Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday August 01 2016, @01:29AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-about-being-aware-of-your-surroundings-instead? dept.

An unexpected catch:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/nyregion/in-pokemon-go-lawmakers-fear-unexpected-entrance-of-the-sexual-predator.html

In an informal investigation by Senators Jeffrey D. Klein and Diane J. Savino, staff members took a list of 100 registered sex offenders across New York City and compared it with locations where Pokémon Go players could collect virtual items or use other game features.

In 59 cases, those locations were within half a block of offenders' homes. The staff members, who played the game for two weeks, also found 57 Pokémon — which appear on players' phones as if they exist in the real world — near the offenders' homes, according to a report the senators released on Friday. Such overlap has been reported in other states, including California and North Carolina.

In New York, those discoveries prompted Mr. Klein, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, and Ms. Savino, a Staten Island Democrat, to propose two pieces of legislation, scheduled to be introduced next week.

The first would prevent moderate or high-risk sex offenders from playing so-called augmented-reality games — like Pokémon Go — and the second would require the games' creators to cross-reference their virtual landscapes with lists of offenders' homes and remove any "in-game objective" within 100 feet of them.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 01 2016, @04:04PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 01 2016, @04:04PM (#382654) Journal

    You are a person whose opinion I would like, regarding capital punishment. There are a lot of arguments, both pro and con, both good and bad. But, you, who are being victimized by the system - what is your opinion? Should a person who is deemed a genuine danger to society be subject to the death penalty? Ideas on the burden of proof required, or a threshold of danger?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by Bruke on Monday August 01 2016, @08:33PM

    by Bruke (6247) on Monday August 01 2016, @08:33PM (#382806)

    Runaway1956 - This is a very difficult question and I've spent a surprising amount of time trying to come up with a good answer for you. I feel that the complexity of the issue means a good answer in this format simply isn't possible but I'll try.

    Your question was, "[s]hould a person who is deemed a genuine danger to society be subject to the death penalty?"

    My short answer, given a literal interpretation of your question, is, "yes, absolutely." If it can be determined with certainty that a person is a danger to society then society must be protected. But what is really meant by a "genuine danger to society" and how was this person deemed as such? As you mentioned, the real questions involve the burden of proof and the threshold of danger. I'll try to share my muddled thoughts on these concepts.

    The current burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's a fine standard, if it is applied correctly. It's very hard to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Over the years, I've known only a very small handful of people that were wrongfully convicted. In most cases they appealed their convictions and ultimately won their freedom. Most, but not all; I know of a fellow that, even after his brother came forward and confessed, lost two appeals and his right to further appeals. In another matter, a judge sustained a conviction on a man accused of abducting a woman for the purpose of making her smoke crack (this abduction was her explanation for why, while on probation for drug possession, she failed her mandatory drug test; note that she alleged only that he made her smoke crack and in no other way molested or harmed her). In those cases, discrimination and corruption seemed to be the motivation for the failure of the appeals (in the first case, the fellow was a pre-op transsexual in a conservative town while in the second case the "victim" was from a wealthy family with ties to the community while the defendant was a poor minority scape-goat). If the issues of discrimination and corruption could be addressed, there's still the matter of poorly handled evidence and confessions elicited from those that are either intimidated or mentally incompetent.

    In addition to the burden of proof, there's also the question of danger. There's been quite a bit of fear-mongering over the dangers of crime but few people really take the time to do the research. There are only a few crimes for which the death penalty is an option under state law; it varies by state but usually such crimes include premeditated murder and aggravated rape (c.f. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty [deathpenaltyinfo.org]). The federal government really opens up the scope of the conversation, including crimes against the state such as treason and espionage (c.f. http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004927 [procon.org]). Each type deserves a full analysis but as there's a limit to what I can reasonably type here I'm going to limit my answer to those state-level convictions involving aggravated rape and premeditated murder; suffice it to say that crimes like "treason" are often in the eye of the beholder and deserver more of a case-by-case examination (e.g. Edward Snowden, the Rosenbergs).

    For violent crimes, hard numbers can be found from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (c.f. http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm [bjs.gov] et al.) but the data for crimes that would force a choice between the death penalty or a lifetime in prison is harder to come by because there is a relatively small sample compared to other crimes - such crimes occur less frequently and those convicted for such crimes are released rarely. Without better statistical data, it's impossible to accurately assess the risk posed by these criminals. If we are to rely only on my own experiences and anecdotal evidence, I would say that most of the "lifers" that I've known tended to be more ethical and trustworthy than the average prisoner - but that's in a controlled environment and it's impossible to really say what would happen if they were let loose in the world after having become so institutionalized over the years. Much of that "trustworthiness" seems to stem from their resignation that they're never leaving, and a desire to not "shit where they eat"; people with out-dates know that their experience is only transitory and thus have less regard for the environment.

    This begs the question, how can anyone ever really be "deemed" as such a danger with any degree of confidence? Setting aside your question, in which it is a given that the person has been correctly deemed a danger, and looking at the question as it exists in the real world, it's better to error on the side of caution then to execute people. I'm opposed to involuntary executions for the simple reason that it's very hard to really be sure - and the consequences of being wrong are unacceptable. You may have noticed that I said "involuntary" executions; I'll explain.

    While I was inside, I met quite a few men with life sentences and "basketball score" sentences (like 80-110 years). I spent the first few years of my sentence in a medium security prison which doubled as a medical facility for older lifers that had essentially been sent there to die. There was an entire housing unit dedicated to wheel-chair bound prisoners. The average age of the population was around 50 years and there where several hundred prisoners over the age of 70. Several of the men there told me quite simply that they would rather have been executed. These were men that had already spent 35 to 55 years inside the system and who were completely institutionalized. These men had come to terms with what they had done and were resigned to their fates; their lives had become a drudgery and a monotony. Some expressed to me their desire for anything other than to grow old, crippled, and infirm in the prison. Some said they'd volunteer for suicidal manned space exploration, others said they'd welcome one-way military missions into enemy territory. Some candidly admitted they'd even welcome lethal injection or a worse method of execution.

    If the goal of the system was to punish those men, it was working quite well but at a terrible cost to the taxpayers; rehabilitation clearly wasn't even a consideration. The current system benefits no one, aside from those that make their living in the prison industry. The solution to the dilemma seems to be to give lengthy sentences when the crime merits it and then allow for prisoners that have been given these extreme sentences the right to choose a dignified death rather than die of age-related illnesses, saving the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year while possibly giving the offender a chance to do something good for society.

    This would open the door to other challenges - for example if a prisoner is allowed to choose to enter into a medial study that would ultimately prove fatal but which would yield information that could save the lives of thousands, how could be make sure that the volunteer was volunteering of their own free will? No system is perfect and questions like that would require considerable thought... but it would still be a better system than what we have now.

    I can't say I'm entirely satisfied with my own answer; I feel like I'm dancing around a very complex issue but there's only so much I can say in this format. I hope that some of what I've said is useful to you.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:35AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 02 2016, @01:35AM (#382926) Journal

      Thank you, and that was a pretty good job. There aren't any easy answers, for or against capital punishment. Thanks for the "food for thought".