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

POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Thursday, August 17, 2023 17:53
VIEWED: 13561
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

JCKNIFE

Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:59 PM

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?

SIGNYM

Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:49 PM

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??

BYTETHEBULLET

Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:59 PM

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 (-:

SERGEANTX

Friday, May 13, 2005 12:21 AM

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

JCKNIFE

Friday, May 13, 2005 12:47 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 13, 2005 1:24 AM

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??

RUE

Friday, May 13, 2005 1:24 AM

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.

JCKNIFE

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:21 AM

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.

JCKNIFE

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:24 AM

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?

RELFEXIVE

Friday, May 13, 2005 8:45 AM

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."

SIMONWHO

Friday, May 13, 2005 11:49 AM

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.

JCKNIFE

Friday, May 13, 2005 12:46 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 13, 2005 1:27 PM

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.

SIMONWHO

Friday, May 13, 2005 2:26 PM

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?

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, May 13, 2005 7:34 PM

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

SIGNYM

Friday, May 13, 2005 7:47 PM

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.)

HKCAVALIER

Friday, May 13, 2005 9:47 PM

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 13, 2005 10:11 PM

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?

DAIKATH

Friday, May 13, 2005 10:36 PM

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)

HARDWARE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:46 AM

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:46 AM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:04 AM

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"

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:39 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:47 AM

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:54 AM

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"

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:03 AM

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:11 AM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:33 AM

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"

BYTETHEBULLET

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:44 AM

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 (-:

BYTETHEBULLET

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:48 AM

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 (-:

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:11 AM

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)

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:14 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:19 AM

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?

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:31 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:34 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:06 AM

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?

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:22 AM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:00 AM

So you believe in assisted suicide?

NEEDLESEYE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:05 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:00 AM

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:10 PM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:19 PM

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

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:33 PM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:45 PM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:52 PM

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"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:58 PM

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"

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:06 PM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:22 PM

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:44 PM

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

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:02 PM

Geezer:

Quote:
GEEZER: I'm afraid that you added the hyperbole (in your parentheses above)

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

THESE ARE YOUR WORDS - nothing added. This is not my hyperbole, it's YOURS. Stop lying.

So tell me Geezer, how does it feel to be pathological?

BYTETHEBULLET

Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:25 PM

Well this thread sure when downhill fast. From trying to help end child abuse to attacking an old man(inferred from the nick, geezer) and the Pope. How nice. I am sure no one will miss me from this from this thread either.

I wish you the best luck JCKnife.

Bye.

ByteTheBullet (-:

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:34 PM

Quote:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast.

When Geezer lies ABOUT ME, I take it personally. But maybe you don't care if the ppl on 'your side' routinely, reflexively lie. Have a nice life with the low-lifes you associate with.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer:
Quote:
GEEZER: I'm afraid that you added the hyperbole (in your parentheses above)

Quote:
People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live).
THESE ARE YOUR WORDS - nothing added. This is not my hyperbole, it's YOURS. Stop lying.

So tell me Geezer, how does it feel to be pathological?

Sigh.

Been taking Michael Moore lessons, have we?

1. Run together seperate sentences from different statements until it says what you want.

2. Then throw in a bunch of snide comments, i.e. "money-lending? that prohibition was once a major part of the social contract", "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES ! Geezer has determined you have forfeited your value in major ways!", "And are liable to be killed at leisure by the better people?", "And you shall perish from this earth. So sayeth Geezer."

3. When you are called on it, deny and go to personal insults, i.e. "So tell me Geezer, how does it feel to be pathological?"

But I do agree that my statement "(as "value" means right to live)" should have more correctly been "...right to life or liberty."

To try to get back on topic, some more questions:

In the unfortunate climate of homophobia in the US, can we be sure that a public listing of sex offenders isn't perverted into a tool to be used against gays who participate in consensual sex between adults?

By publicizing the location of sex offenders after they have completed their sentences, are we violating their rights to be presumed innocent of possible future crimes until proven guilty? Are we actually endangering their lives? How do we balance everyone's rights?

Should medical intervention, such as castration, be used in severe or repeat cases of child sex abuse? Would it be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

I got no answers here, just more questions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.

... 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.

Skipping over the reflexive Iraq jab, this program wouldn't be a bad idea if it was workable. It appears to be applying a lot of high-pricd talent to help the less worthy end of society(not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit). I just don't see either party willing to spend enough to make any of it happen - except the lifetime in prison part.

I'm also sort of uncomfortable with the amount of social engineering that might be necessary for the "In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated." part of this. How far into family life or medical treatment do we go for someone who is just "at risk" but hasn't actually committed a crime? In the wrong hands, this could lead down the road to eugenics, master races, and, well, you know how that goes.

This is what I mean when I say no easy answers. Something that is theoretically doable, and maybe laudable, is sometimes not practical to actually accomplish.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ByteTheBullet:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast. From trying to help end child abuse to attacking an old man(inferred from the nick, geezer) and the Pope. How nice. I am sure no one will miss me from this from this thread either.

