joefromchicago wrote:Which leaves only retribution. The state certainly has an interest in exacting a measure of revenge against any malefactor, both to satisfy the presumed desires of the victim and to demonstrate the value that it places on the sanctity of its laws and on the public order. And retribution alone could justify a much more severe sentence than the one handed down in this case. I wonder, however, if that's enough of a reason to destroy this young man's life when there is still the potential for him to become a productive member of society. And I wonder if anyone here has wondered that too.
I wonder why anyone would assume that a frat boy who is willing to behave in this manner--shooting someone with malice aforethought (as has been pointed out, he had to go find the gun, load it, and find a convenient point from which to shoot, and a point from which the "hobo" would likely not have seen the threat), and then ignoring the consequences of the act (going for a pizza), followed by lying to investigators (and therefore obstructing the investigation)--has a greater likelihood of becoming a productive member of society than would any other young man of the same age who did not grow up in an allegedly sheltered environment. Is one to assume that the mere fact that this joker is attending university evidence that he would become a more productive member of society? Does one assume that he would be more productive because the "old boy net" to which he would be more likely to have access than a working class young man of the same age, but differently placed economically, would afford him opportunities denied others?
James Kier Hardy stood, as an pre-adolescent boy, in the dining room of his employer, while his employer and his family ate a generous breakfast of the kind which Hardy himself had never had in his life--and was told that he was fired for being late (a matter of a few minutes). This was a severe blow to his family, which depended on his income, but his mother continued to educate him in the few hours available when they weren't both working, so that he would not be illiterate. At age 11, he found employment in a coal mine. He helped to found the union movement in the Scots collieries. Hardy was a founder of the Labour Party in England, which won 29 seats in the 1906, with Hardy chosen as party leader.
Andrew Carnegie had a similar background, having worked as a child due to the exegencies of his family's poverty, but also having educated himself (in his case, thanks to the generosity of a local retired officer who started a library for indigent boys). He came to the United States, found work as a telegrapher, and eventually became one of the richest men in the world, and sold U.S. Steel (along with its other owners), his share of the sale mounting to more than $200,000,000.
Do we assume that this boy is a better prospect for contributing to society because of his pampered background? Would that not suggest that men like Hardy and Carnegie ought never to have been considered to be likely to contribute to society in the same degree as the privileged boys of their respective generations? Can you name for me two scions of wealthy families in Scotland born in 1835 and 1856 who contributed more to society?
I find the gentler and more closely reasoned suggestion of Joe's part that this boy has a contribution to make to society to be based on no better argument than the more terse and impassioned argument of the gentleman from the police department who spoke of his sheltered background. Perhaps i am wrong and Joe can correct my misapprehension, but it appears to me that one is to assume that he is likely to have a contribution to make to society--despite this stark evidence of an apparently complete lack of compassion and empathy--based solely upon his social provenance.
I reject the notion that social position is a reliable indicator the potential value of anyone to the society of which they are a part. I see this argument as, even in not so intended, a call for the perpetuation of systems of privilege.
