I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore by JCKnife

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, but I wish I did.

There is a move afoot to create a national sex offender registry. Now, there are problems with creating a national registry- among others, the criteria for being listed as a sex offender varies from state to state (in one case, a 17 year-old boy was listed along with baby-killers for having consensual sex with a 15 year-old girl so there would need to be some sort of screening process to make sure that all of the listings were equivalent) but all in all, sicne sex offenders move around quite a bit it would a good thing.

I can think of other things to do, including a national DNA registry, serious investigation into what creates a brutal sex offender and how they may be treated (if possible), an "ankle bracelet" tracking program, or maximum sentencing for repeat offenders. (I have reasons for using past criminal convictions in sentencing, but the reasoning is way too long to get into here.)

When I read about child porn/ pedophile investigators and their total lack of resources and coordination, I think to myself- hey, the criminals have ruined far more lives than 9-11. Why can't we allocate more resources in that direction??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:59 PM

BYTETHEBULLET

This prolly isn't what you are looking for but they may be able to point you in the right direction.

http://www.criminalcheck.com/

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:21 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
I've had it up to here with people molesting, raping and killing our kids. For whatever reason lately we've had a rash of these. Since I read the horrible details of how Jessica Lundsford was found, I've had it in my head that I need to do one of two things: 1) find an existing grassroots organization that shows the appropriate amount of outrage at these absolute monsters, and is DOING something about it, or 2) start one myself.

Does anyone know of such an organization?

There are various lobbying groups working for laws that monitor sex offenders, is that what you have in mind?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX

There are various lobbying groups working for laws that monitor sex offenders, is that what you have in mind?

SergeantX

Honestly I haven't decided which would be the most effective: a group that lobbies for new legislation, a group that helps parents track known offenders, or a group that puts political pressure on judges and prosecutors to impose maximum sentences. I think trying to do all three would reduce focus and chances of success.

Honestly, best case, I would like to see a "public stoning" law passed. I don't think that's a reality in today's society but that would be ideal.

These horrific offenses against kids are the worst possible crime--they deserve the worst possible punishment.

One I've found that looks promising is www.throwawaythekey.org but I have some reservations about their effectiveness. I'll withold any specifics until I've done more research.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As the parent of a brain-damaged child, I have two opposite, almost instinctual reactions to pedophiles, child pornographers, and sex offenders in general. The first is a weird kind of fascination mixed with horror (How do people GET that way??) but the seond is a little more compassionate (I hope). Because of my daughter's problems, I actually get to see brain-damaged kids before they grow up to be totally repulsive adults, and I know that neurological pathologies can take over someone's behavior. I mean, there have been child molesters who have basically said "Kill me before I do it again." (Most of the inmates on death row are brain-damaged, BTW).

Personally, I'd rather research them than execute them. I think that would be a FAR better use of their lives. But, I'm heading into River territory, aren't I??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:24 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think that two offenses (absent insanity) get you a lifetime in jail. No release, no parole.

The reason is that the best predictor of the future 'outside' is not how good they were in jail, how motivated they seemed to be to change, or whether or not the psychiatrists feel they have resolved their 'issues', but what they did in the past. If one turn in jail wasn't enough to get them to stop, then why would a second chance work any better?

Some people really do hear voices and can't distinguish reality, I think they should get a turn through the hospital system to be stabilized, and lifetime monitoring to make sure they stay on their meds.

But what to do with the Ted Bundy's or BTK killers of the world? As long as they evade capture, no amount of legal change is going to address them. I agree with SignyM, we need to study them to figure out what goes wrong and see if there aren't generic things we can do with all children to reduce the numbers of the pathologicaly criminal.

As for public stoning, perhaps you'd be comfortable with Sharia law.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:21 PM

Quote:
A 9-year-old girl was raped, bound and buried alive, kneeling and clutching a purple stuffed dolphin, state prosecutors said in documents released Wednesday.

Jessica Lunsford's body was found March 19 buried about 150 yards from her house in Homosassa, about 60 miles north of Tampa.

According to the 292 pages of documents, Jessica was found wearing shorts and a shirt _ different from the pink nightgown her family said she was wearing when they reported her missing Feb. 24, The Tampa Tribune said in its online edition late Wednesday.

