From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #330 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/330 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 330 Today's Topics: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment [B7L] Re: Avon [B7L] Re:Avon [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Re: [B7L] Odd thought re: Avon Re: [B7L] Odd thought re: Avon [B7L] Re: Avon Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment RE: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment [B7L] Re: Avon [B7L] Re: crime and punishment Re: [B7L] Avon [B7L] Re: this year's zines Re: [B7L] Re: Avon Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment RE: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion [B7L] Re: Wolfcon Photos etc. Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:56:53 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <383F1034.5D9E@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Hm. The American Constitution is largely a secular document. Does it > contain an official line on punishment as retribution, deterrence or > rehabilitation? Or would that come under a different umbrella altogether -- > separation of executive and judiciary and all that? > > Do we have any constitutional experts here? > > -- Rob I'm not a COnstitutional expert-- that's actually more of a life profession. But I've read it. The only comment on punishment is to forbid 'cruel and unusual', and that is in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments. In that same area, it deals with the right to know what crime you are charged with (which the Federation seems to comply with), the right not to be forced to testify against yourself(on the surface, I believe the Federation maintains this), and protection against unwarranted search and seizure(not necessarily respected by the Federation at all). --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:59:34 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Avon Message-ID: <383F10D6.430E@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you, Mistral ad Jacqueline... I *knew* someone would be able to come up with the stuff that was in the back of my head but I wasn't clear enough on to cite. Yes! Shooting those tiny cameras made one *heck* of an impression on me the first time I saw Horizon. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 15:50:24 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:Avon Message-ID: <383F0EB0.7820@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > he seems to be a crack shot. > > Evidence? > > JUdith > Well, he's certainly better than the average trooper. :) As far as your counter-examples go, Soolin is a gunfighter, period. That is her specialty. She is SUPPOSED to be faster than ANYONE. (OTOH, I think Glynnis moves horribly slow in her 'quick draw' scenes.) "I was aiming for his head"-- good line, but I don't believe it. If he'd shot Travis in the head, a brain signal could still have allowed Travis to shoot Blake. Avon was being faceteous... and also, if I'm correct, an excellent shot. I haven't watched that many recently, but he shot several people dead in close succession in Horizon. I believe (I'm not sure) he got off a lethal shot while sliding though a closing door in one episode... a very tricky thing to do. I realize I'm not giving a lot of examples, can someone who's not suffering from dizzy spells and headaches come to my aid on this? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:04:00 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <383F11DF.5DBB@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison said: > > That's an interesting use of terms - 'meant to be'. Meant by whom? I have a > suspicion that god is sneaking in here. If god says we are 'meant to' hurt > people who do bad things, so that they 'pay', then if we decide to forgive > and forget are we disobeying god? It could get scary. Well, Christianity actuals *compells* forgiveness. All that stuff about forgiving those who've trespassed against us, turning the other cheek, and leaving vengeance to the Lord. Which makes the popularity of the death penalty in the most religious regions of the U.S. kind of unnerving. Hello? Do these people read their own books?-- The Catholic Church is one of the few religious groups who actually maintains an anti-death penalty stance. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:15:50 -0000 From: "David A McIntee" To: "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Odd thought re: Avon Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Judith Proctor > On Thu 25 Nov, Helen Krummenacker wrote: > > > he seems to be a crack shot. > > Evidence? > > JUdith > > PS. "I was aiming for his head." Boucher playing on a Steve McQueen line ("I was aiming for the horse") from The Magnificent Seven. Presumably we can likewise assume Avon was joking ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:07:40 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Odd thought re: Avon Message-ID: <008f01bf385b$282117a0$3b3463c3@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Helen Krummenacker Interesting odd thoughts, but I don't actually find them odd. >1. The Federation began to 'run' him, because they thought his >embezzlement scheme was political and wanted to see who he'd connect >with. Drop the bit about political and thats almost a direct quote, so no odd thought there. I could well believe that the Federation THOUGHT it was politically motivated, but well