Canadian Chat → Re: [Serious] As Long As You're Getting An Education...

No, my little acerbic llama, there is no flaw in the argument.

The point about the Oppenheimer story is that he turned out to be an accomplished physicist of Nobel caliber who contributed greatly to the field. Instead, he could have been a jailbird and later a petty criminal, or maybe a major criminal. Which was better for society?

The morality, or lack thereof, surrounding the first atomic bomb is irrelevant. It wasn't his place to make policy, and he didn't make it. You may as well blame Einstein, too. From the perspective of the day, he was one of the nation's leading physicists summoned to play a role in a national mission of great strategic importance.

The bottom line here is simple. If a young person commits an offense, especially a young person working towards a career, are we better off with a knee-jerk reaction that destroys his future, or are we better off carefully weighing the prospects for rehabilitation? Which version of those possible outcomes would you rather meet on a dark deserted street some day -- the college graduate with a career, or the ex-convict who's lost all hope?

And he is different than some guy starting out his career by working part time at McDonalds how?

First of all you're assuming that the McDonald's guy of the same age would have been treated differently. It's back to your social discrimination argument, for which there is no evidence. In fact there's not even a premise -- the kid is just a junior undergrad, not a friggin' faculty member! Yes, I sympathize with the guy to some degree, but not because he's some sort of fellow academic! I sympathize with him because he's just a kid.

Justice is not about treating everyone the same way. It's about making appropriately balanced judgments, taking into account all the facts and specifics including prospects for rehabilitation, which is especially critical for young people. That's why judges have such a wide range of discretion.

Through my job, I've known people with little or no "promising future" get conditional sentences first go through the justice system. Criminal history, pleading guilty and willingness to work with the crown make a big difference. What I was surprised with is the leniency of the no contact order. Judge would have been justified to effectively make him change schools.

while it was an intriguing story, it comes from one person with zero evidence it actually happened.

He developed an antagonistic relationship with his tutor, Patrick Blackett, who was only a few years his senior. While on vacation, as recalled by his friend Francis Ferguson, Oppenheimer once confessed that he had left an apple doused with noxious chemicals on Blackett's desk. While Ferguson's account is the only detailed version of this event, Oppenheimer's parents were alerted by the university authorities who considered placing him on probation, a fate prevented by his parents successfully lobbying the authorities.

could it have actually happened???...sure...could it not have happened???...absolutely...but i'm not really so sure i would have used that story as an example...i get your point, but i would have chosen a more "credible" and verifiable example.

Actually, no, DJ, there's more to this than just the Wikipedia version, and Oppenheimer previously had other such antagonisms in his life and suffered from deep depression. It only accentuates the fact that throwing him in jail would probably have driven him to even more extreme acts, while giving him a break turned out one of the most prominent physicists of the 20th century.

We humans are complicated creatures, and "lock 'em up and throw away the key" and "hang 'em high" is not always the answer to every wrongdoing, and not in our best interests. And as I'm sure you know by now, I support stiff penalties when they're warranted, including no possibility of parole, ever. The operative phrase here is, "when they're warranted."