Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder

[cekim]

I don't completely agree. Our justice system isn't here to decide who has been a good citizen and who hasn't beyond the scope of the crime.

Why not? So, you think the entire purpose is to exact vengeance for your malfeasance?

That's a pretty silly system.

The only logical reasons for a justice system are:
1. Provide non-violent dispute resolution
2. Make society safer by deterring future crime (either through example or by physically removing dangerous people from general population).

It is a proxy for banishment which can no longer be accomplished. The social contract is an abstraction to which we all implicitly agree. Those who refuse to accept it need to be removed or they cause a lot of problems. It used to be they were literally thrown out of society (mechanically). This served as a deterrent to those without the internal ethical/moral frame to prevent them from behaving badly.

Any other system or approach presumes that law enforcement can "stop crime" and/or "right a wrong" which is absurd. You cannot bring people back from the dead. You cannot "un-rob" or "un-rape" someone...

 

[HooVooLoo]

...malfeasance?...

Cekim wins the word-of-the-day twice in one day. One more and you tie Scrivner.

 

[cekim]

Cekim wins the word-of-the-day twice in one day. One more and you tie Scrivner.

I'm likely in trouble with scriv for sending him a typo ridden PM

Better not press the issue - it's 6th grade English for the next 24 hours...

 

[HooVooLoo]

I'm likely in trouble with scriv for sending him a typo ridden PM

Better not press the issue - it's 6th grade English for the next 24 hours...

No worries. Typos do not affect the word-of-the-day, just the word and it's meaning.

As for this pharmacist, well, I have to agree that he is probably in a butt-load of trouble. I say this only from the perspective of a jury watching these tapes.

Ouchy for the defending atty. What could he say to the court about the pharmacist's actions that could exonerate him, or at least cast doubt in the jurors' minds?

 

[Kalahari]

Why not? So, you think the entire purpose is to exact vengeance for your malfeasance?

That's a pretty silly system.

The only logical reasons for a justice system are:
1. Provide non-violent dispute resolution
2. Make society safer by deterring future crime (either through example or by physically removing dangerous people from general population).

It is a proxy for banishment which can no longer be accomplished. The social contract is an abstraction to which we all implicitly agree. Those who refuse to accept it need to be removed or they cause a lot of problems. It used to be they were literally thrown out of society (mechanically). This served as a deterrent to those without the internal ethical/moral frame to prevent them from behaving badly.

Any other system or approach presumes that law enforcement can "stop crime" and/or "right a wrong" which is absurd. You cannot bring people back from the dead. You cannot "un-rob" or "un-rape" someone...

Two people commit murder. The first being an average street thug, the second being a "father-of-the-year" type who has been a good citizen, a hard worker, and the cliche list of things we seek in our fathers in society. We ought to let the second man off with a lighter sentence because of his good deeds previous to his crime? What kind of message does that send to society? Do we really want a jury to decide who has and who hasn't been a decent member of society? Juries, such as in Massachusetts, that may not be favorable towards firearms, and hear of the "arsenal of assault rifles" in your basement that you regularly use to "train for the next Civil War" and immediately begin looking beyond the scope of the crime and towards your character and personality.

Two equally egregious and offensive crimes, committed by two entirely different people, ought to be handled in the same manner. The fact that the pharmacy owner was a good citizen before the incident is irrelevant.

 

[cekim]

We ought to let the second man off with a lighter sentence because of his good deeds previous to his crime?

No and you missed my point entirely...

It is not a function of "previous good deeds." it is a function of "danger to society" (based on the nature of the crime committed).

There is little point/benefit to imprisoning someone who does not pose a threat to society. There is a great deal of harm. His ability to provide for himself and family is destroyed and now we have to provide for him.

Too often people get caught up in using the state as a proxy for vigilante justice, which is both pointless and wasteful.

As for the message sent to society - most of us don't need to be told what is right. We'll get along just fine thanks...

 

[Kalahari]

No and you missed my point entirely...

It is not a function of "previous good deeds." it is a function of "danger to society" (based on the nature of the crime committed).

There is little point/benefit to imprisoning someone who does not pose a threat to society. There is a great deal of harm. His ability to provide for himself and family is destroyed and now we have to provide for him.