I wish you the best luck JCKnife.

Bye.

ByteTheBullet (-:

My bad. Rue & SignyM get me off track sometimes, as I do them. Will try to do better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:34 PM

You know, if you really want to do something about the ugly world you see on the news, quit watching it. Turn off the goddamned television and its morbid fascinations and look at what's really going on in the world (it ain't on TV or in the paper, and it sure as hell ain't on the internet).

Go outside. Talk to people on the street. Take care of the people you love and help out people in duress. If you're still plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere out there is planning evil against the helpless, then go out in the world and help the helpless.

All most of us can do about this kind of stuff is just try to be good people ourselves - look after our children and friends and try to realize that the twisted, evil picture of the world presented by the media is a very, very tiny slice of what's really out there.

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

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:33 PM

Geezer:

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

These are YOUR WORDS - IN ORDER. Nothing added, nothing taken away, nothing rearranged. Stuff it.
As for your other comments:

Quote:
By publicizing the location of sex offenders after they have completed their sentences, are we violating their rights to be presumed innocent of possible future crimes until proven guilty? Are we actually endangering their lives? How do we balance everyone's rights?
Should medical intervention, such as castration, be used in severe or repeat cases of child sex abuse? Would it be considered cruel and unusual punishment?

Well let's see - if the LAWS are WRITTEN to require life sentence for a second conviction, how is that violating someone's 'rights'? It's no different from a 'three-strikes law' and probably more useful. So, what's your issue? Oh, that would be - none. In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.
So many phony dillemnas, so little time.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:14 PM

Quote:
Skipping over the reflexive Iraq jab

Geezer, it's not "relexive". Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring the the elephant in your back yard. The money that Bush blew out of our collective *sses represents the entire Social Security shortfall. I mean, that's a H*LLUVA lot of cash!!!

Quote:
It appears to be applying a lot of high-pricd talent to help the less worthy end of society(not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit). I just don't see either party willing to spend enough to make any of it happen - except the lifetime in prison part.

The point, Geezer, is to help US... the non-criminals, so that we have fewer criminals in future to arrest, process, house and- in effect, support. It's like autism- wouldn't you like to find the cause(s) of autism and eliminate it??

Quote:
I'm also sort of uncomfortable with the amount of social engineering that might be necessary for the "In time, you should be able to figure out how people got this way and how it can best be prevented and treated." part of this. How far into family life or medical treatment do we go for someone who is just "at risk" but hasn't actually committed a crime? In the wrong hands, this could lead down the road to eugenics, master races, and, well, you know how that goes.

Well, in fact, we do social engineering every day. We set up a society where we revere greed, we tell people that it's a dog-eat-dog world and only the fit survive; we saturate airwaves, print media, and highways with hosannas to consumerism; we hand out credit like "candy"; we constantly undercut education; we suppress philosophical thought and push hypermoralism and an ideology of personal failure and then we wonder why people steal and take drugs and why they hate themselves and each other. I mean, if you WANTED to create a vicious dysfunctional society, that would be the way to go, wouldn't it?

So, when I talk about "preventing" crime, it's more along the lines of changing SOCIETY, not intruding on a person's individual freedom. (In fact, if you look at my posts on what I would do if I were in charge, it's all about limiting the power of the already powerful.) Full employment at wages that would support a reasonable lifestyle for example, would go a long way to reducing crime. (Not necessarily child abuse, but overall crime.) As far as individuals "at risk", they often perceive threat where there is none. The point is to reduce frustration as much as possible both by modifying their surroundings and by individual training, so that the eventual brain structure is less geared towards irritability.

BTW- We could cut our prison population IN HALF if we treated the druggies instead of jailing them. The recidivism rate for jailed drug offenses is 80%, for treatment is 50%. Then we could focus on the people who really need to be in jail (people who are a threat to others).

I think that so many people have a knee-jerk to crime - it's all about moral failure, punishment and revenege- that they overlook practical options.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:19 PM

Quote:
Well this thread sure when downhill fast. From trying to help end child abuse to attacking an old man(inferred from the nick, geezer) and the Pope.

Well, how do you know that I'm not as old as Geezer? Or the Pope, for that matter???

heh heh heh

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 10:42 PM

Hi HK,

Somehow I missed your post. I'm glad to see you aboard.

I personally don't think of child molesters as monsters, and I'm not into revenge. What I think is that pedophilia and rape are powerful compulsions ingrained at an early age; and that only some successfully resist or overcome these compulsions.

I don't think we have the tools yet to treat ppl who can't break away on their own. And so I proposed a life sentence on a second offense, not for revenge, but to keep society safe until we collectively discover what to do to help.

Anyway, let me say again how pleasant it is to see your name around these parts.

RUE

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:05 PM

Geezer,
here are your words, in full:

Quote:
...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.

Quote:
"...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."

For sure, you have a self-defense theme going on in these statements.