all know Avon to well to believe that. >2. Avon is very, mmm, multitalented for a computers man. Software, >hardware, non-computer engineering skill, Just a good hardware man, trained as an electronics engineer with a secondment to materials science and doing research and development for a large part of his career (He worked on the same Federation teleport project that Blake was on). Got fed up with the Computer Science people racking in all of the money, so switched to computers. >enough familiarity with >Federation weaponry (Project Avaloln) to tell a gun was non-standard >issue by a quick eyeballing of the exterior, some martial arts skills. >3. Despite an implied lack of close combat experience (his conversation >with Jenna "Could you kill a man..."), he seems to be a crack shot. We have had one good explanation for this - he learned how to once on the Liberator - survival skill. But also, why could he not have a hobby. I know people who design printed circuit boards, write the software and are members of a shooting club. >4. Bartolomew returned his feelings for her and 'let him go'; in spite >of the fact he got caught. Bartholomew was just a very good agent, even right up to the very end. >What does this all mean? Possibly nothing, Agreed. >the Federation is not above tampering with people's minds (in fact, >that's their speciality). I don't think they were actually that good. They only placed blocks into Blakes mind, they still used Penal colonies, they still killed people to get them out of the way. When they implanted experiences into the children to frame Blake, that was only a few hours experience, and could well be at an experimental stage. I actually think the whole mind thing was one of the new toys the security forces / military (are they different ?) had got going, but they were expensive pieces of kit, with limited capabilities. Useful for really important projects, like Blake, and framing Blake, and based on the technology developed by the security forces for extracting information from rebels, which was much more advanced. They manipulated the population at large through the mass media, false statements from ex-rebels like pre "The Way Back" Blake, distortions to the legal and tax systems and control of organised crime, and an excellent understanding of human nature and group behaviour. So no, I don't think they were that good at tampering with peoples minds, but they were working on it. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:11:58 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Avon Message-ID: <383F13BE.5BAB@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > The computing stuff I can live with - quite a few software people dabble a > bit in hardware and vv. We're talking about the type of people who are > really INTERESTED in computers here (strange folk...). Anyone into hardware > will have a fairly good grounding in electronics, though I think Avon's > ability to reprogram the Avalon android was taking this too far. Actually, I was thinking of the teleport mechanism. He and Blake both worked on something like it ... "Small world?">"Huge project"Maybe Kerr worked on the aspect of computer control of teleportation, but since they were discussing the *bracelet*, not the controll bank, I had the impression they'd worked on attempts to use that material to create a teleport device. > > In SpaceFall, Avon was, frankly, a crap fighter. He makes a really messy > job out of dealing with the computer guy, and doesn't even think about the > possibility of him waking up again. That was stupid, but as far as being a crap fight er goes, the hand clap over the ears was edited out because children could destroy the hearing of their friends that way... you could really stun a person with that manoeuver, no? Which most people would not have thought of doing, if they weren't trained in fighting. > If you find yourself in a situation where you're likely to get shot at a > lot, it helps to know the range and accuracy of the guns doing the > shooting. Someone like Avon who believes in being thorough would sit down > and learn the specs of Federation weaponry. He probably also made a point > of teaching himself to fight and shoot while Liberator was wandering from > place to place. Surviving was important to him :-) By the time of Horizon, > his accuracy was fairly good on non-moving targets at least. > > Louise Those last points I absolutely grant you. Good. I don't want Avon to be a former spy, actually. :) --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:17:14 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <009e01bf385c$21d33620$3b3463c3@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Hm. The American Constitution is largely a secular document ...... >Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments. In that same >area, it deals with the right to know what crime you are charged with >(which the Federation seems to comply with), the right not to be forced >to testify against yourself(on the surface, I believe the Federation >maintains this), and protection against unwarranted search and >seizure(not necessarily respected by the Federation at all). > And then again, the Federation may not be derived from a future American culture. {discourse added by was of example, and not really significant points .......its initial form may have been dominated by the thinking of Italians (for example only), through (for example only) a rather more pragmatic, and less glorious approach to space exploration. For example (only) don't worry about the first to leave to solar system, be the one to actually exploit the ability to do that.} Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 01:33:23 +0100 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: RE: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F95B473@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Helen wrote: > Well, Christianity actuals *compells* forgiveness. All that stuff about > forgiving those who've trespassed against us, turning the other cheek, > and leaving vengeance to the Lord. Which makes the popularity of the > death penalty in the most religious regions of the U.S. kind of > unnerving. Hello? Do these people read their own books?-- The Catholic > Church is one of the few religious groups who actually maintains an > anti-death penalty stance. From what I've heard, the most religious regions of the U.S. are also the most rabid about banning certain books from schools and libraries. Including, in one instance, the bible itself because: "it is such a downer." Yep, that's the reason they gave. I suppose they have a point there..... To drag this posting kicking and screaming back on topic: I wonder how a certain snarly Liberator crewmember would react to being told to forgive his enemies. I think he would be quite willing to forgive his enemies. Right after he'd killed them. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 20:04:39 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: Avon Message-ID: <19991126.200833.10014.1.Rilliara@juno.com> Skipping over how _quickly_ Avon became such a good shot, there's the odd bit where he realizes Dorian has listed to many accomplishments for a man his age, despite evidence right in front of him that Dorian _has_ done these things. Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Think he knew the type from experience? While I'm at it, it's been a while since I've seen the episode, but did Avon first claim he knew about the material in the bracelet and the theory on which it was based and _then_ find out Blake worked on it too? Large project or not, it seems strange they hadn't met before _if_ Avon was telling the truth--something he's _so_ well known for. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:58:12 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: crime and punishment Message-ID: <19991126.200833.10014.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:17:14 -0000 "Andrew Ellis" writes: > > >>> Hm. The American Constitution is largely a secular document ...... > >>Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments. In that same >>area, it deals with the right to know what crime you are charged with >>(which the Federation seems to comply with), the right not to be >forced >>to testify against yourself(on the surface, I believe the Federation >>maintains this), and protection against unwarranted search and >>seizure(not necessarily respected by the Federation at all). >> > > >And then again, the Federation may not be derived from a future >American >culture. But the U.S. constitution was heavily influenced by a great deal of political thinking going on in Europe (although some of the representational aspects were definitly influenced by the Iroquois), so the Federation could easily be based on a legal system grounded in a similar philosophy on the rights of man even if they then violate it. Laws can serve as a deterrant, a punishment, to enforce restitution, or a corrective influence. The difference between deterrant and punishment might seem more like attitude, but deterrant oriented laws are more interested in extenuating circumstances--you had reasonable cause to act as you did therefore punishment is waved or reduced (breaking the speed limit while saving a life, for example)--but punishment oriented laws are less interested (the best known examples are in Greek myth where Oedipus' road rage incident was considered completely justified by the Greeks--except that the guy was his dad. His ignorance when the crime was committed did not keep him from blinding himself, etc). Restitution requires the wrong doer make amends (making repayment for stolen goods, etc). Corrective laws may assume a wrong was done because of weakness or ignorance which can be corrected (requiring AA attendance). In some cases, this last one goes overboard. One state's board of pardons was actually more likely to release murderers early on the grounds that they were less likely than other criminals to repeat their crime (at least, they did until they released a certain serial killer . . . ). Anyhow, the Federation's law is deterrance-punishment oriented. It also, by our definitons, isn't _just_. Simply by being left behind, evidence favors the family's ignorance. Also, there isn't clear evidence of desertion, just Servalan's listing him as a deserter. The only official evidence she seems to have produced is disappearance. As far as the _Federation_ knows, he could have been killed or kidnaped. Cases where retaliation against family might not represent evil incarnate (mind you, that doesn't mean _good_) would be in cultures where family and tribe loyalty outweighed other loyalties and where the family could be seen as legitimate threats. Even then, a certain degree of exile would make a great deal of sense, slavery doesn't. However, despite their talk of connections and such, the Federation doesn't appear to be such a culture. Even if they were, there's the question of whether the family or tribe has the option of escaping or reducing punishment by condemning the action or disowning the offending member. Then there's the question of whose family an abandoned wife should be considered part of. Finally, punishment of minors too young to have had criminal involvement is hard to give a positive spin. