Now that our good Turmarion has mixed a selection of tasty adult beverages for your pleasure, a social ethics situation for you to ponder as you relax, lean back, and sip:
From Wick Allison’s D Magazine comes the latest chapter in the life of Dena Schlosser, a Plano, Texas woman who in recent history has
- cut the arms off her 11-month-old daughter in 2004
- plead guilty by reason of insanity
- been discharged back into the community
- no record of criminal conviction
- currently, a different surname
- been subsequently hired by a local Wal*Mart
- been subsequently fired by that same local Wal*Mart when it was brought to their attention who their employee was
What do you think of this situation?
Bonus question:
Had Dena Schlosser’s – or anyone else’s – personal history not been brought to the attention of Wal*Mart – or any other public institution you might frequent – she, unbeknownst to you, would still be working there, and the others, unbeknownst to you, are working there or elsewhere still.
In this same conceptual vein – an employee with no conviction record and registering nothing on a background check – what, if any, personal employee history in what circumstances which you may currently be ignorant of might make you uncomfortable with your ignorance and make you wish
a) that you were aware of it, or/and
b) that you would not be able to find yourself in a position to encounter such a person?
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Good questions, but I think I would rather want to know if her lack of a conviction record would equally affect her ability to legally buy a firearm with a squeaky clean background check.
True that.
Though that was a serious response, I can’t ignore your original questions for I do love the way you think.
I personally have no problems with not knowing myself, but I am with the company not knowing. There are many companies who actively support getting rehabilitated felons back into society. Customers may not need to know the background of such individuals, but the company sure should because they’re an integral part of the process.
We can’t be sure absent additional information, however WalMart’s action may have nothing to do with this employee’s specific history. They may have been acting on the deception of an undisclosed required disclosure on their employment application form.
“There are many companies who actively support getting rehabilitated felons back into society.” (FK)
.
.
There are felons and their are FELONS Frank!
A teen convicted of felony DWI or even B&E or GTA, is NOT the same as a violent predator – a child rapist or a female that cuts the arms off an 11 mth old.
Child rapists (a/k/a “pedophiles”) have a recidivism rate of over 90% from the very BEST (most successful programs) and around 98% (I say 100% and that the other 2% just haven’t been caught YET) under “routine conditions.” Violent predators have only slightly lower recidivism rates (close to 90%). To date, age and infirmity are the most reliable deterrents to violent predation.
Moreover, we have an economy that is largely based on “grinding up” or “processing” the disaffected,” especially those who are both non-politically connected and prone to violence – a veritable army of lawyers, judges, court officers, corrections officers, police (local and federal), emergency room staffs and other emergency service personnel and others ALL make their livings off the misery of these fevered lives and the chaos they inflict upon society. Probably very close to 40% of our economy is related in some way to this glorious or inglorious (depending upon perspective) pursuit.
The odd exception we make with (PRIMARILY, of not SOLELY) females who kill family members, as though “THAT does not necessarily make them violent predators,” is highly suspect and logically unsound. It’s as unsound as our reluctance (until very recently) to classify adult females who engage in sexual relations with male children (14 & under) as pedophiles.
There is no rational basis for those exceptions AND such exceptions actually do the system HARM! Those exceptions deprives the system of “fuel,” or a larger number of violent offenders to grind up or “process” through that system.
To those who’d apparently support such exceptions, I’d simply point out that “NOT only are lives at stake, but many LIVELIHOODS, as well.”
Thanks, JMK, for pointing out that I neglected to consider felons vs violent FELONs in my comment. However, your reply doesn’t offer a solution to the original question. Are you saying that all violent FELONs must be locked up until they turn into worm food or are arbitrarily turned into worm food at times necessary to free up cell space for another violent FELON or even felons and it’s problem solved? How about those innocent pure in heart, knowing social norms for most undulating arbitrary delineations between right and wrong who were wrongly convicted and branded as felon or FELON and sent to the FELON university where they may aspire to become what they were wrongly branded?
