Darkman Fanpage posted:

My thought is death to spies.

botany posted:

Why? He's clearly not a danger to society, and he can't exactly go back to spying now that everybody knows who he is. Outside of retributive justice, there is no coherent reason that I can see for why he should be locked up.

botany posted:

Deterrence is a lovely basis for imprisonment, not just because it doesn't work but also because it's unfair toward individuals to punish them not for what they have done but to make a statement. You're basically saying that Pollard deserves to remain locked up because freeing him would look politically inconvenient. That's not justice.

Darkman Fanpage posted:

To be fair the information Ames and Hanssen provided the Soviet Union/Russia compromised a lot of CIA agents working in the field. If I remember correctly Pollard's intel didn't compromise any operations or operatives.

MrNemo posted:

In the context of the Cold War Israel was pretty close to neutral, I used the phrase to differentiate from selling secrets to a nation that is actively antagonistic or at war with your own nation where I can see greater desire for the strongest possible deterrence. Ultimately I can't see a workable justification for treating this crime as different from what Manning or Snoweden did and I couldn't in all conscience endorse the death penalty or life imprisonment for either of them. I don't think legal cases should be decided on an ideological basis.

Mandy Thompson posted:

The first part applies to ordinary common violent criminals and drug dealers but I think most people here would say that an armed robber or drug dealer should have an opportunity for parole if they have done their time, been a model prisoner, and participated in programs to rehabilitate themselves. The second part suggests that you're not willing to extend him the same courtesy because of politics. Yes Israel is terrible and nationalists are assholes but we have to look at the person first. Otherwise we are just being stubborn and contrary to nationalists like Republicans are to Obama. We should be consistent instead of changing our views to be contrary to someone we don't like. Justice is supposed to be blind to politics.

Mandy Thompson posted:

30 years ago. We should be willing to forgive people.

Mandy Thompson posted:

Justice isn't meant to serve national interests. Justice is blind. National interests aren't justice.

Mandy Thompson posted:

As do any other common thieves, but we are willing to parole thieves.

Mandy Thompson posted:

My loyalty is first to God, then to justice, and to the "national interests" of the international proletariat.

Mandy Thompson posted:

Well first of all Jeffrey Dahmer is dead so that is a moot point. But even if he was still alive, he was not a model prisoner at all, showed no evidence of trying to change, and would be very likely to commit another crime if he was released.

CommieGIR posted:

Obdicut posted:

Remorse is only considered in so far as it has to do with recidivism. In addition, remorse is one of those things I think is shittiest and most manipulable about the parole system. Cry some tears, say you found Jesus, and you get out quicker than a guy who disagrees with the level of punishment he got for the crime. It is mostly a show, but then, so are almost all aspects of our system when it comes to rehabilitation.

Obdicut posted:

What do you mean by 'not so'?

Mandy Thompson posted:

Sure, it isn't just his lack or remorse though, he continues to be violent, dysfunctional, disassociated from reality, and has repeatedly vowed to kill again when they let him out.

Obdicut posted:

Yeah, I do. It would be even if we didn't have a parole system that leaned too heavily on the theatrics, as I said. I think maybe you think i'm saying something that I'm not. I'm saying that, ideally, remorse should only be considered in so far as it impacts recidivism, unless you're into the prison-as-punishment thing. If you are, then we just fundamentally disagree. Manson doesn't have remorse and is very likely to reoffend because of that lack of remorse.

Obdicut posted:

No, again, if someone isn't rehabilitated but doesn't have any capacity to commit that crime anymore, then whether or not they feel bad about it is completely immaterial.

Do you think Pollard is likely to go out and commit espionage again after being released?

Obdicut posted:

And because he definitely doesn't have any relevant secrets anymore, or documents he stashed away, that would mean anything.

What is the argument for keeping him locked up, due to lack of remorse? Why should that mean he stays in prison? Again, if this is just a moral thing for you--that if he's not sorry for what he did he should be punished for it--then we have a fundamental disagreement.

Obdicut posted:

And because he definitely doesn't have any relevant secrets anymore, or documents he stashed away, that would mean anything.

Obdicut posted:

No, because anyone who committed espionage might have secrets they haven't yet revealed, for one thing.

Obdicut posted:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've been arguing, then.

Obdicut posted:

What is confusing you about that?

Obdicut posted:

No clue what this means but it sounds very internet.


They don't, though. If it were argued that Pollard still knew secrets that were unrevealed, then that'd be a reason to lock him up longer. You said by my recidivism reasoning, nobody would ever get locked up for espionage. But someone who just committed espionage obviously might have more unrevealed secrets. After 30 years, Pollard doesn't--or at least, nobody at all is arguing that he does.


This reasoning could be used to lock up a veritable shitload of people forever. It sucks.

Obdicut posted:

How you determine that 'someone had no need to commit it' part is the tricky bit. But all you said was "he will probably try to commit other antisocial acts in the future, and thus probably shouldn't be inflicted on the general population" which would justify locking up a ton of people, and even justify pre-emptively locking up a ton of people.


And that's the situation we have.


That's cool dude. Not sure what wishy-washiness you're seeing, but whatevs.

Obdicut posted:

We're talking about the criminal sentencing and paroling of Pollard for the crime of of espionage, which was conducted through the general criminal justice system.

Mandy Thompson posted:

If Espionage is a sort of act of war, then in the past 30 years the political landscape has changed to the point that the war is essentially over. If he was a POW we would have let him out by now.

Venom Snake posted:

The worst serial killer can kill 60+ people. The worst traitor can kill millions. The reason why it's so bad is because it represents the selling out of not just the people directly around you but your entire society.

Nonsense posted:

Likud is in power if you think he won't get a hero's welcome. BiBi hates Obammer.

5 U.S.C. §3331 posted:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.