The body was wrapped in two plastic trash bags knotted at her head and feet in a grave covered by a mound of leaves, the state attorney's office said in the statements.

Jessica died of asphyxiation, according to a coroner's report.

A convicted sex offender, John Evander Couey, 46, is charged in her slaying.

Officials said they believe Jessica may have been alive in Couey's home while police and volunteers searched for her. After she was killed, Couey fled to Georgia.

I don't see anything that needs studying here. Her dad should have first crack at Couey with a baseball bat. If he's not willing, I'm sure there would be plenty of neighborhood volunteers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As for public stoning, perhaps you'd be comfortable with Sharia law.

Are you equating child rape and murder with adultery?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:45 PM

RELFEXIVE

One bunch of volunteers working against paedophile chatroom groomers in a unique way is

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

They've provided several police forces in the US with enough evidence to secure convictions, and have actively worked to rescue a girl who got kidnapped and abused when the police were doing nothing.

Don't know if this relates in any way to this Jessica Lundsford thing, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

"My God - you're like a trained ape. Without the training."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 1:49 AM

SIMONWHO

Hey, we tried vigilante justice against paedophiles over here in the UK. Didn't work out too well for us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2293405.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3172766.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2903591.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2289010.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1887835.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1647927.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

But hey, if you want to go around torturing and killing people who may or may not be paedophiles, why should I get in your way with tedious things like "proof" or "respect for human life" or "due process".

The fact remains if a child is molested, odds on that it's a family member who is responsible for the molestation. If you really want to do something about paedophilia as a nationwide sickness, come up with ideas on how to solve that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:46 AM

Woah there! I NEVER mentioned vigilante justice (haven't read your links yet). I'm all for due process and a fair and speedy trial--I'm only talking about sentencing.

But I'm off-point; I originally said I didn't think the public stoning was feasible, just ideal.

My real question is which of the three organizations I described above would be most effective at protecting children.

And this IS about valuing life--specifically it's about valuing childrens' lives more dearly than others, and backing that up with consequences.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 3:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.

Aren't all lives equal?? It seems we get into trouble philosophically/ intellectually/ morally/ rhetorically/ religiously ("What part about 'Thou shall not kill' don't you understand?") when we start to parse out people's relative "value". Terry Schiavo was worth more than Sun Hudson. The 9-11 victims were worth more than the 20,000 Afghans we killed in response. The unborn are sacred, but the 10,000 people who die lacking health insurance are suitable victims on the corporate altar.

I feel the same outrage, but Id sure like to hear how you can value kids more than anyone else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:26 AM

SIMONWHO

The thing is, my knee jerk reaction is castrate the bastards, lock them up for the rest of their lives and rejoice in the improvement to society. The trouble is that, like most knee jerk reactions, there's no logic behind it.

As I said earlier, if a child is being sexually abused, most of the time it is a direct family member. A lot of the time other family members know or suspect the abuse but do nothing. Often when children finally complain, they aren't believed or they are ostracized for dividing the family. The image of paedophile monsters roaming the countryside just isn't true. They're already in the family home. The question is what is to be done with them when they are caught.

Perhaps the answer is simply to say that child abuse carries a lifelong sentence with it. Both murder and rape can carry grey areas with them (something done in a moment of anger/madness, questions over consent, etc, etc) but there is no situation in which an adult should be having sex with a child, even if the child apparently consents. With certain "Romeo and Juliet" provisions in place, would people here feel that a lifelong sentence would be the right sentence for, say, a 35 year old having sex with a 14 year old girl?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 9:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

http://www.protect.org

For nearly 15-20 years, some folk have been pulling for a PAC (Politic Action Committee) based on child protection, because the only way to have a political impact on such things is to have both a razorpoint focus on the issue, like the NRA has on guns, and have sufficient political and financial clout to strongarm politicians.

That's what a PAC is, it's a threat, a financial, political, voting-bloc strongarm to MAKE politicians serve the will of the people, rather than themselves.

Anyhow, Protect is the real deal, and in part thanks to the efforts of Andrew Vachss, we finally made it a reality.

