A judge in Ohio just sentenced a man to 180 days in jail because his adult daughter failed to acquire her GED.
If we're to take that Ohio judge's verdict as a precedent, then every father in Detroit whose kids don't finish high school should have 180 days added to their current prison sentences...
Prison should exist only to protect innocent people. This man was no threat to the life, liberty, or property of others, but now he has to spend six months in jail. Then again, this is government in action.
I may live to be one hundred years old and never again hear of a worse exercise of judicial power.
Shouldn't prisons also exist to punish the guilty?
ReplyDeleteAww, snap! Oh no you didn't! I'm sure that there are some dads out there not currently serving prison sentences. If not, then where would all the babies come from?
ReplyDeleteGuilty of what, Golf Guy? I'm guilty of leaving my socks on the bedroom floor. Do prisons exist to punish me?
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't deprived another of his or her life or liberty, then why should you be deprived of yours?
Remember, the sanctity of man's law is a bogus argument: otherwise you're glad for everyone jailed for helping fugitive slaves between 1850-1865; you're glad that Rosa Parks was busted for refusing to give up her seat; and you are more than happy to support doctors as they massacre the unborn.
What I'm saying, Golf Guy, is that why should someone lose his liberty if he hasn't harmed anyone else?
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest up front: "Because a judge said so" is not a valid answer.
Again, adulterers, sodomites, and unitarians are "guilty," but do they belong in prison?
First, if you leave your socks lying around I’m pretty sure the reigning authority in your home with take away some of your rights, mainly the pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteSecond, a drunk driver is not depriving anyone of their life or liberty. Should he only be punished if he actually hurts someone?
As far as the sanctity of man’s law and “because a judge said so”, we are a nation of laws and until a higher judge says “it ain’t so” it is so.
As a school administrator I went to court several times with charges against parents because they failed to send their children to school. Child endangerment and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are valid charges. In the specific case that got your dander up, the judge ordered the father to insure his daughter got an education while she was a minor. I applaud the judge for his decision. The fact that she is no longer a minor is not relevant. There is no statute of limitations on carrying out a judge’s order. If there was then everyone would just ignore the court’s rulings.
How about Susan LeFevre? She escaped from prison 32 years ago and seems to have rehabilitated herself. She is guilty of selling heroin to undercover police officers twice, and guilty of escaping from prison. Should she get a free pass and not serve out her sentence or part at least part of it? Whose life, liberty or pursuit of happiness did she violate then or now?
In response to Golf Guy's comments:
ReplyDeleteIssue #1: My wife can deprive me of happiness if I leave my socks on the floor.
Response #1: She can do this only if I allow it. Think about the beauty of your example. If I think that her reaction is out of line, then I can tell her to buzz off. If she comes back with something worse, I can go as far as to leave her. If only we could tell the state to piss off when it was unreasonable!
As it is in my home, since I know that my wife tries to keep things tidy (in spite of my general disorganization), I accept her griping and occasional cold shoulders. If she decided to punish every sock on the floor with a kick to the testicles, then we would have a problem and I would say, "Adios, you loony." Unfortunately, judges have the backing of many men in blue who carry big guns and have permission to use them. No one can tell a judge to piss off because he's a ding-bat.
Issue #2: What about drunk drivers--should they only be punished if they hurt someone?
Response #2: Driving drunk and not hurting anyone is in the same class as discharging a firearm at random.
--It was a dangerous act that carries with it a reasonable expectation that innocent people might be harmed.
In this way, it's not a victimless crime. Most drunk drivers don't get sentenced to prison anyway. They serve their mandatory overnight stay--presumably to sober up--and then they head to court and face fines and suspension of a license. This is reasonable.
Of course, if a drunk driver hurts someone, then the nature of his offense against others changes.
Issue #3: We are a nation of laws, so if the law says "X" then "X" it is.
Response #3: An unjust law is no law. Otherwise the holocaust was just fine. I'll stand by Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. on this one.
Issue #4: The court ordered him to see to his daughter's education when she was a minor, so the ruling still applies regardless of her present adult status.
Response #4: What the man did (or didn't do) did not hurt anyone. He is not a threat to society and should not be imprisoned.
Issue #5: Susan LeFevre.
Response #5: Susan LeFevre's "crime" did not deprive anyone of life, etc. Ergo, she doesn't deserve to go to jail.
The drug war should end immediately, just as prohibition had to end (and for the same reasons).