Re: No Parole for Federales.

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Wed Jan 31 2001 - 13:32:00 MST

Michael Lorrey wrote:

> "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> >
> > Michael Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, only if you get one first.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only if you get one first, and not then.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, I'm not a felon or violent felon, which were the types I
> > > was directing my comments toward.
> >
> > I think felons, when they've paid their debt to society, and are back to
> > paying taxes to society, they should get their vote back.
> I don't have a problem, assuming they pass a citizenship test. I never
> said they would have to have this permanently. This was a concept for an
> alternative to prison, a sort of mobile house arrest idea, where only
> those who prove their unfitness to live in a trust society must live
> under the rules of a 'transparent society'.

Well, the current electronic monitoring devices that are used instead of prison
or as required by legal judgment, some of them are attached to the citzen like
a leg bracelet, then there is a device at that home or other location where the
citzen is required by law to stay. None of them in any way affect the
citizen's health.

These are a little different than electronic shock collars.

> My opposition to a transparent society is it automatically treats
> everyone like felons. The technologies needed for a transparent society
> can be applied far easier to treating felons like felons and free people
> like free people.

I have problems with "transparent" society also. There is Supreme Court legal
precedent for the Right to Privacy (right to be left alone).

> > Many people here have children in various forms. Some of them might get
> > caught up in something when they turn 18 and be found guilty of some
> > crime. Noone here would ever accept your device being put on anyone they
> > love. What you have suggested is cruel and unusual punishment.
> Not at all. Nobody would be in pain, while the stunner would be used
> either for instances where the wearer doesn't care about being observed
> (i.e. in a rage, etc) or at a low level to 'train' the felon into having
> a concience via negative feedback. Far more humane than prison,
> especially for non-violent offenders, they wouldn't be exposed to
> incorrigibles so much and would not be at risk of prison rape.

Absolutely negative.

> >
> > Not being a felon nor draconian, you can call me "Dragon." If there was
> > a live-or-die self-defense situation, I would kill my assailant.
> Me too.

Thus, if we had a pair of robots, one identical in physical characteristics to
me and the other to Lorrey, and we were able to sensorily inhabit those robots
while our bodies were safe, then the robots could fight to destruction.

> >
> > Somewhere, on the books, there is a law that you have broken. Many laws
> > should be changed.
> No doubt on both counts. I have not, however, committed any felonies.

I might have broken some drug laws. I have not committed any "non-consensual"
physical act since childhood, more or less. For example, in school, I used to
punch this friend sometimes, but not to the point where he wouldn't punch back.


Ross Andrew Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting
Ross at Tiki-Lounge:
Confucious says, "My name is Confucious."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:27 MDT