As long as the current system succeeds to exist, we must live with a greater power making such determinations, and all I proposed was that they have no right to hide known knowns of our government overseers from unwitting employers for that undermines them being able to deal with the inherent risks to their other employees and customers or their business in general. They are an integral part of the process. Unfortunately, even that may be insufficient, for once they are informed, wouldn’t that open the door for litigation against them should they fail given your point about such high recidivism? Sighs….
Another interesting question would be how are they to mitigate risks of hiring various pre-FELONs such as Loughner (Tucson), Holmes (Aurora), or Cho (Va Tech) among many others? Will we be further pushed to head to the world created in the movie, “Minority Report”?
“Are you saying that all violent FELONs must be locked up until they turn into worm food or are arbitrarily turned into worm food at times necessary to free up cell space for another violent FELON or even felons and it’s problem solved?” (FK)
.
.
Well, let’s figure out exactly what we’re both saying, then. . .I don’t hold to the “opinion” that “Only age and infirmity successfully reduce recidivism rates among violent predators,” that is now an established fact. They teach that in basic criminal justice classes today.
So, what to do with violent predators?
You appear to be suggesting that there are “good violent predators” and “bad violent predators,” (the term “felon” is far to vague, so I’ve rejected and replaced it, given that I clearly addressed violent predators in my above post). I’m sure you’re also aware that the recidivism rates of NON-violent felons is much lower than that of violent predators.
People convicted of “Breaking & Entering,” or “Burglary,” “Grand Theft Auto,” various drug crimes have significantly lower recidivism rates then violent predators, that tend to be lower the earlier they are caught and lower among non-violent drug offenders relative to effective drug treatment for those convicted of such non-violent drug crimes (possession, etc.).
However, I DON’T see “good predators” and “bad predators,” just a generic violent predator.
You seem to be arguing in favor of the apocryphal “rapist with a heart of gold.” I’ve never heard of such a specimen in real life. How about the violent mugger, who is also a “small time philanthropist” (tithing 10% to his Church, Mosque or Synagogue). . .again, no such actual people SEEM to exist.
AGAIN, what to do?
Should we offer them some counseling and effectively “take our chances?”
OR should we bury them up to their hips, cover them with sheets and stone them to death as they do under Sharia Law?
I’d like to think there is a middle ground somewhere between those two extremes (even though I’m on record of being awfully smitten with some of Sharia Law’s more compelling punishments AND its reputation for crime reduction – last I looked, globally, 7 of the 10 nations with the LOWEST murder rates were strict Muslim nations that employed such draconian punishments).
.
.
“How about those innocent pure in heart, knowing social norms for most undulating arbitrary delineations between right and wrong who were wrongly convicted and branded as felon. . .” (FK)
.
.
Well Frank, not to put too fine a point on it, but THEY would be termed “the wrongly accused,” now wouldn’t they?
I’m sure you’re as aware, as I am, however that very few violent predators have actually ever been found innocent after the fact.
The vaunted “Innocence Project,” with its vast DNA library (doing GREAT work, by the way) has actually effectively proven only a tiny number of violent felons innocent – far LESS than 0.1% of the incarcerated violent felon population, actually.
The reason for that, I believe, is what we both probably suspect – the vast majority of those convicted of such violent crimes are almost certainly guilty of the crimes they were accused of. . .in fact, far more common than the “innocent convict,” is the “con who actually got away with dozens of similar crimes BEFORE ever getting caught.” In recent years, ironically enough, it’s usually DNA evidence that convicts many such violent predators.
Do you mind my suggesting a better (possibly more effective) strategy?
I’ll offer it anyway, presuming you don’t mind.
WHY go to the “wrongly accused,” as they are obviously NOT “violent predators” to start with. Why not have instead, looked to those who’ve engaged in “legitimate violence,” for instance “self-defense?”
Wouldn’t the line between a person who kills in self defense, leaving many wondering if they “really NEEDED to kill that intruder/attacker, etc., be even MORE blurred than that between “wrongly accused” and violent predator?
Just a thought.
AND I’ve considered it.
How about looking at two relatively recent Florida killings – the famous “Trayvon Martin killing” and the much more obscure (NOT famous) Sept, 2010, killing of David James by Trevor Dooley.
BOTH the killers in each claimed a “stand your ground” defense – self defense exception.