I do believe that's what you were asking about, and looking for.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 9:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Looks like a good website. As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with locking up offenders and throwing away the key! (Executing them is another matter.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 11:47 AM

HKCAVALIER

Thank you, Simonwho, for your voice of reason. As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse myself, I am all too familiar with the popular prejudices about "child molesters roaming the streets." Thing is, the vast majority of child molesters were themselves interfered with in that way. Just as the great majority of people in prison have been severely physically abused in childhood. If a man is raped by one or both of his alchoholic parents when he is a child and then when faced with children of his own he repeats what had been done to him, is he a "monster" that needs to be locked away? I don't think so. I know that faced with the same choice--repeat the abuse done to me as a child or end a cycle that has been repeated in my family for at least two generations that I know of--I have been able to choose to end the cycle. My dad struggled against it, joined the priesthood so as not to have children (ironically, I imagine more than one Catholic priest has made the very same decission), but he couldn't escape the cycle.

So do we punish this man, who's whole life is a punishment? As Simonwho points out, y'all are talking about a pretty small minority of offenders. These rootless men who prey upon the children of others. Perhaps because they exist so far outside good society it's easier to imagine beating them to death or stoning them.

What I see, is a whole society driven for a million very personal and mysterious reasons to have revenge. The more we humanize the object of our revenge the less satisfying it ultimately is. So we choose to express our raw hatred against those members of society (or the world) whom we are most comfortable dehumanizing, whether it be "unforgiveable" child molesters in our own country or "inhuman" terrorists abroad. It's the same madness, the same violence. When will it end?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 12:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think there is more than one kind of abuser. The vast majority are basically normal people with a history of abuse, or with a history of "getting away with it". (Look up the story of the Pitcairn rapists now on trial.) Like wife-batterers, they are abusers of convenience... the risks of being caught or punished have to be low enough or they won't act. Given therapy and perhaps some medication (antidepressants) and the threat of punshiment they could stop abusing children. But then there are others who seem to have an ungovernable urge to rape, torture, or kill. Their wiring is awry. No amount of therapy seems to help. Some have even begged for chemical castration or execution. These are the people who seem to be committing the horrific crimes that have transfixed JC.

HK- since you seem to have some insight into this, do you think this is a realistic categorization?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 12:36 PM

DAIKATH

I havent read the entire thread.

But here in my country (The Netherlands) there was a really new kind of conviction. A sex offender had a tracking chip implanted in him and was shown on a map in wich areas he isn't allowed to go.

If he does go in he will be arrested and be put in prison.

They said he done it five times before and I don't think putting him for the rest of his life in a institution will equal the suffering a victim will have to go through if finds one again.(they dont have rapes here in prison, much less anything damaging in an institution)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:46 PM

HARDWARE

If society serves any purpose it is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Minors, being held less accountable than adults, are a group considered incapable of protecting themselves. Adults are considered capable of protecting themselves and thus the burden of responsibility falls upon their shoulders.

No, I don't consider any life to be worth more than others. Yes, I do consider child molestation to be equivalent to murder. Are these contradictory positions? I don't think so.

The essence of evil isn't hate, it is lack of caring. All it took for Nazi Germany to committ the most evil acts in recent history is for the public to not care when the Gestapo came for their Jewish, homosexual, politically disident, retarded or mentally ill neighbors. A child molester doesn't care for the injury he or she inflicts on their victim. More over, studies have shown that children sexually assaulted are more likely to develop into child molesters. Thus, the lack of caring perpetrated in this generation echoes down generations.

A long, long time ago, in a sociology class far away I studied pedophiles. Their sexual orientation was children, not male or female. Their level of recidivism approached 100%. The only thing that stemmed the level of repeated behavior was castration, removing the drive to commmitt the crime, not fear of punishment for committing the crime.

On the other hand, greater erosions of personal freedom have been enacted "for the children" than for any other reason I can think of.

I am for due process and firm, effective consequences that get to the root of the problem the FIRST time.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.
...
I feel the same outrage, but Id sure like to hear how you can value kids more than anyone else.

A couple of reasons come to mind.

