understand how it feels good for an victim, in limited circumstances, but as a society how do we benefit from punishment of crime? This writer claims "Vengeance may be a popular and feel-good emotion, but it is too expensive...". How is he differentiating between vengeance, which he opposes, and punishment, of which he approves? Since punishment serves as no deterrent to crime what motive other than vengeance is served by punishment? Why assume punishment "assuages the victims pain"? In most instances I doubt this is true and a very large percentage of persons in jail have committed victimless crimes by most meaning of the term so how does their punishment assuage anyones pain? The law shouldn't seek to punish anyone it should only seek rehabilitation and to protect citizens from extremely dangerous persons. No need to make punishment a goal in order to accomplish those things.
John Thornton