### Apollo BBS Archive - Feburary 18, 1990

    Message: 63428
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann/63413
    Date: 02/17/90  Time: 23:04:35

    Especially after seeing a rather manipulative story just hours ago on Connie
    Chung's Saturday Night, huh?

    Message: 63429
    Author: Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mike Middleton
    Date: 02/17/90  Time: 23:13:59

    First, you seem rather confused as to which BBS this is.  Second, the name
    is not Guggenheim.  It's Guggenheimer.  Third, I guess that there are two
    ways to look at things when you are suffering miserably.  One is to retreat
    into fantasy land, and hope that somehow, in some twisted manner you cannot
    possibly comprehend, the terrible, meaningless suffering is part of His
    will, and hope that stubborn faith will be rewarded in the next life.

    On the other hand, you could face reality with rational dignity.

    Message: 63430
    Author: Mike Middleton
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff Guggenheimer
    Date: 02/18/90  Time: 01:15:31

    I am not confused. Part of a persons character is their "name." I can only
    assume that you have either one of these, as you seem unwilling to share
    either on any BBS. You came after me, baiting me on a different BBS, but
    seem to frequent this one, as you did not get my reply there. See, I am not
    confused, I knew both your pseudonyms. The attitude gave you away. Why not
    come out in the light, from behind your hiding place, if you want to put
    down others who retreat when faced with torture? You are retreating and all
    you're faced with is another human being to have a conversation with! Maybe
    getting to know someone before you insult them is a new idea to you, but I
    think I deserve at least that much. What are you afraid of? Love?
    Acceptance? SOmeone actually getting to know you and still likeing you
    anyway?

    Well, on the off chance that you might want slightly to know me before
    launching another attack, here's the prayer I wrote for worship service
    later this morning: Father, help me recognize the ways I sin. Purge from me
    the illusion that I can be righteous in my own way. When I let a few wrong
    actions make me feel guilty, show me clearly the larger problem of my lack
    of trust in you. When I point out how others have failed to meet my
    standards, show me instead how I have failed to meet your righteous
    standards. When I am afraid or angry because things are not working out my
    way, show me how to follow the way you have set before me with joy. When I
    think I am gettting somewhere, show me how lost and in need of you I really
    am. In Your Mercy, hear my prayer. Amen

    Message: 63431
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Lippard/atheists
    Date: 02/18/90  Time: 05:40:53

    "I always find it amusig how Christians try to evade responsibility for the
    continuously abhorrent behavior of Christians over the last 1900+ years."
     Then I can assume that you accept full responsibility for every act
    committed by every atheist, purportedly in the name of atheism, over the
    same period of time? Sure you do.

    Message: 63432
    Author: Larry Michaels   NOTE:  I am Larry Michaels -- Rod
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Zak/Dean
    Date: 02/18/90  Time: 08:36:51

    If someone I cared for or myself had a crime committed on them (Zak asked)
    I would rather see them causing their own support instead of the way it is
    now.  It is now like a double crime, so to speak.  They commit a crime then
    are tried at taxpayer expense then supported by same for as many years as
    their sentence.

    I ask, is this fair?

    The first part of their sentence would be to work off their trail expense.
    In this way a better defense attorney could be had (other than a public
    defender who are as good as useless).  A portion of what the prisoner
    produced would go directly to them thus assuring they would be paid.
    There would then be a large number of attorneys who would be willing to
    carry contracts being assured that the guilty would not be released until
    they were paid off.  This in itself would cause the convicted person to
    work that much harder in order to pay off all damaged parties so they could
    be released.

    If the accused was found to be innocent by a jury of peers then the state
    (taxpayers) would pay the attorney fee for both sides.  The defense
    attorney would be assured of their fee in either case although an innocent
    verdict would assure them of being paid in full at the close of the trial.
    This would serve as an incentive to do a good job.

    Another part of what was produced by the prisoner would go to repay the
    victim.  At this time in our history this is rarely heard of.

    Again, I would rather see the prisoner being rehabilitated rather than
    punished.  There can be no true satisfaction in knowing that someone is
    being tormented other than by a maligned mind.  Also when the prisoner is
    released after their sentence I would rather see someone who was treated by
    therapy rather than by being belittled on a continual basis.  Society would
    stand a better chance with the release of the prisoner in this way.

    Again the prisoner upon completion of sentence may choose to stay with the
    prison program as a worker or advisor but living beyond the barb wire.
    Just like programs that are available in big companies or the military.

    One cause of crime is being unemployed, underemployed or homeless.  A
    place that accepts oneself is sometimes all it takes to calm a fellow down.
    Having a roof over the head also helps.

    No, I cannot see punishment for punishments sake as a viable avenue in
    dealing with our criminal population.  In many cases there are circumstances
    caused by city, state or federal government (the system) that lent
    responsibility to the person going off the deep end.  Our system, at this
    writing, is not exactly what one could call fair.  Living in a
    non-participitory democracy is not exactly the living end.