1. Children can't protect themselves, so it has traditionally been every adult's responsibility to provide them with protection. Defense of offspring is pretty much biologically hardwired into not only humans, but most animals. The betrayal of this accepted societal and biological norm by child abusers is considered more heinous than a similar crime against an adult.

2. Children are our immortality...our link to the future. To take or damage a child's life is to destroy this future before it has a chance to happen.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 3:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.

Aren't all lives equal?? It seems we get into trouble philosophically/ intellectually/ morally/ rhetorically/ religiously ("What part about 'Thou shall not kill' don't you understand?") when we start to parse out people's relative "value".

...and just to answer the "all lives equal" question - not to me. For example, the life of an armed housebreaker is not worth as much to me as my wife's life, or mine. I would not risk our lives by giving that person the chance to take them, even if it meant killing them. People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).

Is an Adolf Hitler worth as much as a Mother Theresa? Uday and Qusay Hussein as much as Orville and Wilbur Wright? Not in my book. People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do.

BTW, I have heard several sources state, and agree, that the correct interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder".

Edit: And although I believe that we are all "endowed by our creator (or whatever's cranking)" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I also believe that individuals can squander that endowment by their actions. The converse of rights is responsibilities. Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 3:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Lemme see - did Jesus not say that anyone can love someone who's good to you, but to be a follower, you must also love those who harm you?

And though he knew he had to die to fulfill his destiny, did he not ask his father to forgive those who killed him? He could have just snickered and though - you have no idea, you'll get yours soon enough. But to pray for them to be forgiven - wasn't he going out of his way just a tad?

That's the problem with popular Christianity, it's a buffet of beliefs. Some old testament, some gospel, some supersition. Some'a vengeance, some'a the 10 commandments, none'a the love everyone crap.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 3:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, sure, in situations of self-defense where it apears that one life or another is about to be lost, I know whose life I want to preserve. But when you have someone convicted and jailed, it's not a case of self-defense. I don't think we should be so comfortable dealing death because of what we think we "know" about someone's motivations, guilt, or worth. Aside fomr the people how have been convicted in error, let's look at some infamous murders...

What about Andrea Yates? She drowned five of her own children. Was she sane? Well, she was in touch with reality enough to complete the task. On the other hand, she apparently suffered from repeated bouts of post-partum depression that required her to take anti-psychotics. (And BTW, knowing her history of ppd, whose brilliant idea was it to have that many kids in the first place? Her husband's!)

The there is the fact that most of the people on death row are brain damaged. Beaten as kids, suffering from fetal acohol syndrome, often sexually abused, they have lower IQs and poor impulse control. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=432

What about the kids who are just born angry? New Zealand is doing a large-scale longitudinal landmark study that shbows that many of the kids identified as early as four years old as having the potential for criminal behavior do, in fact, go on to become violent criminals.

Uday and Qusay. Likely, if they had not been sons of a violent, paranoid, and extremely powerful father who forced them into his mold, they likely would have grown up to be pretty decent people.

When you start to look at the CAUSES of horrific behavior, it becomes less a question of revenge and punishment, more a question of (1) protecting society (2) treating if possible (3) preventing the development of criminality. Seems like we would go a lot farther long those lines than grabbing a noose.

Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 3:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Lemme see - did Jesus not say that anyone can love someone who's good to you, but to be a follower, you must also love those who harm you?

And though he knew he had to die to fulfill his destiny, did he not ask his father to forgive those who killed him? He could have just snickered and though - you have no idea, you'll get yours soon enough. But to pray for them to be forgiven - wasn't he going out of his way just a tad?

That's the problem with popular Christianity, it's a buffet of beliefs. Some old testament, some gospel, some supersition. Some'a vengeance, some'a the 10 commandments, none'a the love everyone crap.

Not being much of a Christian, I consider the Commandments more "guidelines". I might have sympathy (if not love) for someone I shot in defense of my family, but that wouldn't stop me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.

Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).

Is an Adolf Hitler worth as much as a Mother Theresa? Uday and Qusay Hussein as much as Orville and Wilbur Wright? Not in my book. People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do.

BTW, I have heard several sources state, and agree, that the correct interpretation of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not murder".

