posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 08:13 PM
Originally posted by chissler
Some short time after he says Ok i want out. Does he still have the right to freedom? Would it be justified to keep him in jail against his will,
when really he is only in jail because of his own will.
Seems it is easy to say, tough. But is it justice?
It's on the edge. It's right, and it's legal, but to be asbolutely unassailably, perfectly just I think they have to add an anti-abuse clause which
specifies add-on time as being applicable not only for insurance of the public good but for correction of any other malfeasance which landed the guy
in jail (obviously that's not exactly how i'd word the law).
Afterall, the guy is abusing tax dollars as if they were provided for his convenience, and furthermore he did commit a crime. Everyone is in jail
willingly. Robbing a liquor store is willing. Shooting someone is willing. etc etc etc. You can't just let a guy out because he's no longer willing.
It's good that he's no longer willing, because that means that when his lawful term is expired that there isn't much danger of him coming back, but
barring some kind of law which provides early release on demonstration of rehabilitation, he still has to serve the sentence that was legally incurred
by his choices.
Really modifying the law isn't completely necessary, but I'm big on intellectual honesty, especially where government is concerned because I don't
beleive the government should be doing anything that it can't logically justify with its citizens lives and tax dollars, so it is my preference that
they make the law as specific as possible.
Gee, now all I've got to do is become a citizen in the UK and maybe my preference will be worth spitting on
So much for my preference.