But while the Martin case is ongoing, the James case is settled.
The most recent evidence in the Martin killing DOES seem to appear to backup Zimmerman’s charge that while returning to his car, he was jumped from behind by the younger, and larger Martin, who subsequently broke his nose, and gashed open the back of Zimmerman’s head.
A jury will have to decide whether it was appropriate for Jorge Zimmerman (get that?….I used the Spanish version of George there. Clever, huh?) to use deadly force in that situation.
I, for one, believe that IF Zimmerman was attacked by a kid who resented being followed, then yes, deadly force was very possibly, even probably appropriate in that case. IF he was NOT attacked then that self defense gambit goes out the window.
In the James killing, we don’t have to wait for a verdict at all, it’s in!
In that case, 43 y/o Air Force Corpsman David James was playing with his young daughter in a park. He and his daughter were shooting a basketball (I know, how stereotypical) and when a young child asked if he could skateboard on the unused end of the basketball court, Mr James said sure.
Trevor Dooley, who lived across the street from the park decided to enforce that park’s skateboard ban. He chose to enforce that ban with a handgun tucked into his waistband.
Mr Dooley yelled at the skateboarder and told him to leave the park. David James asked Mr Dooley, “Where are the signs that banned skateboarding,” and James and Dooley then reportedly “exchanged words,” according to witnesses
According to witnesses, at that point, Trevor Dooley stepped back about ten feet and pulled the previously hidden (by a windbreaker) gun from his waistband and as David James lunged forward to ostensibly get control of that gun. . .Trevor Dooley shot and killed David James (an Iraqi Vet) in front of his 8 y/o daughter.
68 y/o homeowner, Trevor Dooley used the “Stand Your Ground” defense, but was ultimately convicted of manslaughter.
Given those circumstances, I’d have convicted Dooley of 2nd degree murder. He was under no physical threat and had a clear exit available back to his home. It did NOT apparently rise to the level of self defense because he was under no attack and suffered no wounds.
What’s a proper punishment for Dooley, who is now over 70 years old?
What has that 8 y/o suffered, aside from the traumatic loss of her father before her eyes? How much has her life been impacted? THAT all should go into the sentencing guidelines of Trevor Dooley. . .in MY opinion.
Is he a violent predator that is a serious threat to the community?
Hard to say. His judgment in that instance was horrific! What’s to say he wouldn’t exhibit the same poor judgment again, and then he’d BE a danger to the community, wouldn’t he?
On the other hand, 10 or 12 years and he’ll be over 80 (provided he lives that long) and the “age and infirmity” considerations may kick in. . .
Wow, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth!!!
Actually, JMK, I’ve done none of what you’ve claimed appeared to you. All I simply tried to say was, “As long as the current system succeeds to exist, we must live with a greater power making such determinations, and all I proposed was that they have no right to hide known knowns of our government overseers from unwitting employers…”. After reading what you thought you saw me saying, now I’m not so sure that was correct.
I don’t know what lurks in the hearts of most men, convicted or not. They’re certainly not all as revealing as Charles Manson, but he’s not about to be roaming free anytime soon now, is he?
Back to Schlosser, the subject of the OP, she had one incident with her own child. It’s not like she had been chasing down the neighbor’s kids over time and had accumulated a pile of arms in her closet, so I don’t think she fits your description of being a violent predator. The term, predator, kind of denotes that the action has occurred more than once and will continue to occur because it’s innate or integral part of the person’s character.
“Wow, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth!!!” (FK)
.
.
I did no such thing Frank.
I simply and directly responded to exactly what YOU wrote.
.
.
“Actually, JMK, I’ve done none of what you’ve claimed appeared to you.” (FK)
.
.
Again, nowhere in my above response did I claim you “did,” nor even “believed” anything you didn’t say in your own posts.
You posted, “…Are you saying that all violent FELONs must be locked up until they turn into worm food or are arbitrarily turned into worm food at times necessary to free up cell space for another violent FELON or even felons and it’s problem solved?”
Now THAT clearly appears to presume that there are “good violent felons” and “bad violent felons.”