And then you make a sweeping generalization that is frankly Hitlerian: "People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live)." What does this have to do with self defense? In fact, the entire rest of your post discusses how to assess someone's 'worth', and concludes that people who have not 'met their responsibilities' lose their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Through a series of false equations, you equated the immediate need for self-defense with capital punishment of worthless people (who have not 'met their responsibilites').

If you had stuck with self-defense, I would have had no argument. But you didn't. And that's why I commented on your Hitlerian notions.

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well let's see - if the LAWS are WRITTEN to require life sentence for a second conviction, how is that violating someone's 'rights'? It's no different from a 'three-strikes law' and probably more useful. So, what's your issue? Oh, that would be - none.

Laws aren't currently written that way, and I doubt they ever will be. Pubilication of lists of pedophiles was one of the suggestions further up the thread. I'm just wondering what problems, rights-wise, that would cause.

Quote:
In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.

Actually, it was Hardware, earlier in the thread.

"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."

Quote:
So many phony dilemmas, so little time.

Hardly phony. Any change in the law to the level you are suggesting needs to be considered from all sides, and the benefits and pitfalls need to be discussed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The point, Geezer, is to help US... the non-criminals, so that we have fewer criminals in future to arrest, process, house and- in effect, support. It's like autism- wouldn't you like to find the cause(s) of autism and eliminate it??

I'm aware of this. From earlier:"not necessarily my viewpoint, since I can see the possible overall benefit." I'm just not sure that the same population that would deny rights to gays would see the overall benefit of helping criminals.

Quote:
Well, in fact, we do social engineering every day. We set up a society where we revere greed, we tell people that it's a dog-eat-dog world and only the fit survive; we saturate airwaves, print media, and highways with hosannas to consumerism; we hand out credit like "candy"; we constantly undercut education; we suppress philosophical thought and push hypermoralism and an ideology of personal failure and then we wonder why people steal and take drugs and why they hate themselves and each other. I mean, if you WANTED to create a vicious dysfunctional society, that would be the way to go, wouldn't it?

So it's just your version of "social engineering" you want? Thanks, but I don't prefer yours any more than the examples you cited.

Quote:
So, when I talk about "preventing" crime, it's more along the lines of changing SOCIETY, not intruding on a person's individual freedom.

Lets just say that I'd need a good bit of convincing that your, or anyone else's, idea of changing SOCIETY would not intrude on my personal freedom.

Quote:
BTW- We could cut our prison population IN HALF if we treated the druggies instead of jailing them. The recidivism rate for jailed drug offenses is 80%, for treatment is 50%. Then we could focus on the people who really need to be in jail (people who are a threat to others).

I agree 100%. The money spent on war on drugs makes the Iraq war costs look like chump change. Treat people who have a problem, let folk who use responsibly alone.

Quote:
I think that so many people have a knee-jerk to crime - it's all about moral failure, punishment and revenege- that they overlook practical options.

My only interest in treatment of crime is to prevent criminals from injuring the rest of us. I don't consider some of your plans practical because I don't see any chance the current or any near-term future government implementing them. If I thought you could get actual buy-in for the research into causes, I'd be all for it, but I can't see that happening.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And then you make a sweeping generalization that is frankly Hitlerian: "People who decide to violate the social contract in major ways forfeit major portions of their value (as "value" means right to live)." What does this have to do with self defense? In fact, the entire rest of your post discusses how to assess someone's 'worth', and concludes that people who have not 'met their responsibilities' lose their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Again, I admit that "value means right to live" should have been "value means right to life and liberty".

Our social contract - our laws - provide that people who violate that contract, by breaking those laws, can be deprived by due process of their liberty, or in some cases their life. Our laws also recognize that in some cases - self defense, or a policeman's action to end a threat to the public for example, people who are violating the laws may be injured or killed to remove that threat.

In both due process and the aftermath of self-defense, there is in effect a weighting of the relative values of the criminal and the potential victim, and the decision of who was in the right and who was not - who is worth more to society.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 14, 2005 11:55 PM

Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

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

GEEZER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

Consider the media circus surrounding the Michael Jackson trial. You have celebrity, power, child sex abuse - the whole package. Or the Jon Benet Ramsey case. I can understand the outrage at killing or abusing a child, but the sick fascination on every detail makes me wonder about both the media that inundate us with it, and the folks who can't miss a second of it.

Unfortunately, child sexual abuse has been going on forever, and was probably worse in the past than now, just like child labor abuses. You just get beat about the head with it so much by the media that I wonder if folks don't get kind of addicted to it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JADEHAND

Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:53 AM

Quote:

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...