Too often people get caught up in using the state as a proxy for vigilante justice, which is both pointless and wasteful.

As for the message sent to society - most of us don't need to be told what is right. We'll get along just fine thanks...

And who decides who is a threat to society...? Was Ken Lay a threat to society?

 

[cekim]

And who decides who is a threat to society...?

In the end - a jury - which brings us full circle...

 

[Kalahari]

In the end - a jury - which brings us full circle...

But as I just noted above, with Ken Lay, many of these criminals arguably pose no future harm. We should let them off scott-free?

 

[TomH]

I don't completely agree. Our justice system isn't here to decide who has been or hasn't been a good citizen beyond the scope of the crime.

If this was the case we wouldn't need a jury of 12 peers to figure it out, we'd just have "the law" look at facts, say innocent or guilty, and apply punishment. This is where I disagree when people say the jury is "obligated" to say he's guilty... not true or else that would negate the need for the jury in the first place.

 

[Kalahari]

If this was the case we wouldn't need a jury of 12 peers to figure it out, we'd just have "the law" look at facts, say innocent or guilty, and apply punishment. This is where I disagree when people say the jury is "obligated" to say he's guilty... not true or else that would negate the need for the jury in the first place.

The facts aren't always clear - beyond a reasonable doubt - and thus we put that judgment to a group of twelve.

 

[TomH]

The facts aren't always clear - beyond a reasonable doubt - and thus we put that judgment to a group of twelve.

A jury can also nullify if they believe a law unjust or if they believe the person should simply get off. A judge won't tell them this but it is their right. I believe there was a heated discussion on this point in a past thread. Until we get skynet up to figure out all these judgements for us, we have to rely on people who sometimes bring in their own personal feelings, and can either relate or not relate to a defendent. All the jury prep in the world isn't going to change that.

 

[Kalahari]

A jury can also nullify if they believe a law unjust or if they believe the person should simply get off. A judge won't tell them this but it is their right. I believe there was a heated discussion on this point in a past thread. Until we get skynet up to figure out all these judgements for us, we have to rely on people who sometimes bring in their own personal feelings, and can either relate or not relate to a defendent. All the jury prep in the world isn't going to change that.

Right. I understand that. My issue is that this man committed an action. A jury is charged with determining whether his action was acceptable or not. Why do his previous actions within society come into play? They are, as M1911 stated, immaterial.

 

[drgrant]

Two people commit murder. The first being an average street thug, the second being a "father-of-the-year" type who has been a good citizen, a hard worker, and the cliche list of things we seek in our fathers in society. We ought to let the second man off with a lighter sentence because of his good deeds previous to his crime? What kind of message does that send to society? Do we really want a jury to decide who has and who hasn't been a decent member of society? Juries, such as in Massachusetts, that may not be favorable towards firearms, and hear of the "arsenal of assault rifles" in your basement that you regularly use to "train for the next Civil War" and immediately begin looking beyond the scope of the crime and towards your character and personality.

Two equally egregious and offensive crimes, committed by two entirely different people, ought to be handled in the same manner. The fact that the pharmacy owner was a good citizen before the incident is irrelevant.

There are things called extenuating circumstances. That's why they let Gary Plauche off with a (manslaughter, not murder!) conviction but no jail time. (The guy that shot and killed the man who kidnapped and diddled his son). The reason being was the system knew that there was no way in hell a jury of peers would ever convict the guy for what he did (at least in the color of law, which would have been premeditated murder) so the only way the system could get the jurors to do it was to remove the jail time component from the equation.

This has nothing to do with reputation, but rather, as Cekim states, danger to society.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

But as I just noted above, with Ken Lay, many of these criminals arguably pose no future harm. We should let them off scott-free?

Are you kidding? They have done tremendous harm and would likely do more if given the chance...

 

[Kalahari]

Are you kidding? They have done tremendous harm and would likely do more if given the chance...

"Have done", which, from your statement, is irrelevant if our legal system is not one of punishment. What makes you so sure these criminals would've done it again? Nevermind that there are a litany of options we could exercise before throwing those types of criminals in jail that could prevent them from committing the same crimes in the future.

