After serving 15 years in San Quentin. I get the feeling you’re sharing but what would you prefer? The article does not paint a particularly rosy view of this man’s life, nor does social security amount to much money, per the article.
Side note on the money aspect: San Francisco spends approximately as much on homelessness per vagrant as it costs to house an inmate for the same length of time in San Quentin, where per-prisoner costs are also notoriously high. Inmates are ineligible to receive Social Security.
Which is why justice and the judicial system is not really intended to facilitate revenge. Also, for the fullccontext
>(...)serving in Vietnam when opposing soldiers ambushed and killed his commanding officer. Returning home to San Francisco at age 22 in the early 1970s, he can still recall how the trauma led to a burgeoning heroin addiction that he supported by shoplifting.
He killed the 2 people in 79 and is now 70 years old and in a wheelchair.
What would you propose to do with him instead? And are we denying that he could have benefited from assistance and intervention to deal with that trauma and reintegrate into society? Back to "fuck the vets"?
He paid his debt to society and has a felony record. Now he's staying out of trouble. What more do you want? Guy's in a wheelchair. You want him to starve in the street?
Woah, I've seen that dude by Leavenworth and GG Ave, I think. Damn, I walk around there casually not knowing there's dudes who have gone and killed multiple people just chilling out.
Well, he's also a Vietnam vet. So he has probably killed a lot more than two people, but the majority of it was state sanctioned if that makes you feel more at ease?
Why is that messed up? Do you feel the same about army vets? How about ones who have been dishonorably discharged? I would also be curious what you feel about Rambo, the movie? Do you identify with the sheriff or the vet?
I haven't watched Rambo. Well, I feel differently about army vets as a total population than civilian killers.
But perhaps there is a difference to the way we perceive the world. I'll ask you a question in turn and tell you how I feel.
Imagine there are two hypothetical groups of people. One is a group of people who will punch you for "looking at them funny". The other is every world heavyweight champion. The latter has punched more people in the head than the former. Is the second group (far more punching performed overall) or the first group more preferred by you to walk by at 1 AM at night?
In the spirit of fairness, I will answer my question first. For me, I would actively avoid the first group and not be concerned by the second group.
> ...I feel differently about army vets as a total population than civilian killers.
How about military combat vets who were involved in killing in unspecified circumstances in the civilian world?
> I haven't watched Rambo.
You should. It's a good movie. The later ones (and most especially the most recent one) are dumb action movies, but the original is pretty good.
> One is a group of people who will punch you for "looking at them funny". The other is every world heavyweight champion.
I would trust the first group to act less erratically than the second. It's well-documented fact that getting hit in the head as much as boxers (and pro football players) do fucks you up, and makes you violent and erratic.