Chrisisall, I like the way you think, I like you too Geezer. I was afraid to read this thread after seeing some of the earlier posts. I managed to push through it, and appreciate you guys.
As for input to the thread, I agree this has been in the news a lot, and it bothers me a great deal. Real solutions will be difficult to come by. Any action/solution that saves even one innocent from such atrocities, without breaking laws or making us monsters in the process, is worth it I think. (I could be wrong)
I disapprove greatly of any solution that begins with the idea of "on the second or third offense", there shouldn't be a second. I also agree whole heartedly with the idea of distinquishing between real offenders(Rapist/Child molester) and not(Streaker/ 18 year old with 17.5 year old consentualy/ homosexual)
Real offenders should never see "the outside" again. I wish there was an easy solution, a place where people who can't live within society without causing harm to others are allowed to live normally (get a job, work, pay your cable bill) but never leave to re-enter society. Maybe they could be studied for causes etc. there.
I used to be more religious, but some of the religious arguements presented here make me shake my head and remember why I'm less religious now. Now I'm all for the "love thy neigbor, and turn the other cheek" but I wouldn't go to letting these offenders out to harm others.
Sorry for the long rambling.

Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live
"We rejoice at being 'connected' without touching, Thank God for the internet. We stare at our screens all our lives, what a waste of eyes. 'Til the electrical storm blows our fuses and we gaze, dumbfounded, at the rain."
-Interior Lulu - Marillion - .Com

HARDWARE

Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:18 AM

Quote:

Quote:

In case you haven't been following the literature, castration doesn't work. It's a non-starter. And who suggested it? Oh, that would be YOU.

Actually, it was Hardware, earlier in the thread.

"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."

Just doing my part to keep the pot simmering.

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

GEEZER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jadehand:
I wish there was an easy solution, a place where people who can't live within society without causing harm to others are allowed to live normally (get a job, work, pay your cable bill) but never leave to re-enter society. Maybe they could be studied for causes etc. there.

This is a tempting idea, and a repeated theme in sci-fi. A prison area, or planet, where criminals are sent to survive or perish and there is no outside interference. In fiction it usually ends up like the movies "Escape from New York", "No Escape", "Chronicles of Riddick", etc. I'm not sure how it would work in real life.

Among the up sides would be lower costs, and the concept of keeping all your rotten eggs in one basket, and watching that basket. Downsides would be choosing a good site that provides easy containment, and the fact that someone, or a lot of someones, might have to give up their homes to provide the space.

Other issues to consider would be: How much room would have to be allocated to provide the current crop of violent offenders enough space to raise enough food to feed themselves? Would you be able to effectively provide enough tools, manufactury, etc., to permit a sustainable society if everyone behaved reasonably well? If the penal colony was not segregated by sex, what would you do with the children that would inevitably result, who had committed no crime?

It's actually an interesting concept.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:29 AM

Just because it's not politically acceptable doesn't mean it's impractical. Altho, maybe the better word would be "effective". For example, take a look at health care. The health insurance industry is bleeding every other economic sector, from GM to small businesses, AND it leaves a lot of people uninsured.... ultimately leading to higher treatment costs. That's hardly effective. So, when I'm considering solutions, I like to think about things that are EFFECTIVE. Why should I limit my thinking on the topic? That's like putting my brains in chains.

You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 15, 2005 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

That's a sobering thought.

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

GEEZER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Just because it's not politically acceptable doesn't mean it's impractical.

Huh? And I get accused of living in a fantasyland?

For an undertaking of the size and expense you propose, government is the only body capable of providing financing, coordination, etc. Some laws would also have to be changed to enable it. If you want government support, you have to find a way to make it politically acceptable to both the government and the electorate (remembering that this is the same electorate who re-elected Bush and supports "sanctity of marriage" amendments in many states). If you don't have a way of doing this then your idea, no matter how laudable, will remain just an idea.

Quote:
Altho, maybe the better word would be "effective"... So, when I'm considering solutions, I like to think about things that are EFFECTIVE. Why should I limit my thinking on the topic? That's like putting my brains in chains.

I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal. To do this you have to recognize the possible problems with it, in relation to getting it done, and solve them. Maybe that's why my first response to some suggestions here is to spot the roadblocks. I don't disagree with the concept, I just want to make sure it works in the real world.

This may be a result of many years as a software tester. You test software by (amoung other things)trying to break it. You imagine everything an operator, user, administrator, etc. could possibly do wrong, and throw that at the system. Then you note the problems it causes, have them fixed, and hit it again until you can't break it any more.

Quote:
You know, one of the interesting things I find about FF fans is that altho they identify with Mal, Jayne, or some of the other major characters, they are most often like the older Tams- except not as rich.

I find Mal and Zoe, particularly, somewhat cynical and distrustful of authority, but willing to accept the reality of having to deal with it when necessary. Zoe is often the check on Mal's impractical plans. But they all have an optimism that allows them to keep going on.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JCKNIFE

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You know, if you really want to do something about the ugly world you see on the news, quit watching it. Turn off the goddamned television and its morbid fascinations and look at what's really going on in the world (it ain't on TV or in the paper, and it sure as hell ain't on the internet).

Go outside. Talk to people on the street. Take care of the people you love and help out people in duress. If you're still plagued by the knowledge that someone, somewhere out there is planning evil against the helpless, then go out in the world and help the helpless.

All most of us can do about this kind of stuff is just try to be good people ourselves - look after our children and friends and try to realize that the twisted, evil picture of the world presented by the media is a very, very tiny slice of what's really out there.

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

Extremely well said, thank you.