Edit: And although I believe that we are all "endowed by our creator (or whatever's cranking)" with the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", I also believe that individuals can squander that endowment by their actions. The converse of rights is responsibilities. Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:11 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, sure, in situations of self-defense where it apears that one life or another is about to be lost, I know whose life I want to preserve. But when you have someone convicted and jailed, it's not a case of self-defense. I don't think we should be so comfortable dealing death because of what we think we "know" about someone's motivations, guilt, or worth. Aside fomr the people how have been convicted in error, let's look at some infamous murders...

What about Andrea Yates? She drowned five of her own children. Was she sane? Well, she was in touch with reality enough to complete the task. On the other hand, she apparently suffered from repeated bouts of post-partum depression that required her to take anti-psychotics. (And BTW, knowing her history of ppd, whose brilliant idea was it to have that many kids in the first place? Her husband's!)

The there is the fact that most of the people on death row are brain damaged. Beaten as kids, suffering from fetal acohol syndrome, often sexually abused, they have lower IQs and poor impulse control. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=17&did=432

What about the kids who are just born angry? New Zealand is doing a large-scale longitudinal landmark study that shbows that many of the kids identified as early as four years old as having the potential for criminal behavior do, in fact, go on to become violent criminals.

Uday and Qusay. Likely, if they had not been sons of a violent, paranoid, and extremely powerful father who forced them into his mold, they likely would have grown up to be pretty decent people.

When you start to look at the CAUSES of horrific behavior, it becomes less a question of revenge and punishment, more a question of (1) protecting society (2) treating if possible (3) preventing the development of criminality. Seems like we would go a lot farther long those lines than grabbing a noose.

The death penalty doesn't work all that well, for several reasons. But the alternatives are a lot more folks in for life, or hoping that we don't find out we didn't cure them when they get out and kill someone else. Maybe we could just ship them all to Iraq and let them go. (see Geezer's tongue firmly in cheek). Hussein fils were responsible for their actions, regardless of their antecedents, and got what they deserved.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.

I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:33 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.

The right of self-defense predates both the New Testament and the Constitution. It is codified in pretty much every state's body of law. Self-defense is usually considered valid if you reasonably consider your life, or the life of someone you are responsible for, to be in immediate danger from the actions of another. People who might take an unprovoked action that threatens anothers life, such as armed robbery, should be aware that their actions could have consequences.

If you don't wish to defend yourself - if you believe that the life of someone who would casually kill you or yours in the commission of a crime is worth more than you own- it's your life to do with as you wish. I impose nothing on you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:44 PM

BYTETHEBULLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, and by the way, that notion that animals "instinctively" protect the young and helpless is hogwash. It never has been deomstrated in animals or in people. In fact, the typical mammalian instinct to threats like starvation is to dump the kids. The reason is that adults, if they survive, can go on to have more young, but that if the adults die trying to save the young then they will ALL die. It's a nice thing to tell ourselves about ourselves, but it's biologically counterproductive and not part of human history.

I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I feel a 'birds are not mammals' arguement coming, but I may have just headed that off.

I was going to inject this same example but you beat me to it. There is a bird that attacks me regularly while I mow the lawn. Starvation has little to do with the topic here, protection of children(young ones) does and I have seen enough Wild Kingdom with Marlin Perkins to know SignyM is off on this one. The children are our future however, I agree completely with Hardware and the excessive use of the excuse "for the children". It seems to go along the same lines as 'Zero Tolerance'. Don't even get me started.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 4:48 PM

BYTETHEBULLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't find your position either in the new testament or in the constitution. You must be making it up as you go along. You state your notions in such as general way, like they are 'truth' for the US to live by. It's nice to know you're comfortable with the idea of imposing your little notions on society, to the point of taking lives.

The right of self-defense predates both the New Testament and the Constitution. It is codified in pretty much every state's body of law. Self-defense is usually considered valid if you reasonably consider your life, or the life of someone you are responsible for, to be in immediate danger from the actions of another. People who might take an unprovoked action that threatens anothers life, such as armed robbery, should be aware that their actions could have consequences.

If you don't wish to defend yourself - if you believe that the life of someone who would casually kill you or yours in the commission of a crime is worth more than you own- it's your life to do with as you wish. I impose nothing on you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well said.