As I said, it is NOT my “opinion” that “Only age and infirmity successfully reduce recidivism rates among violent predators,” that is now an established fact. They teach that in basic criminal justice classes today.
Your post, “Are you saying that all violent FELONs must be locked up until they turn into worm food or are arbitrarily turned into worm food. . .” DOES very clearly appear to imply that there are “good violent felons” (worthy of parole considerations) and “bad violent felons” (unworthy of such considerations), given you seemed to object to the “ALL,” as though there were “the rehabilitatable” and the non- rehabilitatable.”
ALL I did above was respond to that apparent assertion.
If your implication was that ALL violent offenders should be considered “rehabilitatable,” then I simply misjudged the extent of your presumption.
In either case, I DO NOT believe many violent offenders are effectively or reliably rehabilitatable and I find the idea of “mainstreaming” such violent offenders with lethal priors to be problematic, at the very least.
.
.
.
.
“All I simply tried to say was, “As long as the current system succeeds to exist, we must live with a greater power making such determinations, and all I proposed was that they have no right to hide known knowns of our government overseers from unwitting employers…”. After reading what you thought you saw me saying, now I’m not so sure that was correct.
“I don’t know what lurks in the hearts of most men, convicted or not. They’re certainly not all as revealing as Charles Manson, but he’s not about to be roaming free anytime soon now, is he?
“Back to Schlosser, the subject of the OP, she had one incident with her own child. It’s not like she had been chasing down the neighbor’s kids over time and had accumulated a pile of arms in her closet, so I don’t think she fits your description of being a violent predator. The term, predator, kind of denotes that the action has occurred more than once and will continue to occur because it’s innate or integral part of the person’s character.” (Frank)
.
.
It’s very clear to me where we seem to disagree. You say you support companies “knowing,” but not “customers” or “the public.” I oppose such hirings because they present obvious risks to the public/customers and obvious liabilities to the employer.
You initially noted that, “There are many companies who actively support getting rehabilitated felons back into society.”
Note that broad term “felon.”
I narrowed the focus to “violent felons,” since Ms. Schlosser very clearly fits that bill.
I suspect that MANY Companies actively support getting rehabilitated non-violent felons back into society.
I DO as well!
What I’ve argued, from my initial assertion that, “There are felons and there are FELONS Frank! A teen convicted of felony DWI or even B&E or GTA, is NOT the same as a violent predator – a child rapist or a female that cuts the arms off an 11 mth old. . .” is that “rehabilitating” violent felons is a MUCH dicier proposition, fraught with liability risks for the companies that hire such people.
Consider what kind of person cuts the arms of an 11 month old?
Probably exactly the same kind of person who’d drown her five small children, then lay them all out on the bed for when her husband came home (Andrea Yates).
Your apparent empathy for “ONE-time” (so far) and apparently primarily female violent offenders is duly noted. I think the softer approach to female violence is understandable. . .logically UNSOUND, but understandable nonetheless.
Obviously, I DO NOT concur with such sympathies and I am NOT convinced that a Yates or a Schlosser isn’t every bit as dangerous, every bit as mutant as the male predator who kidnaps a 14 y/o girl from the streets near her home, repeatedly rapes her, then cuts her arms off and leaves her for dead in a canyon.
The latter (at least in my view) ONLY seems “less sympathetic” because he is male, which means that la Yates and la Schlosser are both “more sympathetic” simply because they happen to be female!
No, I don’t get that, so I reject it, I reject such apparently “misplaced sympathies” out of hand.
To me, hiring an Andrea Yates or a Dena Schlosser is every bit as much a “liability risk” as is hiring a Jared Loughner or a James Holmes.
I can’t go with the “Well, she only killer HER OWN family member(s),” defense. To me, THAT can be argued as worse. . .much, MUCH worse!
I AM, however, entirely open to being convinced otherwise.
