in article 1139099001.119225.284510@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, etaka at
etaka@yahoo.com wrote on 2/5/06 9:23 AM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> I can't believe that your solution to zero "innocents" being incarcerated or
>> executed is the abolishment of the legal system, letting criminal run wild
>> unchecked.
> 
> Why is anything other than incarceration and the death penalty "the
> abolishment of the legal sytem", and how would anything other than
> incarceration and the death penalty be "letting criminal run wild
> unchecked"?

Because, without incarceration there is no deterrence. The courts could fine
the criminals, but then the criminals simply would refuse to pay the fines.

>> Anyway, it wouldn't work, because if the legal system evaporated, like you
>> wish, there would be an instant return to vengeance killings, where the
>> victim or the victim's family take the law in their own hands. The result
>> would be many more innocent deaths as before, since people seeking revenge at
>> their own hands are less likely to consider the due process of the wrong
>> doer. So much for your "perfection."
> 
> How odd you do not fear or condemn this happening today when rapists
> and criminals are allowed to walk, or for those victims and loved ones
> who are forced to live without legally dispensed justice.

Eric, you are not making any sense. You complain that rapists and criminals
are sometimes allowed to walk (for failure of the system to get a
conviction), and your solution is to let EVERY rapist and criminal walk?
That makes sense only in Eric Land.
 
> Assuming your vision of people taking "justice" into their own hands
> with NO legal options (which is false) is correct, would you harm a
> neighbor who wronged you, if his family could then kill you?

What effective option do the have? Under your system they would have none.

Eric, you seem to refuse to learn from the past. There have been periods in
the past when there was no effective incarceration of criminals, and the
result was chaos, poverty, and misery. Think of the Wild West, Japan in the
period prior to Nobugawa, and Europe right after the fall of the Roman
Empire.

>>> A legal system with no incarceration or death penalty is 100% error free, as
>>> it applies to incarcerating or executing "innocents", which is the focus of
>>> the original article.
 
>> On the contrary, it would lead to more deaths of "innocents," not only by
>> those seeking revenge and not being careful about who they select as the
>> criminal, but also by the criminals that feel free to kill because of your
>> elimination of any deterrence.
> 
> Why do you believe incarceration and the death penalty to be the only
> deterents?

You really haven't suggested any deterrents that would work.

>>>> I hate to break it to you but the "Minority Report" is FICTION.
 
>>> That is irrelevant.

>> Wow! You can't tell the difference between the world of fiction and the real
>> world? Why am I not surprised?
 
> A movie's being fiction is irrelevant to the fact that zero people
> incarcerated or executed would mean zero percent of innocents being
> incarcerated or executed.

But you were the one who quoted "Minority Report" as a source for your
argument. As for the fact that zero people incarcerated or executed would
mean zero percent of innocents being incarcerated or executed, the fact that
society stops incarcerating or executing people would not mean that
individuals wouldn't incarcerate or execute. On the contrary, adoption of
your system would guarantee a return to massive crime waves and a breakdown
of society.
 
>>> To be 100% error free, as it applies to false imprisonment and mistaken
>>> execution, simply do away with those penalties. Let a man who knifed his own
>>> mother and sister to death (no one including the defense, denies it) be sent
>>> to a mental institution for "treatment", not prison for "punishment", as
>>> actually occurred on the date of Mike's original post. Let a woman who kills
>>> five of her own children also be "treated" for her own sake, not imprisoned
>>> for life as "punishment".
> 
>> That assumes that mental health sciences have progressed far more than they
>> presently have, that there are effective "treatments" for all crimes, and
>> that unwilling confinement in a mental health institution is not
>> incarceration. None of that is true, so your idea really isn't ready for the
>> real world.
> 
> If "none of that is true", then perhaps you should realize that I am
> talking about actual cases in Hawaii and Texas, and things like this do
> indeed occur in the US.

Texas has one of the highest numbers of prisoners on death row, and both
Hawaii and Texas have incarceration of criminals.

In Texas, there is treatment of some criminals in mental health
institutions, but the success rate is spotty and the use of it is limited.
Also, to protect the rights of the accused, the confinement procedures are
similar in many ways to criminal trials.

Frankly, you haven't addressed the fact that mental health sciences have not
been all that effective in this area, that treatments are only tried for
certain types of crimes, and that involuntary commitment in a mental health
facility is incarceration.