 

[cekim]

"Have done", which, from your statement, is irrelevant if our legal system is not one of punishment. What makes you so sure these criminals would've done it again? Nevermind that there are a litany of options we could exercise before throwing those types of criminals in jail that could prevent them from committing the same crimes in the future.

The nature of the violation of the social contract speaks quite well to future risk...

I am much more concerned about the guy who car jacks someone than I am about the mother who kills her baby despite her having killed and him having robbed...

I don't think it's inappropriate to have a default system of sentences setup (as a deterrent), but our system of mandatory minimums removes essential judicial review and leeway. It's a little like our school system dumbing everyone down to make it more equitable. We toss everyone in the hole for a decade to ensure that no one serves more time than someone else...

 

[theGringo]

The nature of the violation of the social contract speaks quite well to future risk...

I am much more concerned about the guy who car jacks someone than I am about the mother who kills her baby despite her having killed and him having robbed...

I don't think it's inappropriate to have a default system of sentences setup (as a deterrent), but our system of mandatory minimums removes essential judicial review and leeway. It's a little like our school system dumbing everyone down to make it more equitable. We toss everyone in the hole for a decade to ensure that no one serves more time than someone else...

He said "litany" Don't try to argue with that kind of loquacious artistry. The man is a wordsmith.

It's like when someone says "tantamount". That's when I know I'm up against a rhetorical genious. That's when I drop out of the conversation.

Don't pursue this, cekim. You're outmatched.

(Litany: A tedious list)

 

[Kalahari]

The nature of the violation of the social contract speaks quite well to future risk...

I am much more concerned about the guy who car jacks someone than I am about the mother who kills her baby despite her having killed and him having robbed...

I don't think it's inappropriate to have a default system of sentences setup (as a deterrent), but our system of mandatory minimums removes essential judicial review and leeway. It's a little like our school system dumbing everyone down to make it more equitable. We toss everyone in the hole for a decade to ensure that no one serves more time than someone else...

Your first two statements contradict each other...Murder is a far more serious violation of the social contract, yet you'd say there is less risk with the mother? I agree with you with respect to mandatory minimums and the like, I was not arguing necessarily for that.

He said "litany" Don't try to argue with that kind of loquacious artistry. The man is a wordsmith.

It's like when someone says "tantamount". That's when I know I'm up against a rhetorical genious. That's when I drop out of the conversation.

Don't pursue this, cekim. You're outmatched.

(Litany: A tedious list)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/litany

2 a : a resonant or repetitive chant <a litany of cheering phrases — Herman Wouk> b : a usually lengthy recitation or enumeration <a familiar litany of complaints> c : a sizable series or set <a litany of problems>

 

[cekim]

Your first two statements contradict each other...Murder is a far more serious violation of the social contract, yet you'd say there is less risk with the mother?

RISK TO SOCIETY...

There's no contradiction there as far as I am concerned. I'll certainly not be asking her to baby sit, but, again depending on the nature of the crime itself, there are plenty of mothers who kill their kids that pose little to no risk to anyone but their own children...

 

[theGringo]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/litany

You must rock 'em at college.

Google up "sophomoric".

 

[cekim]

He said "litany" Don't try to argue with that kind of loquacious artistry. The man is a wordsmith.

Don't pursue this, cekim. You're outmatched.

I fear not his voluminous vocabulary, vexing vociferous pontification nor is College book le'rnin'...

Though he may be obstreperous, I will attempt to distill his twisted thinking into a something more palatable to the libertarian...

 

[Kalahari]

RISK TO SOCIETY...

There's no contradiction there as far as I am concerned. I'll certainly not be asking her to baby sit, but, again depending on the nature of the crime itself, there are plenty of mothers who kill their kids that pose little to no risk to anyone but their own children...

So in the case of the mother who kills her child (and, for the sake of our discussion, assume she has no more children, and as you state is deemed of no risk to any other children), what ought to be the consequences of her actions? Can we achieve justice? If so, how? I'm trying to understand your position more clearly - please don't take the inquiries as attacks.

You must rock 'em at college.

Google up "sophomoric".

Do you have nothing better to do?

 

[cekim]

You must rock 'em at college.

Google up "sophomoric".