I cannot understand why it is that persons who commit violent murder are ever allowed free contact with society again. Permanent incarceration makes sense to me. If they are capable of providing something of value, then they can do so in the confinement facility. Back in the 1950s,
Back in the mid 1950s, Joliet, Illinois was “treated” to a long saga of stories about Nathan Leopold and whether he should be released from prison on parole. He and Richard Loeb had kidnapped and killed a 15 year old boy in order to “commit the perfect crime.” Both were brilliant college graduates and were apparently challenged by this concept. They were identified, prosecuted and sent to Stateville (just outside of Joliet) for life. Loeb was killed by a fellow inmate. After 33 years, Leopold was released on parole and later moved to Puerto Rico where he lived for a number of years until dieing of diabetes mellitus and heart disease. I remember the discussions in the newspapers of all the good he did while in prison and why he was no longer a “threat.” However nice a guy he was in prison and after release, he abrogated his right to live free when he stabbed that young boy with a chisel.
Long answer to your query. In my opinion, she should be in prison for the rest of her life.
“I cannot understand why it is that persons who commit violent murder are ever allowed free contact with society again. . .After 33 years, Leopold was released on parole and later moved to Puerto Rico where he lived for a number of years. . .I remember the discussions in the newspapers of all the good he did while in prison and why he was no longer a “threat.” However nice a guy he was in prison and after release, he abrogated his right to live free when he stabbed that young boy with a chisel.” (ETH)
As Fred Gwynne said, as that judge in that My Cousin Vinny flick, “Mr Gambini, that was a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection….”
I am relieved to see you’ve refrained from making an argument by cleverly arguing against your own stated premise, as you did with the “Boy Scouts in the News” post.
While the problem I have with “Life Without Parole,” is that the state rarely (if ever) keeps to such pacts, I understand its appeal to many. Moreover, there are many violent crimes (probably MOST) that leave the victim suffering for the rest of their lives (many even lose their lives) and often clearly unable to carry on the rest of their life. . .unfettered, as it were. In such cases, given corroborating DNA evidence, that predator has forfeited the right to his/her very life. . .STILL, that is a relatively minor disagreement with an overall well-considered opinion. I approve.
For the most part I think people who have served time need to be able to re-enter society, which includes having a job. But SHE CUT THE ARMS OFF A BABY. I have no problem with this falling under the insanity defense. Obviously. But how exactly does one recover from such insanity?
“Oh, yeah, I cut off my baby’s arms but I’m feeling fine now.”
Ahhh, I see now, it was post-partum depression. I recognize that is a real and serious problem, but there has to be something else wrong with her to take it out in such a horrific manner. Don’t those women usually smother their children with pillow cases or something?
I suppose it might be true that she is no longer a threat to others. Unless she has another baby. Hmmm… how could we prevent that? If she is to walk free might some forced sterilization be in order?
One does not recover from such insanity. The system is completely whacked out.
I have been reflecting lately on how the way we live like strangers among each other is simply a cover for creeps. I recently advertised kittens on craigs list, and was treated to a cautionary epistle about how people who respond to “free kitten” ads feed them to pet snakes or use them for training pit bulls. When an interested person showed up, I was in utter panic. Being able to recognize these people is the first step.
“Being able to recognize these people is the first step.” (V)
.
.
An arm full of jailhouse tats, a fearsome Fu and a necklace adorned with mini skulls is one sure sign. There are, of course, others.
Such people are rarely reticent to make clear exactly WHAT they are. . .and what they are all about.
Ah, if only it were that simple! :-D
But you are right… once you know what you look for, it gets easier. It’s just that their history ought to be public record, somehow.
“Ah, if only it were that simple!” (V)
.
.
No, it’s not ALWAYS that easy, BUT such people (let’s call them “people with bad intentions”) are generally not reticent about letting people know what they are.
ONE of our problems is that we’re an incredibly tolerant nation, perhaps too tolerant.
In many, MANY places people like Jared Loughner and James Holmes (let’s euphemistically call them “weirdos”) would immediately find themselves under suspicion, at the very least.
The first step in that would be to make such “records” (previous trouble, mental/emotional conditions, etc) public. There really is no overriding NEED to make such information “private.”
In more dictatorial (a/k/a/ “tyrannical”) like China, most of the former Soviet bloc, etc. such “weirdos” simply weren’t tolerated and NOT for any concerns that they might become violent, just for being who and what they are. . .weirdos. People that often found themselves “disappeared.”