JCKNIFE

Sunday, May 15, 2005 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Has anyone ever looked at why people get so over-the-top emotional about this stuff? At the risk of offending, I'll suggest that it's the very nature of sick, sexually related content that gets everyone so worked up. There are thousands of brutal murders every year, each deserving 'the appropriate level of outrage'. But they aren't peppered with the seedy sexual angle so they are largely ignored. It just irks me the way this type of thing turns ordinarily rational people into an angry mob and the justifications for it don't ring true.

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

For me it's not the sexual content it's the children as victims. I'm a father now and the thought of my kids anywhere near this kind of monster burns me to the very core. I'm not over-protective to the point that I don't want them to enjoy life, and I know kids are kids and I can expect some broken bones and stitches and whatnot--all stuff they can recover from and that they brought on themselves in good fun (hopefully). But to think that an adult would prey on innocent kids to fulfill their sick urges...well honestly like I said it doesn't even have to be sexual. You heard the story of "Precious Doe" from Kansas City? 2 y.o. girl was beaten into a coma because she didn't want to go to bed, then left unconscious on the floor until she died a couple days later because her deadbeat parents were wanted criminals. When she died they beheaded her and ditched the body and head in separate places.

Talk about "special hell." I'm not a religious man but folks like that make me hope there IS a hell.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, May 15, 2005 5:13 PM

Yeah. I live near Kansas City, so I've heard about the Precious Doe thing repeatedly - and I don't even watch TV or read the paper. But it's been the buzz nonetheless. To be honest, that story, and the reaction to it, has been part of what's caused me to question the hysteria surrounding this kind of stuff.

The thing is, when I hear people tell me about it, it's as though they are getting some kind of secret thrill out of it. Now I'm not saying that any of them aren't moral repulsed by it. What I'm saying is that it seems to get them hyped up in a way that they crave.

I'm a father as well. I've raised two sons on my own and, if anything, I have been a little overprotective. But one of the things I've sought to protect them from is the kind of world view promoted by the media.

Personally, I don't think provoking outrage about these kinds of anomalies does a damn bit of good. It merely serves to raise the overall fear and stress of living and reduces the amount of trust we have in each other. If you think about it, with the billions of people on the planet, it's pretty amazing that things like this happen as seldom as they do.

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:13 PM

Quote:
I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal. To do this you have to recognize the possible problems with it, in relation to getting it done, and solve them. Maybe that's why my first response to some suggestions here is to spot the roadblocks. I don't disagree with the concept, I just want to make sure it works in the real world.

If Linus Torvalds took that approach, there would have never been Linux. If Stallman took that approach, there would have never been Gnu. If Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Madison took that approach, where would we be now?

Pere and mere Tam... they were pretty comfortable under the Alliance. They had a little authority, an estate, nice kids, hobbies and friends of similar station. But they were afraid of losing it, and unwilling to consider another paradigm- a paradigm in which their daughter was being mutilated by authorities.

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 15, 2005 7:49 PM

SargeantX-

I agree. I think we're all being convinced that "everyone" is vicious or at least untrustworthy because our media focuses on the most horrific, salacious details gathered from around the nation, and even the world. Coming at it from another viewpoint, I read in "Descent of Woman" that we think that humans are "warlike", "aggressive" "predators". But take those adjectives and apply them to the people we see every day- the "warlike" mail carrier, the "vicious" cashier. Those adjectives just don't apply to the vast majority of people that we see every day. This is a case where ideology has trumped our day to day experience.

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Sunday, May 15, 2005 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:

Honestly I haven't decided which would be the most effective: 1) a group that lobbies for new legislation, 2) a group that helps parents track known offenders, 3)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.

(If this works, my italics)

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

"I threw up on your bed"

GEEZER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I tend to look at it another way. It's better to posit an idea that actually stands a chance of being implemented, even if it's less than the ideal...

If Linus Torvalds took that approach, there would have never been Linux. If Stallman took that approach, there would have never been Gnu. If Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Madison took that approach, where would we be now?

Depending on who writes their biography in these days of Old White Guy bashing, Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers had much more radical views than were actually put into place - the abolition of slavery, for example. They just knew that sort of stuff wouldn't fly in the late 18th century, and settled for what they could actually implement; no king - representative democracy - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (within then-acceptable wealth, gender, and race limits)- hoping that later generations would make improvements.

The fact that 90+% of PC users don't use Linux, and that I (relatively computer literate)have no idea, without some research, what Gnu is (aside for another name for the wildebeast) might suggest that they are less than earthshaking successes.

If you're talking about something that will fundamentally change the criminal justice system nationwide, or even in a particular locale, you have to convince a majority of the population.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SargeantX-

I agree. I think we're all being convinced that "everyone" is vicious or at least untrustworthy because our media focuses on the most horrific, salacious details gathered from around the nation, and even the world. Coming at it from another viewpoint, I read in "Descent of Woman" that we think that humans are "warlike", "aggressive" "predators". But take those adjectives and apply them to the people we see every day- the "warlike" mail carrier, the "vicious" cashier. Those adjectives just don't apply to the vast majority of people that we see every day. This is a case where ideology has trumped our day to day experience.

