If you are imprisoned for commiting 3 evil acts, you can not commit 21 good acts...

---

Request for Question Clarification by cynthia-ga on 07 Aug 2006 12:32 PDT

What is your zip code? 

I am really itching to show you just how close to your home pedophiles
are living, --at this moment. Do you have children? Most people don't
realize how many registered sex offenders there are, and are stunned
upon learning they are soooo close.

Let one of those evil acts happen to you or someone you love and
you'll change your tune fast.

You can still commit 21 good acts whilst you are in prison.

So, NO, it's not wrong.

Would you prefer your hands cut off for theft?

Or your head cut off for more serious stuff?

Or what?

While locked up you cannot commit 21 more evil acts

Personally I would bring back the stocks

I would also dye people

For joy riders, I would fit them with the equivalent of a car clamp,
so they cannot drive. Sure, they can cut it off, but a nark system
would fix that.
- as would midnight reporting

There are several reasons for imprisonment:
1) Punishment.  If I steal or murder or...  society feels better about
the situation if I pay the penalty of going to jail.
2) Determent.  I am less likely to steal from you if there is a good
chance that I will go to jail for it.
3) Rehabilitation.  If I do something that society deems wrong then
there is a good chance I am going to do something wrong again. 
However if I spend a year in jail after doing something wrong then I
might have a change of heart during that time.
4) Separation from society.  If I am a menace to society then society
doesn't want me walking the streets.  While I am in jail, I can do no
harm.

It is true that jail may prevent a person from properly making up for
their crimes, but the percentage of inmates who would legitamitely do
that and be a benefit to society if they were free is very low.

If I am not imprisoned for commiting 3 evil acts, why would I want to
bother committing any good acts?
I would carry on in my old evil ways
K

The answer to your question is, it depends.

It is logical that you can respond to force with an equal amount of
force. Therefore, victimless crimes, which involved no force against
anyone, cannot be met with force. Since the person enforcing the
imprisonment would be initiating force and violence against you.

Example:

If John Smith grows Mint inside his house, and the Mint plant is made
illegal, this in itself does not justify the use of force and violence
to put John into prison.

However, following in line with common law, if someone is the victim
of a crime, they deserve restitution.

Example: 

If John Smith drives over Mary's flower bed, he should pay
restitution. If John refuses to pay restitution, then John should be
put into a work camp (prison), where a portion of John's income at the
work camp, shall be paid to Mary to pay for restitution. John would be
required to pay for EVERYTHING in the work camp, including food, and
if John would rather starve to death than work, then that is his
choice.

The current problem with our prison system is that it does nothing or
very little to address restitution. If John beats up Mary, he spends
time in prison, and is let out based on time. John does not have to
'make right' with Mary, and is not effectively deterred from
performing actions, since it will also cost him Money.

End victimless crimes, then all punishment based on restitution is right. 

Cutting off hands, does nothing to repair Mary's crops. Killing John
does nothing to repair Mary's crops. However, Mary can at least have
the Market Value of her crops given back to her (Plus some to
compensate for inconvenience).