Now, now, he's doing better than most in college... It's generally not a good atmosphere for the acquisition of reality, practical skills or objectivity...

 

[theGringo]

Do you have nothing better to do?

Not really, no. There is a fish. And a barrel. And here I am with this gun.

 

[cekim]

Can we achieve justice?

Le'me stop ya right there and ask what the heck that is?

Can we bring her child back?

I am not at any level advocating that people not be punished for their actions. I am saying on the whole, in our attempt to create a "justice system" that is more objective and fair have erred on the side of over punishing people who pose little threat while somehow moving those who are a true threat through a revolving door...

There is no way to "undo" or "right" a mother who kills her child. The question needs to be asked whether she is a threat to other children and dealt with accordingly, but whether she spends 10 years or 100 years in jail will likely have little to no impact either on future commission of this crime by others or by her.

This is an endless debate of whether prison can "rehabilitate" or is it there to "punish". I argue, for the most part - neither. It is there to protect society from the imprisoned and hopefully deter _some_ portion of criminals, though I accept that its function of deterrence is weak at best.

Some people really "find god" or whatever they need to do to "turn it around" in prison, but I'd wager they are the profound exception. Most just learn how to be better criminals.

 

[Kalahari]

Le'me stop ya right there and ask what the heck that is?

Can we bring her child back?

I am not at any level advocating that people not be punished for their actions. I am saying on the whole, in our attempt to create a "justice system" that is more objective and fair have erred on the side of over punishing people who pose little threat while somehow moving those who are a true threat through a revolving door...

There is no way to "undo" or "right" a mother who kills her child. The question needs to be asked whether she is a threat to other children and dealt with accordingly, but whether she spends 10 years or 100 years in jail will likely have little to no impact either on future commission of this crime by others or by her.

This is an endless debate of whether prison can "rehabilitate" or is it there to "punish". I argue, for the most part - neither. It is there to protect society from the imprisoned and hopefully deter _some_ portion of criminals, though I accept that its function of deterrence is weak at best.

Some people really "find god" or whatever they need to do to "turn it around" in prison, but I'd wager they are the profound exception. Most just learn how to be better criminals.

I agree with what you're saying. However, either I must be not seeing the whole picture of your position or you are contradicting yourself. You previously stated that there are only two logical reasons for a justice system, neither of which were punishment. Here, however, you claim that you are not against punishing people for their actions. I agree that much of our reason for a judicial system is to decrease risk of future crime by incarcerating those most likely to commit it (though this, clearly, has dangerous implications), but what of those who pose no future risk to others? Particularly when the rate of deterrence is negligible.

 

[cekim]

Here, however, you claim that you are not against punishing people for their actions.

"Not against", I recognize people are going to want to do this. Either the state punishes them or the lynch mob will show up... i.e. NOT LOGICAL...

I agree that much of our reason for a judicial system is to decrease risk of future crime by incarcerating those most likely to commit it (though this, clearly, has dangerous implications), but what of those who pose no future risk to others? Particularly when the rate of deterrence is negligible.

What of them? What purpose does long term incarceration serve? So, why do it?

If there is a mental stability issue - then that's different. They are dangerous unless treated.

If they don't pose a future threat and whatever restitution makes sense is paid - move on...

If they do - then they should not be released until they no longer pose a threat.

 

[cekim]

I agree that much of our reason for a judicial system is to decrease risk of future crime by incarcerating those most likely to commit it (though this, clearly, has dangerous implications)

Very true which is why we should not toss the "felony" word around like it was candy. In my system we aren't talking about leaving empty brass around the house. We are talking large scale theft, armed robbery, rape, murder assault (though I put domestic/familial assault all alone in its own little box - whole different can of worms).

I loathe the "pre-crime" crap that we do now calling "elements" of a potential crime themselves a crime and then punishing it as if you are sure to commit the ultimate offense...

That is NOT what I am talking about. I am saying once you have been convicted of DOING SOMETHING, then you need to be removed from society as a function of your dangerousness demonstrated by the nature of the crime.

 

[vlad]

It was an execution but that isn't murder? Huh?

Murder in most districts has an element of state of mind. His intent was clearly self defense not revenge or profit. Thus in most areas this would be manslaughter. Your local laws may be different.