Now, to be clear, I’m not (exactly) endorsing that, BUT I will acknowledge that absent some marginalizing, ostracizing and even scrutinizing & processing of such “weirdos,” the end result is that a small segment of the “weirdo population” will eventually, as they say, “go off.”
In Japan’s culture of shame, a James Holmes would be pressured by his family to “do the right thing” (kill himself) for “shaming the family by failing in school and not meeting his lofty expectations. A better result?
In the Holmes case, I’d say an enthusiastic YES.
In many somewhat less tolerant ports of call, Jared Loughner might have found himself being constantly surveilled and locked up for being a “dissident,” or perhaps caned for merely being a “freak.”
Often, the end result would be a more conformist Jared Loughner type – afraid of being abused for being too different.
Out west they used to say, “That’ll learn him,” and maybe that’s so. Maybe some people just NEED to learn limits and NEED a society that clearly sets them, as in you, “You go a shavin’ your head and lookin’ like uncle Festus and it’s gonna be open season on Jared…capeche amigo?”
Now there are some who’ll say such approaches are “typically UN-American,” and they are, of course, WRONG. America had a very strong sense of “shame” through the early 1960s. It was far less tolerant of weirdness prior to the late 1960s and “all was right with the world,” and very few weirdos went around “scaring the horses,” as the colloquialism goes.
Somehow I doubt our current capacity to set limits. A nation that CHOOSES to blame inanimate objects (like guns and SUVs) for killings, is not a society that appears as though it’s going to get serious about “setting limits” on “weirdos” any time soon.
Just a few of my observations.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people–but people with guns kill people FASTER!
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people–but people with guns kill people FASTER!” (WS)
.
.
Actually Julio Gonzalez proved that not to be so, on March 25th, 1990.
Amazing!….Astounding!….Less than a dollar’s worth of gasoline, a small bottle he found and a makeshift wick and ten minutes later – 87 DEAD!
Not the paltry 12 killed that that alleged “genius” James Holmes bagged. . .and Holmes shelled out over a thousand bucks on guns and ammo. Moreover, much of the carnage that Holmes inflicted was done by some small explosive devices he employed. He also allegedly booby-trapped his apartment. I lived like that for a few years, not out of fear of the authorities but of others with far more sinister intentions. I honestly didn’t even bring law enforcement into my initial calculations. As I said to an associate back then, “If someone’s coming for me, they should’ve thought about their wife and kids long before that.”
Or, how about the pathetic “anti-Family Research Council” clown (Floyd Corkins II), using a great (and pretty expensive) Sig Sauer gun. . .and he gets NO…that’s 0 kills, before he’s wrestled to the ground begging for his own life! WTF!?
Now that’s just pathetic.
I tend only look at things objectively – does it work or does it not work? NOT even so much, is it optimal, although that too, is a legitimate concern?
When the Calli cartel was in the habit of shooting down jet liners over Columbia to bag a few pesky judges or politicos, I had to admit that at least in MY view, that WORKED! They didn’t have to risk getting up close to “high-value” targets (usually fairly well protected and thus a “costly” endeavor) and while it was unfortunate that maybe two or three hundred other (“innocent”/unrelated) people died as “incidental contacts,” the primary goal was indeed achieved.
Same with a car bomb. WHY are they used worldwide? Because they inflict devastating casualties at very low cost. Like I’ve noted, some very effective high explosives can be made from everyday household items (generally ANY fuel and ANY oxidizer in combination will create an explosive mixture….even bleach and ammonia mixed in the right ratios can generate a substantial blast) and car bombs can spread shrapnel over a half mile radius (sometimes further) and the immediate blast waves rips around corners, with an enough force to potentially cut a person literally in half. Even over a quarter mile away pressure gradients over 25psi can be registered. It only takes 3psi to collapse a person’s lungs.
Violence will NOT be deterred by banning weaponry. Otherwise violence in England & Australia wouldn’t have spiked directly after they ratcheted up their respective gun control laws.
Laws, like locks ONLY deter the law-abiding!
Weapons bans inevitably lead to an initial advantage to the lawless (they can calculate that regular citizens won’t be able to defend themselves) and then, inevitably, to a resurgence in violent self-defense and the stockpiling of illicit weaponry by the formerly “law-abiding” productive classes.