True. I think a lot of this is just that the media needs to fill space (think of the number of news and pseudo-news hours there are available just on television now) and will report the most sensational events in nauseating detail just to fill time and draw market share. The very fact that news programs are rating-driven causes me to shudder.

Another facet is the habit of stereotyping. All men are this, all women are that. All Democrats act this way and all Republicans that way. NRA members are shoot-first gun nuts and Sierra club members are vegan tree huggers. People fall into this habit because it's more convenient to go in with pre-conceived notions than having to spend time actually getting to know individuals and their beliefs. Catchphrases are much easier to yell at those faceless (your prejorative label here).

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HANITRADER

Sunday, May 15, 2005 10:32 PM

Here is information for you... Off the top of my head I cannot think of a specific "grassroots" organization (say for instance, MADD-Mothers Against Drunk Driving), however, just about every county does have many agencies where you can lend a hand in helping those child survivors with the aftermath. Oftimes there are some state facilities which work with child survivors of trauma, however, most of these agencies are non-profit organizations. In either of the aforementioned facility types, the commitment to care varies greatly. Also, the requirements regarding staff education level and licensing vary greatly- thus the quality of the care-givers varies state-to-state. Finally, there are a few for-profit facilities around, where the bottom-line is profit- my advice, avoid these.
So, where do you go? These facilities which attempt to "recover" these kids are generally called "Group Homes" where they are monitored by a Psychiatrist, therapists, and direct-care 24 hour staff. The direct-care staff usually have a BS degree or the equivilant in work experiance. Many of these Group Homes are run by folks that do lobby the State Government.
My suggestion- Contact your local Department of Social Services and express your concerns and ask how you can help. Check the "Yellow Pages" under mental health. I worked the mental health arena for 12 years, as well as in the medical world, and as much as it pains me to say it, physical and sexual abuse of children and adolescents is way more prevelent than you likely realize. At times, I often felt those abused far outnumber the untouched kids. It really does break the heart. I've since left the field in the last year and have moved on to teaching at the college level. If you're interested in more info, just respond and I'll post a response. Or, you can go to my profile and leave a message with you r e-mail address and I'll write back.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 16, 2005 4:50 AM

China, Brazil, German provinces and French ministries have standarized on Linux. 30% of servers worldwide are running Linux. Apparently yu haven't been looking outside the USA.

AFA Jefferson et al and freedom of thought. I realize that action is always constrained by necessity, but thought is free. Some morons in Kansas pushing intelligent design should not keep me from thinking scientifically.

JCKNIFE

Monday, May 16, 2005 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Monday, May 16, 2005 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

Wow. Inciteful (sic) comeback.

I can't believe how wrong I was, but your reasoned argument has shown me the error of my ways.

Where do I sign for the posse?

"I threw up on your bed"

SIGNYM

Monday, May 16, 2005 10:26 PM

I showed this thread to someone who doesn't nmly read FF website, altho he loved the show! He said- "They {vengeful ppl} are becoming just what they're attacking- impulsive, emotional and violent".

Hmmm... I thought that was a good point.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

1) Knee jerk lobby groups lead to bad laws. Its the one universal constant in every political system. If there is a group that takes a long term view (and given the emotive, understandably, nature of the subject, I doubt it), they may have some positive effect.

2) Otherwise known as lynch mobs.

3) Politics and the law should never, ever mix. The law defines the extent of the sentence, then the judges apply it - if you want a life sentence for every sexual offender then see (1) above, but how do you draft the law so it allows the 18 year old who gets caught up in the moment with his 17 year old, consenting (and by all accounts, statistically more mature) g/f to be distinguished?

You have chosen your username wisely. [Gump]That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

I'm afraid I'm hearin' the same voices Knife. No offense.

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

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:27 PM

We seem to be suffering from a lack of common sense in today's society--that's what a lot of "zero-tolerance" policies amount to: taking common sense out of the equation and, god forbid, not forcing an adiministrator or decision-maker to make a (GASP!) value judgement!

No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary. But if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:51 PM

"Evil"?? What do you mean by "evil"? Possessed of the devil? Baselessly cruel? Willfully deviant?

I read your words, but I feel like we're speaking different languages. I would appreciate an explanation- thanks.

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:01 PM

This is a perfect example. I state that child-rape-murderers are "evil" and I get questioned on it? WTF? I really didn't expect debate in THIS thread. I'm quite disappointed.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:11 PM

Since when is a question a debate? So many people have so many different connotations for the word "evil" that I'm trying to figure out if you mean "intentional" or "horrifically cruel", both, or something else.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
We seem to be suffering from a lack of common sense in today's society--that's what a lot of "zero-tolerance" policies amount to: taking common sense out of the equation and, god forbid, not forcing an adiministrator or decision-maker to make a (GASP!) value judgement!

No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary.

Totally agree with this part, but...

Quote:
...if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

Afraid to say what? That child-murderers are bad and ought to be punished?? What courage!