ByteTheBullet (-:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 5:11 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yes, let us consider this folksy little homily:

Quote:
"I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young."

I take it you've never thought deeply about animal behavior, not even the common jay's. Like a lot of other animals, a jay's 'attack' is simply bluster, and it works most of the time. But when push comes to shove, in the face of a determined marauder, the jay will abandon its chicks (or nest or eggs) to a squirrel, rat, cat, bear, crow, human or anything else. It will not defend either nest, eggs, or chicks to the death.

Your own words go FAR beyond the immediate need for self-defense.)

Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways (money-lending? that prohibition was once a major part of the social contract) forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live) (RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! Geezer has determined you have forfeited your value in major ways!)

People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do. (And are liable to be killed at leisure by the better people?)

The converse of rights is responsibilities. (Where is that in the constitution or the bible? Just curious.) Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost. (And you shall perish from this earth. So sayeth Geezer)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 5:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer,
If you could come up with an argument not based on hyperbole or faux 'folksy' wisdom, perhaps these topics could get the intelligent discussion they deserve.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 5:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I have been attacked by blue jays. Mockingbirds, too, for that matter. But that's a "home intrusion" which I've already said is self defense. How is that like killing people in jail twenty miles away? (And BTW- you will seldom see a bird actually attack a non-threat, or die to save it's young. In fact, there are species that always lay two eggs and always push one chick out of the nest, or starve it to death until it's eaten by its nest-mate. You guys THINK you know a lot about biology, but you don't.)

What you are saying is that we should "preventively" kill people because they MIGHT escape or they MIGHT not be treatable or they cost too much money to maintain? Is that your position?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 5:31 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And, I noticed you didn't address the religion angle satisfactorily. You'll parse the word "kill" (does it mean "kill" or "murder"?) like an imam wondering whether using a blade to shave is accpetable, and ignore the pages and pages of Jesus' example in the New Testament.

But by your own logic, ignoring the point about loving your enemies and "let he who is without sin" and the OTHER point about "Vengeance is MINE, said the Lord" and ... yada yada... and just looking at the Old Testament commandments- even if it said "You shall not murder"- what could be more "murderous" than deliberately taking a prisoner's life? Everything I know about the legal and Biblical definition of the word "murder" (premeditated and intentional) would definitely prohibit executions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 5:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hussein fils were responsible for their actions, regardless of their antecedents, and got what they deserved.

Then the current Pope Benedict XVI is responsible for being a Hitler Youth and should never have been elevated.

Edited to add: Sorry for the multiple posts, but you guys provide such a RICH field of inconsistencies that's it's hard to ignore all those little gems. Hope you understand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 6:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You know, I hate to do this but I have one LAST point and then I swear to God I'll stop!

Geezer, I noticed you sort of gave up on all of the other examples I presented and focused on Uday and Qusay. Does that mean you buy the "diminished capacity" defense?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 6:22 PM

CHRISISALL

If I put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger, I'd be dead.
If I attacked someone (sexually or otherwise), I'd be dead, just still walking around, and I'd take it as a kindness if someone would put an end to my ability to repeat the act of a dead man.
Permanently.

Just an opinion Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 7:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So you believe in assisted suicide?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 7:05 PM

NEEDLESEYE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have a problem with the "specifically it's about valuing children's lives more dearly" part.
...
I feel the same outrage, but Id sure like to hear how you can value kids more than anyone else.

A couple of reasons come to mind.

1. Children can't protect themselves, so it has traditionally been every adult's responsibility to provide them with protection. Defense of offspring is pretty much biologically hardwired into not only humans, but most animals. The betrayal of this accepted societal and biological norm by child abusers is considered more heinous than a similar crime against an adult.

2. Children are our immortality...our link to the future. To take or damage a child's life is to destroy this future before it has a chance to happen.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Of course I see the thread title and had to see what was up.
I typically avoid these topics because, frankly they are too painful to read. I barely got to the bottom of this one without getting teary. I can't begin to understand how anyone could do these things.

Geezer your comment here is exactly how I feel about this.
It's an adult's duty to children to assure that they feel and are protected and safe. As for hardwiring, someone get between my child and myself and watch it get split second ugly. Any principals you may have on anything are thrown wayside when you are in the situation of protecting your baby.

By the way, I think everyone here has valid points.
Punishment? My ideal, the parents should be able to dish out the punishment: stoning, the rack, baseball bat, skinning, shall I go on? Realistically though, I'm for locking up and throwing away the key. Seems a better answer to remove the offenders completely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 13, 2005 8:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As for hardwiring, someone get between my child and myself and watch it get split second ugly. Any principals you may have on anything are thrown wayside when you are in the situation of protecting your baby.

You know, my brain-damaged girl was lost in downtown LA for a couple of hours when she was 6 y/o. (The school lost her.) To this day, I wake up with cold-sweat nightmares about that. Anyone who gets between me and my daughter will have a Signy-sized hole in them, and that won't leave much. But that's not what this thread is about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:10 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So you believe in assisted suicide?

Yes, I believe anybody who doesn't wanna be here bad enough that they have to make the point by hurting innocent folk should be 'assisted'(as politely as possible).

Don't necessarily have to kick 'em through an engine , but...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Chris, I know you're trying to make a point, but its so hyperbolic it doesn't even connect with reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yes, let us consider this folksy little homily:
Quote:
"I take it you've never gotten too near a blue jay nest when there are chicks in it. A half pound bird that will attack a human 300 times its size is definately trying to protect its young."
I take it you've never thought deeply about animal behavior, not even the common jay's. Like a lot of other animals, a jay's 'attack' is simply bluster, and it works most of the time. But when push comes to shove, in the face of a determined marauder, the jay will abandon its chicks (or nest or eggs) to a squirrel, rat, cat, bear, crow, human or anything else. It will not defend either nest, eggs, or chicks to the death.

Your own words go FAR beyond the immediate need for self-defense.)
Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways (money-lending? that prohibition was once a major part of the social contract) forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live) (RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! Geezer has determined you have forfeited your value in major ways!)

People are the sum of their actions. Some lose a lot of points by what they do. (And are liable to be killed at leisure by the better people?)

The converse of rights is responsibilities. (Where is that in the constitution or the bible? Just curious.) Fail badly enough in your responsibilities to your fellows, and your rights are lost. (And you shall perish from this earth. So sayeth Geezer)

...

Geezer,
If you could come up with an argument not based on hyperbole or faux 'folksy' wisdom, perhaps these topics could get the intelligent discussion they deserve.

I'm afraid that you added the hyperbole (in your parentheses above). When people violate the social contract, they forfeit some of their rights, not necessarily by forfeiting their lives, but by losing their freedom (jail), their money or property (fines or confiscation), or their social standing (child molester listing, bad press?). In most cases, this forfeiture involves some sort of due process. Only in the extreme should deadly force be applied.

And it may be that I'm just all starry-eyed preferring to imagine I live in a world where parents will sacrifice for their children rather than just writing them off and cranking out another one. But that world sort of militates against your "all lives have equal value" idea by valuing children less than parents. Not a place I want to be.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But by your own logic, ignoring the point about loving your enemies and "let he who is without sin" and the OTHER point about "Vengeance is MINE, said the Lord" and ... yada yada... and just looking at the Old Testament commandments- even if it said "You shall not murder"- what could be more "murderous" than deliberately taking a prisoner's life? Everything I know about the legal and Biblical definition of the word "murder" (premeditated and intentional) would definitely prohibit executions.

I noted above that I have problems with the death penalty. I really do. I know that doesn't fit your preconceptions of anyone who dares disagree with you, but there it is.

The issue here is alternatives. What do you do with folks that are just too much of a danger to society? That for whatever reason can't be cured or rehabilitated? Saying we will not execute this type of person requires us to answer a lot of other questions about what to do with them.

What to do with the four year olds mentioned above who are already on track to be sociopaths? Should you pre-emptively deal with them, or wait until they commit a crime? Is it a violation of their rights to assume that they will go bad and force some sort of treatment on them?

It's always easy to say "This is bad, that is bad". Coming up with workable alternatives is this hard part.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Hussein fils were responsible for their actions, regardless of their antecedents, and got what they deserved.

Then the current Pope Benedict XVI is responsible for being a Hitler Youth and should never have been elevated.

Edited to add: Sorry for the multiple posts, but you guys provide such a RICH field of inconsistencies that's it's hard to ignore all those little gems. Hope you understand.

Ah, but he rose above his antecedents and became a different and better man (assumng you believe that head of the Inquisition's follow-on organization is better than the Hitler Youth

). If Uday & Co. had left Iraq and become something else, say ACLU lawyers, they would have done the same. Instead, they stayed and wallowed in an orgy of robbery, rape, and murder.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, I hate to do this but I have one LAST point and then I swear to God I'll stop!

Geezer, I noticed you sort of gave up on all of the other examples I presented and focused on Uday and Qusay. Does that mean you buy the "diminished capacity" defense?

To a point. A person of "diminished capacity", be it from post-partum depression or PCP, who kills five people has still killed five people. They need to be prevented from killing any more, whether by prison or institutionalization. A parole board or medical review board needs to err on the side of caution before letting these people go.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:06 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Chris, I know you're trying to make a point, but its so hyperbolic it doesn't even connect with reality.

Reality: If I ever went crazy enough to attack someone for pleasure, profit, or 'cause a little voice in my head said it was the thing to do, I'd WANT someone to assist me off this planet- in a hurry! If I was ever made sane enough to realize what I had done through doctors or therapy, the burden of it would make me kill myself, anyhow.
Once you step over certain lines, there's no coming back.
But there's always next time 'round. It could be a better one.

Harsh Buddah Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's always easy to say "This is bad, that is bad". Coming up with workable alternatives is this hard part.

But I already have, so I don't see why we're still on this point. Lifetime in prison. Study the h*ll out of them... I mean, there you are with a whole abnormal population at your disposal- fMRI, PET scans, neuropsych tests, heavy-metal tests... as long as the proposed studies are peer-reviewed and wil be published in peer-reviewed journals and meet informed consent. See how many fit various diagnoses. Try various treatments on them- education, antidepressants, cognitive therapy and so forth. In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated.

Did you know that the prison population is already used for the initial parts of many drugs tests (testing for safety, as opposed to testing for efficacy?)

Quote:
If Uday & Co. had left Iraq

Benedict XVI didn't have to "leave" the Hitler Youth, it dissolved around him. I'm not sure how much moral fiber he would have shown had the Nazi regime continued. I assume that, like most German youth, he would have progressed from there to the Army or possibly the SS. Uday and Qusay... have you read anything about their lives? It was a nightmare of psychological torture- extreme punishment, extreme reward, living in fear for their lives and being forced to kill. Their whole worldview was warped by Saddam, and they never had an opportunity to gain another perspective.

My FIL was a sadist, and I don't mean that figuratively. He loved to hurt ppl. But, his upbringing was an absusive nightmare, and then he was rounded up by the Nazis when he was just a kid and forced into labor, chained to a munitions cart like a donkey while being strafed. Kids who are subject to fear and pain actually develop different brain structures than kids who aren't. It was an experience he apparently couldn't overcome, and it killed him. (Long story.)

As far as those four y/os are concerned- their parents need training and support in how to help these kids learn better impulse control. 90% of kids can be raised by 90% of parents, but there are SOME kids that need special parenting. The training and techniques are available and well-known and work for MOST kids.

Most of your points are non-issues as far as I can tell. The only thing it would take is money. But since we just blew $300 Billion (that's Billion, with a "B") on Iraq for "security" reasons, I assume we're willing to spend that much on crime, which really affects far more Americans than Iraq ever did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:44 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Ok, I didn't have time to read the entire thread, but I definitly agree that something more should be done to curb this whole thing.

That being said, I really think that you guys (I assume you're in the US) should think about having reasonable laws that say who is and who isn't a sex offender.

ie I was watching highschool stories on MTV and two guys streaked for a senoir prank. They were charged with second degree felony which was in the catagory of sex crime. Rediculous.

And because I know that there can be radical differents between state laws, there should be a federal standard of what a sex crime is... that is reasonable. ie Raping, reasonable def'n. Streaking, not reasonable def'n.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:02 AM