Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
chaos
Posts: 5024
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:23 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#21 Post by chaos » Sun Dec 07, 2014 11:34 pm

Essence_Smith wrote: now he wants to be pardoned for business purposes? :flip:

I thought a conviction remains on your record regardless of a pardon. :noclue:

As several people have pointed out, he really doesn't need it for "business purposes." He is being a entitled, narcissistic prick. While he may feel some remorse for being a violent thug who dropped out of high school, on some level he is doing this for publicity.

If he truly wanted to serve as an example of how he has turned his life around, he wouldn't be asking for "formal recognition that someone like [him] can receive official public redemption if he devotes himself to personal improvement and a life of good works."

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#22 Post by Hype » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:17 am

nausearockpig wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:I injured my left eye when I was 8. I have lived with it for over two decades. I know what it's like to not be able to see in 3D properly, and to have to double-check a lot, and my brain basically ignores the left side of my visual field. It causes problems at odd times, like walking down the street, or sitting in a seminar, it's better for me to be on a certain side of things. But it's not the worst thing that could happen to anyone. And even if Wahlberg had raped someone, or worse... I'm not sure what the effect on the victim has to do with what the state should do with criminals.
I would think that the (presumably) injuring oneself in a solo accident or during a game or sport isn't the same as being attacked by someone else in a violent manner. There are other factors at play. An accident is one thing, being the victim of violence is another thing entirely.

He deliberately injured someone to steal their property and subsequently blinded the guy. Yes, killing or crippling, or raping him would've been worse for the victim, but the point isn't whether Crime A is worse than Crime B, it remains that Marky should not have done any of those things he did.

I think that the immediate and possible subsequent effect on Marky's victim should absolutely affect what is and is not done to the criminal. FFS, Marky served 45 days!
My personal anecdote was a direct counter to your worry about the experience of living without vision in one eye. I didn't claim that the two scenarios are equivalent - I was adopting your logic. But let's ignore that. Ultimately all I'm pushing on is the intuition almost everyone has that immorality deserves punishment, and that legal judgements should track moral judgments. I don't think this is true, either in theory or practice. We don't think the state should torture criminals even if that's what the victims want. Likewise, whatever is otherwise wrong with Wahlberg, I don't think the decision to pardon him or not should be based on what we imagine the victims must feel or what we happen to feel he deserves or what we think his motives are or should be. If thay were how the legal system worked it would be horrible.

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#23 Post by creep » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:55 am

i don't think a felony should be on your record forever. if you don't commit another crime in ten years or so it should drop off....like a bankruptcy. one stupid mistake shouldn't follow you around forever. i know you can go to court and get it expunged but it should be automatic. this should apply for everyone except child molesters and marky mark.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#24 Post by nausearockpig » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:22 am

creep wrote:i don't think a felony should be on your record forever. if you don't commit another crime in ten years or so it should drop off....like a bankruptcy. one stupid mistake shouldn't follow you around forever. i know you can go to court and get it expunged but it should be automatic. this should apply for everyone except child molesters and marky mark.
What about murder, rape, looting, assault, breaking & entering, grand theft auto, running a red light, jaywalking...

Where does the law draw the line? I'm not saying I have the answer btw....

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#25 Post by creep » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:31 am

nausearockpig wrote:
creep wrote:i don't think a felony should be on your record forever. if you don't commit another crime in ten years or so it should drop off....like a bankruptcy. one stupid mistake shouldn't follow you around forever. i know you can go to court and get it expunged but it should be automatic. this should apply for everyone except child molesters and marky mark.
What about murder, rape, looting, assault, breaking & entering, grand theft auto, running a red light, jaywalking...

Where does the law draw the line? I'm not saying I have the answer btw....
if the crime is bad enough you would be in jail anyway. the 10 years would be 10 years out of jail living crime free. :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#26 Post by Hype » Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:05 pm

Part of the problem is that we have multiple ideas about the purpose of incarceration as a method of justice.

The penitentiary model comes from Victorian era Christianity: you are put in conditions that encourage you to "repent". In practice it turns out this is just brutal.
There's the moral education model: the purpose of prisons is to allow the state to basically re-educate offenders into a proper place in the moral community. That explains why incarcerated criminals can obtain education, books, etc.
Then there's the retributive model: the purpose of jail is to punish the criminal, because there's something good about this. Ultimately this goes back to Babylon (and probably all the way back to the first humans), but it's also a distinctly religious model (because our legal systems were developed mostly by people who were raised in a tradition that took its cues from Babylon in the first place).

There are newer models, involving making sure we treat underlying causes like mental illness, and there are also pushes to make sure we don't dehumanize criminals (or victims). You can see this in the way prisons in Scandinavia are starting to go.

But you could see how on SOME of these models, but not all of them, a person who has "done their time", literally, no longer has any debt to the state or society, and regains full status (of course, a criminal record in practice prevents this).

I don't know what the correct model is, but I do think it's unlikely to be one that just thinks it's right to punish wrongdoing,, especially when there is no likelihood of recidivism.

User avatar
Essence_Smith
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: Actor Mark Wahlberg seeks a pardon for 1988 assaults

#27 Post by Essence_Smith » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:11 am


Post Reply