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 21:48:45 -0600 From: Lisa Williams To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon Message-Id: <4.2.2.19991126214546.00d0aa80@mail.dallas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Ellynne G. wrote: >While I'm at it, it's been a while since I've seen the episode, but did >Avon first claim he knew about the material in the bracelet and the >theory on which it was based and _then_ find out Blake worked on it too? Yes, essentially. If I recall correctly, Avon was spouting off in his usual know-it-all fashion about the material and was just about to say its name when Blake beat him to it, breaking in with "Aquitar -- yes, I worked on that project, too." - Lisa -- _____________________________________________________________ Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/ From Eroica With Love: http://eroica.simplenet.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 99 07:04:00 GMT From: s.thompson8@genie.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: this year's zines Message-Id: <199911270710.HAA21433@rock103.genie.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Judith, thank you for the tip about =Professional Hilarity=. What's really exciting is that this adds another country to the list of places where B7 zines have been published! And the first non-English-speaking one, too. So, Calle, think you could persuade anyone in Sweden to do a B7 zine? Even just a multimedia zine with B7 content? :) Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:07:09 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Avon Message-ID: <383F912C.219D77EB@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: > While I'm at it, it's been a while since I've seen the episode, but did > Avon first claim he knew about the material in the bracelet and the > theory on which it was based and _then_ find out Blake worked on it too? > Large project or not, it seems strange they hadn't met before _if_ Avon > was telling the truth--something he's _so_ well known for. ?? That's not a bit strange. Not every Boeing engineer knows every other Boeing engineer, even when they work in the same plant, and Boeing has facilities all over the world. I once worked for a business with fewer than fifty employees all at the same facility and still didn't know all of them, because I worked in accounting and the only person I ever saw from shipping was the supervisor, when we needed to exchange information. Avon said he worked on the computer analysis for the project, which probably meant he worked in a computer room with other computer folk, receiving inputs from the various research sections, analyzing it, and sending out the results again. Unless Blake worked in the computer analysis division, or was involved in dropping off/collecting the reports, it actually seems highly unlikely they'd meet. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 00:18:39 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <383F93DE.3C2CE388@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Avona wrote: > Well, Christianity actuals *compells* forgiveness. All that stuff about > forgiving those who've trespassed against us, turning the other cheek, > and leaving vengeance to the Lord. Which makes the popularity of the > death penalty in the most religious regions of the U.S. kind of > unnerving. Hello? Do these people read their own books?-- The Catholic > Church is one of the few religious groups who actually maintains an > anti-death penalty stance. Possibly you're confusing forgiveness with mercy. Forgiveness is about *attitude*; mercy is about lifting the penalty. It is possible to have either one independently of the other. Parents frequently forgive their children in their hearts, and yet still exact a penalty for bad behaviour as a deterrent. Avon, on the other hand, occasionally shows mercy (usually for his own reasons), but I can't off the top of my head think of an occasion where he actually showed forgiveness. Meegat doesn't count, because he wasn't really angry at her. Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:17:47 +0100 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: Lysator Subject: RE: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F95B478@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mistral wrote: > Meegat doesn't count, because he wasn't really angry at her. He certainly wasn't: Vila: You're enjoying this, aren't you? Avon: I probably am. One of my favorite scenes of the entire series. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:10:04 -0000 From: "Kin-Ming Looi" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <009a01bf38c1$28896600$af0111ac@London0102> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alison Page > Andrew and Una, > > >> ALL punishment is a form of deterrent. > > > >That's not what I was taught in GCSE Religious Studies. There was something > >about retribution as well as deterrence. Or maybe that's just because it > was > >a Catholic school. > > > Whereas at school I was told the exact opposite, that the use of civil > punishment for retribution or revenge would be a violation of human rights, > and that only the 'good' of deterrence justified the 'bad' of depriving > someone of their liberty. > > Or maybe that's just because my teachers were left-wing atheists Aren't there other elements too? ie Protection of the public by removing criminal elements through detention or execution or rehabilitation of offenders. I had this feeling that a lot of the debate around penal policy revolves around what the balance between those different elements should be. Ming. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 13:58:34 -0000 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <001901bf38df$97fbfe80$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ming said - >Aren't there other elements too? ie Protection of the public by removing >criminal elements through detention or execution or rehabilitation of >offenders. I had this feeling that a lot of the debate around penal policy >revolves around what the balance between those different elements should be. This is absolutely right. I always thought, however, that the idea of 'retribution' - the idea that it is right to cause pain for its own sake, because someone is a 'bad' person - was long discredited as a basis for state policy. However, plenty of people seem to think this idea is still going strong so I guess ipso facto it must be. I liked Ellyne's post too, but perhaps it is too kind to the Federation? As I understand it Ellyne is saying that punishment within the Federation seems to be based on the principle of rational deterrence. So, they are prepared to be as cruel as necessary - but with that very important proviso: 'as necessary' - that is the cruelty is justified as a means to an end. In fact as the only means to the end of maintaining civilisation throughout the galaxy. However I think this a spurious whitewash that all fascist and authoritarian states put onto their actions. It is 'necessary' to make strikes illegal. It is 'rational' to let the weak die. It is 'anti-Darwinian to feed hungry children. And so on. Oops - just thought what this might sound like. I'm not calling you a fascist Ellyne, I just mean that I think you are over-estimating how rational the Federation is. Hope that's clear. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 09:28:20 EST From: Bizarro7@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: [B7L] Re: Wolfcon Photos etc. Message-ID: <0.d33a0dcb.25714484@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello everyone! Leah and I are back after a wonderful trip to England. I've just managed to put together a page of our Wolfcon pictures. It isn't linked to the main Ashton Press site yet, but you can get there directly: http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/bizarro7/index.html I vowed I wouldn't do photo packages again, but I've already buckled under and you'll find the details on the website. They will be available for a very limited time ONLY. Please let us know what you think of our photos. We hope you enjoy them as much as we enjoyed taking them! ;-) You can also see a couple of the Adrian pictures I took by going to our EBay site: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/ashton7 We're posting new items quite often again and hope to have a lot more Blakes 7, Highlander, Professionals, Robin of Sherwood, Airwolf, Celtic Art, Leah's cartoons, Star Wars and even more items posted over the next week or so. And, remember, it's always free to look at the pretty pictures on our site! Annie CWPack http://members.aol.com/ashton7/ashton.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 14:34:55 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <024c01bf38e4$96570ed0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison wrote: > I always thought, however, that the idea of > 'retribution' - the idea that it is right to cause pain for its own sake, > because someone is a 'bad' person - was long discredited as a basis for > state policy. However, plenty of people seem to think this idea is still > going strong so I guess ipso facto it must be. I guess therein lies our confusion (I suspected it was over the word 'retribution'): retributive punishment as I understand it is the idea that punishment should, in part, reflect and be a response to a crime committed. This is not causing pain 'for its own sake' since it is a response to a crime; it is not based on the notion that someone is a 'bad person', rather that a person has committed what is considered a bad act. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 16:06:01 -0000 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <006201bf38f1$9d824fa0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una said - >This is not causing pain 'for its own sake' since it is a response to a >crime; it is not based on the notion that someone is a 'bad person', rather >that a person has committed what is considered a bad act. Yes, I see how I was careless, as usual. How's this then? The retribution model says that a bad act is committed, and then there is some kind of 'debt', some kind of 'imbalance', which can then only be righted by a punishment. That means that carrying out a punishment becomes the righteous thing to do, regardless of whether it 'deters' or 'reforms' or any other outcome. But I would say that any cruel act (like imprisoning someone) must stand on its own, and it's only justified if it really is for some good end which can't be got any other way. I think this makes people more cautious and careful about who they hurt and why. And less confident in their own righteousness as they mete out punishment. So, Blake would not be justified in destroying star one by saying 'the federation deserve it' but he might (possibly) be justified in destroying it in order to wreck the federation and liberate people from being drugged and enslaved. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 18:14:35 +0000 From: Steve Kilbane To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re:crime and punishment Message-Id: <199911271814.SAA07039@whitecrow.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Jacqueline wrote: > To drag this posting kicking and screaming back on topic: I wonder how a > certain snarly Liberator crewmember would react to being told to forgive his > enemies. I think he would be quite willing to forgive his enemies. Right > after he'd killed them. I dunno. Apart from the Shirker thing, I don't really see Avon as hugely big on either revenge or forgiveness. I see him more in the practical vein. I think he'd consider the future, and whether his long-term survival would be better served by retaliation, preemptive strike, or just leaving well alone. So, forgiveness: irrelevant. Forgetting, on the other hand, isn't an option. :-) steve ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 19:38:26 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <03a701bf390e$ffa4d0a0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison wrote: > How's this then? The retribution model says that a bad act is committed, and > then there is some kind of 'debt', some kind of 'imbalance', which can then > only be righted by a punishment. That means that carrying out a punishment > becomes the righteous thing to do, regardless of whether it 'deters' or > 'reforms' or any other outcome. Not *only* be righted by a punishment - or at least, I wouldn't see a system of justice based simply on retribution as a good idea. It's exactly as Ming described it: > a lot of the debate around penal policy revolves around what the balance between those different > elements should be so retribution, deterrence, and the other word which I can never recall... rehabilitation! That's the one. > But I would say that any cruel act (like imprisoning someone) must stand on > its own, and it's only justified if it really is for some good end which > can't be got any other way. I think this makes people more cautious and > careful about who they hurt and why. And less confident in their own > righteousness as they mete out punishment. I agree - for example, to pinch a bit from Ellynne's excellent post and twist it slightly to my own ends: > Finally, punishment of minors too young to have had criminal involvement is hard > to give a positive spin The imprisonment of minors who are *guilty* of crimes is an interesting one which we in this country should not be too self-righteous about, I think, and which is an excellent example of what you're saying, Alison, about the need for any cruel act (e.g. imprisonment) to have to be justifiable in and of itself. > So, Blake would not be justified in destroying star one by saying 'the > federation deserve it' but he might (possibly) be justified in destroying it > in order to wreck the federation and liberate people from being drugged and > enslaved. Urgh - concentration going... Mind unravelling... Intelligence abandoning ship... I dunno. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 22:11:05 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Punishment for Desertion Message-ID: <006a01bf3925$831c33e0$a5658cd4@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ming said.... > >Aren't there other elements too? ie Protection of the public by removing >criminal elements through detention or execution or rehabilitation of >offenders. I had this feeling that a lot of the debate around penal policy >revolves around what the balance between those different elements should be. > Lets examine this using what we know about Vila. Vial was a thief, pretty minor stuff really, no threat to life, but if you let theft go on unrestricted, you eventually get anarchy (don't go to deep on that exact word, you KNOW what I MEAN). So he was removed from society for a spell of time (detention as a deterrent) and released. He re-offended. This time they put him into a rehabilitation programme (they "adjusted his mind" and released him into society again. He re-offended again. Eventually, when the Federations best had failed to permanently adjust his mind (quick aside to another thread, the Federation's mind control is not very good) they removed him from society completely (to Cygnus Alpha), which is Punishment and Protection all rolled into one. So the this one example illustrates that the federation Justice system had its own interpretation of the main elements of criminal "punishment". Note that there was NO execution which is the ultimate in retribution. The existence of Cygnus Alpha for people like serial killers (I DON'T mean Gan, Vila was describing the other prisoners, although you may chose to believe........spin .....) suggests that retribution was not high up on the Federations agenda for law and order. Which gets me back to the original point, way back when. I don't think the Federation was necessarily totally bad, although the evidence for certain bad features does exist. Such as the punishment of family members of people left behind by a deserter. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #330 **************************************