Discussion Question: Law and Order Edition
Here's an interesting case. Accused murderer resurfaces 20 years after the crime. He is now old, frail, and suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. The legal machinery is in place to prosecute and likely convict him.
For the purposes of this discussion, let's make a few of assumptions.
1) the suspect is guilty
2) the dementia is severe and debilitating
3) the suspect is not violent
Should he be arrested, brought to trial, and imprisoned for his crime?
posted by Ted @ 18:46
12 Comments:
At 26/10/08 00:36 ,
Yankee John said...
wow, that's interesting. let me take a stab at this...
The Old Man was accused of murder 20 years ago. There is no statute of limitations on murder. He should have been held over for three reasons: 1) the accused has a right to defend themselves, regardless of mental health; 2) if found guilty of the crime, he owes a debt to society, and that debt must be paid regardless of how long he evaded justice; and 3) regardless of guilt or innocence, abandonment of the demented is a death sentence, which again - if he is guilty, denies society (at large) its JUSTICE and if innocent, it is a crime against humanity.
From my perspective, the only humane response is incarceration (pending trial) - which offers food, shelter, companionship and perhaps a better quality of what life remains. It seems better than the alternative of death by starvation, exposure or worse.
At 27/10/08 13:53 ,
KAISER ANDY I said...
Once again, or should I say, finally the Yooj has made two very good points.
I realize john used the words "if convicted", but I don't think it would get that far. It's not like they're dealing with Byron Beckwith.
At least he would get three hots and a cot until his release.
At 27/10/08 20:58 ,
Ted said...
John,
You mention "justice" (and in all caps, might I add) as well as a debt to society. What benefit does society gain by housing this guy (at great expense) in the prison system for what will surely be the rest of his life?
At 28/10/08 02:46 ,
Yankee John said...
ted,
since this is a theoretical exercise, I felt free to speak in terms of philosophical absolutes (not necessarily the world in which we live, but the promise of the republic envisioned by our founders.) Society gains by not having its rules flaunted. We are a republic founded on laws and as a society, we are reliant upon the peoples faith those laws. Criminals repay a debt to society writ large: that is, no one may break our communal agreements (laws) without serving a fitting punishment to repay that breach to every other member of that society. The commission of murder is not just a crime against an individual, but all of us who belong to this republic.
The benefit to society is the repayment of that debt, no matter how long that justice was denied. But further, and from a humanitarian perspective, the imprisonment of the accused is also an appropriate response by a caring society. It would seem to me that there is little difference between the conviction of a guilty coo-coo-bird and making an innocent, abandoned coo-coo-bird a ward of the state. We, the rest of society, still pay for his upkeep. (And it could be argued that a prison might give a higher level of care that a state institution for the demented.)
I think its beyond debate that as society, we have a responsibility to the old, infirmed, and neglected. I think that it is worth the expense to provide care for this individual, not because of him, but for what it says about us. If we agree that providing care is non-negotiable standard for our society, than the form it takes is irrelevant. Guilt or innocence only determines the location.
At 28/10/08 10:57 ,
RugbyGirlMD said...
How does being in prison these days repay a debt to society?
They have beds, and food, and medical care, and cable. More indeed than many have not in prison.
What service do those most in need of debt-repayment provide?
They're not keeping the roads paved, or farming our nations fields, making energy...certainly the number of folks in prison, the ammount of expense their housing incurs, they should be providing something tangible. Or are prisoners the modern society's white elephant?
I mean, I know that we've got a crew of prisoners gardening on our campus right now, but those guys are well behaved long-term prisoners.
It says something about our "caring society" when men will break the law to go back to prison because it's a nicer life than they have on the outside.
At 28/10/08 14:21 ,
KAISER ANDY I said...
Since we are now doing a cost-benefit analysis on the prison system, let us move the circumstances back twenty years. The future alzheimer's patient has just committed murder. Should he go to jail, or should he remain among the rest of us?
The cost to the public is cash outlay for housing, food, and new orange pajamas, not to mention we have to hire people to point guns at them, since we can't do it as a society anymore- more's the pitty.
The cost on society if a murderer remains out is perhaps another human life.
So let's review:
Prison= $40,000 year
Human life(especially mine)= pricless (unless muslim, jew, protestan, catholic, or druid)
Now for the facts of this particular case:
He's still guilty and needs to pay. Let's call it society's delayed gratification. Just like when Carl Rove is diagnosed with cancer and has a week to live.
Alz boy is off his rocker and doesn't know which way is up.
And now for the wrap-up(phew!)
He should remain in custody be given a lawyer. This lawyer will immediately file not guilty under the Loco-in-the-cabasa act and get coo-coo boy in front of a specialist and a judge. After all the facts come out the judge will put him in the happy farm, thereby side-stepping a very costly jury trial.
So, the guy's still in an institution and off the streets, but it's not jail.
I've got an idea- how about they find out what family he had in Florida, and bill those aiding-and-abetting mother fuckers for the treatment? How about we arrest them too, and seize their assets?
Besides, NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!
Our next topic:
How in the hell was green lantern a super hero.
At 29/10/08 01:42 ,
LongStory said...
Kevin says: fuck that, how was aqua man a super hero, at least the green lantern had cool jewelry.
At 29/10/08 13:22 ,
Ted said...
John,
Interesting point. It sounds like you are part of the imprison-for-revenge school of thought, at least primarily. Fair enough. If you take into account the cost to society of imprisoning this person, you'll find that the benefit (revenge and support of society's rules) is just not worth it--in this case. Particularly if you keep in mind that it's significantly cheaper to put someone in a crappy nursing home than in a prison.
Heather,
I can't imagine that prison is really that nice. That said, I'm sick of paying for cable TV for a bunch of drug dealers stupid enough to get caught.
Andy,
20 years ago the chance that this guy would do it again is hella-greater.
Kevin,
Put down the "Archie and Pals" and back away slowly.
At 29/10/08 14:41 ,
KAISER ANDY I said...
Ted, please stop taking us off topic.
Aquaman could at least talk to sea creatures and have them do his bidding. That, and he had super-human stremff. Green lantern and the others in their green patrol were given powerfull rings for being what- stron-willed? If that were the only determining factor, then any woman PMSing out would we walking around with powerfull rings that could bend you to their will.
Hold on...they already have those.
Oh yes, prisons...well, uh, the Yooj has shown repeatedly that he's hard-nosed about punishment.
Fine work, everyone. Next time: Is the rice side crispier, or is it indeed the corn side?
At 29/10/08 17:29 ,
Yankee John said...
Rice-side, rice-side, a thousand times rice-side.
in a related story, i hear condy likes the corn-side, if you know what i mean.
and i think you do.
At 30/10/08 04:54 ,
Jenny said...
*checks own pulse*
*pinches self*
Dang. I actually agree with Andy.
*shakes head and walks away*
At 31/10/08 23:39 ,
Ted said...
Jenny prefers the rice side? Huh.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home