What takes a bit more courage, in my estimation, is to do what MVP did, to stand up to emotional, mob mentality and call for some rational discourse.

Lobbying for a bunch of ill-conceived laws isn't going to do a damn thing to prevent such a thing from happening. The last I checked, murdering children was already illegal. I'm assuming the punishment is already quite harsh as well.

Quote:
I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

See... this is why I didn't speak up earlier. I've tried to remain respectful and, in all reality, I do understand the emotion behind your post. I have children of my own and the risks are indeed frightening. But if you're going to accuse me of 'waffling on the side of child-killers' just because I doubt the wisdom of your proposal, well, that's beyond insulting.

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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:28 PM

Here is an example of "evil" child rapists/ killers- Alejandro Avila, who raped and smothered Samantha Runion. The picture is that this man gained gratification from molesting young girls and that he chose his own gratification over a little girl's life.

Now... how do we keep this from happening again to some other kid? Maybe finding why it happened will lead us to some postive steps.

First of all, I rather doubt that he would be detered by the death penalty. As SargeantX has pointed out, these crimes are already illegal AND they carry stiff penalites. It didn't seem to deter Avila. Since the crime was committed in broad daylight in front of a witness, and only half-hearted attempts were made to hide the body and get rid of evidence, it seems that the LAST thing that Avila had in mind was getting caught and punished.

Then there is Avila's history. According to the defense lawyer, when he was young Avila was "Beaten like a boy and raped like a girl". That's not to say that every child who is beaten and raped becomes a monster, but is sure skews the percentages.

What would I do with people like Avila? I've said it before- put him away for life and study the h*ll out of him. Why did HE become a criminal, and not somebody else with the same history? How can we prevent it from happening to someone else? How can we distinguish the truly incorrigible from the treatable? (PET scans? personality tests? pupil dilation?) How can that pathology be treated? How might we use that information to screen and treat (if possible) people who are arrested for lesser crimes BEFORE they go on the commit even greater ones?

It all seems pretty straighforward. It may not serve the purpose of getting your blood racing and your outrage exercised, but I think would serve the purpose of protecting society better than the death penalty or even life in jail.

You may consider this "waffling on the side of child killers" but I consider this advocating to protect society by the best, most effective means possible and that anything else is just gratuitous, ineffective, and puts society at greater risk.

HANITRADER

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:22 PM

OK- I'll go out on a limb on this... Quite a thread- everyone seems to agree that a problem exists. Solutions vary depending on idiology, yet most tend to lean in the same general direction. No soapboxes here, found out long ago they just don't support my weight. This discussion generated some intense emotions among folks, but all of this amounts to is alot of unfocused rage and angst and a sense of helplessness...
Here's a thought- take this heated passion and do something with it! Get involved, write letters, work with organizations, work with the victims- hell, work with the perpetrators, work in the community- resorces are out there- get involved!!!
It comes down to this: If our lives our abundant with something, we have an obligation to share our abundance with others. None here had life vaguely like Beaver Cleaver, but those among us who did grow up untouched, unmolested, or otherwise abused have an obligation to pass that on to others and to see that others have a life where the likelyhood of abuse is dimished.
Maybe this isn't your battle, or at least not the one you want to take on... I'm sure our lives are abundant in other areas that we are willing to share with others. IF YOU ARE ALLREADY INVOLVED AND SHARING YOUR ABUNDANCE... GOOD!!! If not, do it, you'll feel better for it- way better than just stewing in angst.

I think my old soapbox just caught fire... that's enough- take care all.

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:03 PM

Well said HT, and that WAS my original point--that I want to put my energy into action. Thank you. And Sarge, any insults hurled your way were probably an emotional reaction on my part (I'm loathe to apologize for that here, as this SHOULD be an emotional issue).

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
No one wants to lock up 18-yr-old Junior having consentual fun with 17-yr-old Mary. But if we can't agree that those who seek out, rape, and murder pre-pubescent children are evil, and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law for the purposes of both eradicating them from our society and discouraging others from following through with the same notion, then we have something fundamentally wrong. Actually YOU do. I'm not afraid to say it.

I have to keep reminding myself that this board is read worldwide. I hope that those of you waffling on the side of the child-killers are not U.S. citizens.

Wow. You make George Galloway look good. Well, the senate committee did that, but there you go.

You seem to be ignoring, either because you're not reading properly or choosing not to see, what everyone who appears to disagree with you is saying - ain't no-one that I can see posted a response that's "on the side of the child killers" - or perhaps you can refer me to the posts I missed.

You even agreed with my own argument up there sparky, so you're waffling outside your own shores with me.

"must be punished to the fullest extent of the law..." - you then go on to say "by eradicating them", when even Jeb couldn't get that bit past the Florida law makers, 2008 ticket or no.

Others have eloquently explained that this is a crime to which the punishment does not, cannot deter, so limb 2 of your argument is dangling in the wind.

As to limb 1 - well if you catch and try a rapist/murderer (whatever the age of the victim) and the law allows capital punishment, well I may not cry out too loudly - the law as defined by the government at the time, not the mob.

