RE: intentional misuse

["Simmons, Charlie" <CSimmons@kilstock.com>]

Sandy Perle wrote:


>My recommendation is that individuals found intentionally causing 
>potential harm to others, either physical or mentally, should be 
>dealt with swiftly and as harshly as the law will allow. Significant 
>incarceration is an option that needs to be utilized more often than 
>it has been. If there is a significant threat of jail time, perhaps 
>some will be dissuaded from pursuing their childish acts, that 
>ultimately affect you , me and every professional in this field.

The issue of criminal punishment for intentional misuse of radionuclides
raises many interesting issues: should the level of punishment for an
"assault" with 32-P be more severe for an assault carried out with a blunt
object? Or sodium hydroxide?  Should poisoning with an unstable isotope be
treated differently that the same crime using a stable one?  All that may be
required for stringent criminal sanctions based on "radioactivity" here is
strong media coverage coupled with  lawmakers' embracing the issue (what was
that about an "epidemic" of intentional misuse?).  
I suggest that the existing statutory scheme is probably adequate to cover
poisonings, adulterations of consumer products, and attempts to do so.
(Class 3 felonies in Virginia.)  Supporting an enhanced level of criminality
solely because radioactive materials are involved would reinforce a
perception that there is something intrinsically evil about the radiation,
not the criminal behavior.  

Charles Simmons  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html