NO government can lawfully abridge the innate/inborn right to defend one’s person or property. IF I (as I do) maintain that “my possessions are more valuable than an intruder’s life,” neither you nor any government official are in any position to counter that. It is actually NONE of your concern, as that (violent) exchange is a “mutually consensual” one between me and that intruder. While, at best, you can only argue a nebulous “feeling”/perception of greater overall safety, my arguments over my rightful & SOLE concern over my OWN safety (and since I OWN my life, that can’t be questioned) and “stuff” would appear to trump ALL other such incidental concerns.
To date, to my knowledge, the only legal theorist who EVER made any argument against even “unbridled violent self defense” was the esteemed Alan Dershowitz, who argued that it was wrong for a homeowner to shoot and kill a fleeing invader.
Has Professor Dershowitz changed his mind on that?
Well, I give you that he is TODAY one of the leading DEFENDERS of Jorge Zimmerman’s right to self defense! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/new-forensic-evidence-is-_b_1527972.html)
So long as it’s so easy to make guns (it doesn’t take all that much, in the way of skill OR machinery) to make a very decent product and even less to make some very effective high explosives, violence will not end. . .nor even be reduced.
In a free society, people are left free to express their rage!
In such societies, as opposed to “police states,” law enforcement is REACTIVE (responding to incidents) and NOT proactive (seeking to interdict prior to “bad acts” based on “suspicions”). There’s no way to argue for more safety (less random violence) WITHOUT first arguing in favor of some version of a police state.
WS, I sympathize with the sentiment that “reducing random violence would be good,” even “optimal,” but the flaws in the simplistic approach that would ban items (weaponry) and not address the critical human element are too naive, too detrimental to human liberty and too costly, in human terms (I have no reason to doubt the NRA’s figures that assert that hundreds of thousands of Americans use guns to deter intruders each year) to be a serious consideration. Therefore I’ve dismissed such considerations, to date, as being rooted in an overt malice against “the people.”
“Laws, like locks ONLY deter the law-abiding!”
No, they also deter the lazy and the incompetent. Arguably, all halfway-effective anti-crime measures are helping to create a stronger, smarter breed of criminals. Note that the Darwin Awards are often given to incompetent criminals.
“Laws, like locks ONLY deter the law-abiding!” (JMK)
.
.
“No, they also deter the lazy and the incompetent.” (WS)
.
.
.
.
You’re point makes MY argument!
We seem to agree.
I’d lump the few “lazy and incompetent criminals” in with the “law-abiding,” as they’re really no threat. . .at least not to anyone else. A homeowner who “couldn’t let a home invader leave his property alive, is absolutely NO threat to you or I. . .just to potential home-invaders and given that that activity is illegal – who gives a f*ck?!
According to a United States Department of Justice report:
38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home
invasions.
According to Statistics Canada, there has been an average of 289,200 home invasions annually over the last 5 years.
Statistically, there are over 8,000 home invasions per day in North America.
SEE: http://lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf
Those represent the “competent criminals”. . .those who can get through most locks and alarm systems. That’s NOT a very high bar, by the way. The “incompetents” are functionally “harmless.”
AGAIN, the issue is, given citizen A claims that “her stuff is worth more than intruder B’s life, who are WE (as citizens or legislators) to judge, or even to argue that her property is not worth more than an intruder’s life? Even if it ain’t, the “psychic rape of that home invasion that shattered her sense of security probably IS worth that mope’s life. . in short, “it’s a wash.” Citizen A is no threat to any of us. . .UNLESS we break into her home while she’s there with her 20 gauge.
Again, that concomitant violence is a consensual and voluntary exchange between citizen A and intruder B. . .that individual (intruder B) “assumed the risk” (including the risk he might be shot, or worse….some folks I know might feel compelled to torture such a person to death to find out “who sent them”) that goes along with such home invasions.
THAT makes that a free, and willing, voluntary exchange.
Under such conditions there is ONLY one violent person – the home invader. Even deadly self defense cannot be defined as “malicious/criminal violence.”