"I threw up on your bed"

HANITRADER

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:39 AM

Something approximating... "- 10% of nothin' is... let me do the numbers... Nothin'"

When winning one's contention regarding one's perspective on an existing societal problem becomes more important to one than the problem itself, we have indeed ourselves become part of the problem.

Solutions begin only when the one steps outside of the problem and reaches out to another. The other then eventually reaches out to another, and so on, etc., etc.

Solutions come from empathy and are dynamic, creative, and powerful. Solutions derived out of cynicism, self-righteousness, and ego accomplish little.

Genuine aid only occurs when one accepts that other realities exist outside of one's self-generated and perceived safety-and-comfort zone and chooses to experience those other realities for what they are.

Folks is hurtin' out there while most folks are content to do nothing at all.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HaniTrader:

Something approximating... "- 10% of nothin' is... let me do the numbers... Nothin'"

When winning one's contention regarding one's perspective on an existing societal problem becomes more important to one than the problem itself, we have indeed ourselves become part of the problem.

Solutions begin only when the one steps outside of the problem and reaches out to another. The other then eventually reaches out to another, and so on, etc., etc.

Solutions come from empathy and are dynamic, creative, and powerful. Solutions derived out of cynicism, self-righteousness, and ego accomplish little.

Genuine aid only occurs when one accepts that other realities exist outside of one's self-generated and perceived safety-and-comfort zone and chooses to experience those other realities for what they are.

Folks is hurtin' out there while most folks are content to do nothing at all.

Excellent post HaniTrader!!!!!

I wish everyone felt the same way.

BTW, are you quoting someone else or are them
pretty words your own?
Does'nt really matter one way or another. If
others could see the truth in those statements there would be a hell of a lot less political
diatribes on the board to annoy everyone.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

SIGNYM

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:12 PM

If solutions come from empathy, and the problem is the criminal, I suppose we should be more empathetic towards the criminal. Right?

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If solutions come from empathy, and the problem is the criminal, I suppose we should be more empathetic towards the criminal. Right?

Wow, if only this thread could continue in this vein of inquiry.

The problem I see over and over is polarization and hate. Child rapists polarize and hate children. Good citizens polarize and hate child rapists. It's been said repeatedly here that children are only very rarely raped or murdered by strangers. That's part of the reason it's so difficult to combat. It's like some rare blood disease: the doctor is lucky to notice it at all and even more lucky to catch it while it's still preventable. I think the only way to deal with these very rare cases is to study their similarities and connections to far less rare problems, but our culture want's to say that child rapists are "monsters," special and different, so different that they don't deserve to live, for instance.

JCKnife, you need to understand that these few deranged men and women are not "The" problem. Practically all perpetrators employ "grooming" techniques to create the image of consent, to better control their victims. Psychologically, most of them need to believe that their victims are "into it." Let's teach our children about "grooming," how 'bout that? Most victims of rape of any age, carry serious scares from early life around sexuality and trust. We, as a culture, set up our children for abuse by our neglect and aggressive ignorance.

(Ach, I can hear the objections already. I'm not saying that child rapists are blameless, it's society's fault, blah, blah, blah. I'm saying that blame is simply not an effective problem solving tool. I'm saying that we will NEVER solve the problem by punishing perpetrators more efficiently. So PRACTICALLY speaking, their culpability is a moot point, when trying to solve the problem of child abuse. We are trying to solve the problem of child abuse, right? We're not just trying to satisfy our need for payback, right? Right? The truth is, this thread is really about powerlessness. As long as we focus on crime and punishment we will solve exactly nothing. The simple, painful truth is: we are powerless to control rare and aberant behavior. Period.)

For example: "Don't talk to strangers" is a quick and certain way to cripple a child's natural intuitive abilities. We need to teach children to discern a trustworthy adult from a suspicious one, not lump them all together as dangerous. So when she finds herself in real need she won't just lower her head and try to become invisible (just what a perpetrator might want), but reaches out to the nice older lady or the laughing man playing with his son and gets out of trouble that way.

This crazy culture is still so fixated on "minding our own business" and "looking the other way" that we sacrifice our own children. Children can't survive that way. "It takes a village" is a catchy phrase, but who in this culture trusts anyone else in their "village?"

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.

BARNSTORMER

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If solutions come from empathy, and the problem is the criminal, I suppose we should be more empathetic towards the criminal. Right?

Mmmmmmmm

Empathetic towards the criminal
or
Empathetic to the victims / future victims.

The Criminal is self proven damaged goods. Do
what you can to try to fix him/her, but also make
absolutely sure he/she cannot produce any more
Victims.

The Victim needs as much empathy as we can give
to prevent him/her turning into a criminal. Use
what you learn from trying to fix the criminals
to aid in this very important endevour. If it
does'nt work and the victim turns into a criminal
then treat them as a criminal.

The Future Victim is the most important one.
Their innocence is not yet destroyed. Everything
must be done to protect them.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE