|
Post by bernard on Jan 22, 2015 15:49:49 GMT -6
There's an interesting documentary here, if you have an hour...
If you don't, the gist is that there's an institution in California where pedophiles are sent after they have done their time, where they are detained until they are rehabilitated (which, with the possible exception of a few that opted for chemical castration, is forever). In the comments beneath the youtube clip, many people advocate for these people to be killed. I wonder what people here think, not just about the question of executing pedophiles but also about the issue of detaining people for periods longer than the sentence prescribed by the statute and handed down at trial.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 22, 2015 17:17:51 GMT -6
If you don't, the gist is that there's an institution in California where pedophiles are sent after they have done their time, where they are detained until they are rehabilitated (which, with the possible exception of a few that opted for chemical castration, is forever). In the comments beneath the youtube clip, many people advocate for these people to be killed. I wonder what people here think, not just about the question of executing pedophiles but also about the issue of detaining people for periods longer than the sentence prescribed by the statute and handed down at trial. Chlld rape is not as serious as murder. Create a death penalty for rape and you're going to see many more children murdered. I don't believe in rehabilitation. An ex-con is an ex-con. If he's paid his debt, no one has a right to tell him how to live.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 22, 2015 17:25:07 GMT -6
If you don't, the gist is that there's an institution in California where pedophiles are sent after they have done their time, where they are detained until they are rehabilitated (which, with the possible exception of a few that opted for chemical castration, is forever). In the comments beneath the youtube clip, many people advocate for these people to be killed. I wonder what people here think, not just about the question of executing pedophiles but also about the issue of detaining people for periods longer than the sentence prescribed by the statute and handed down at trial. Chlld rape is not as serious as murder. Create a death penalty for rape and you're going to see many more children murdered. I don't believe in rehabilitation. An ex-con is an ex-con. If he's paid his debt, no one has a right to tell him how to live. If you turned out to be wrong, and rehabilitation was possible, would you agree with the individual being detained after he has paid his debt until the rehabilitation is complete?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 22, 2015 17:52:01 GMT -6
If you turned out to be wrong, and rehabilitation was possible, would you agree with the individual being detained after he has paid his debt until the rehabilitation is complete? No.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 22, 2015 18:06:35 GMT -6
If you turned out to be wrong, and rehabilitation was possible, would you agree with the individual being detained after he has paid his debt until the rehabilitation is complete? No. As I thought. Rehabilitation is irrelevant to you, as it (seemingly) is to them. They speak of rehabilitating the pedos, but they detain them forever, tacitly admitting that rehabilitation is beyond their powers.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 22, 2015 18:15:37 GMT -6
As I thought. Rehabilitation is irrelevant to you, as it (seemingly) is to them. They speak of rehabilitating the pedos, but they detain them forever, tacitly admitting that rehabilitation is beyond their powers. A felon's rehabilitation is nobody's business but his own. He was sent to prison in the first place because he had the choice to obey the law, and chose not to. He has the same choice upon release from prison. If we make his rehabilitation OUR problem, we're holding him less responsible for his behavior than we hold ourselves, for ours. A person's sexuality is his or her business. If that person stays within the law, his/her personal habits and practices do not interest me.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 25, 2015 18:50:13 GMT -6
As I thought. Rehabilitation is irrelevant to you, as it (seemingly) is to them. They speak of rehabilitating the pedos, but they detain them forever, tacitly admitting that rehabilitation is beyond their powers. A felon's rehabilitation is nobody's business but his own... When the creep commits the crime, he surrenders the right to be left to his business.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 25, 2015 19:56:46 GMT -6
When the creep commits the crime, he surrenders the right to be left to his business. Why? We don't feel that way about murderers. Why should we feel that way about any other felon? A sex crime is still just a crime. It's nothing more than that. It isn't murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 25, 2015 20:45:43 GMT -6
When the creep commits the crime, he surrenders the right to be left to his business. Why? We don't feel that way about murderers. Sure we do. When the murderer abuses the responsibility that comes with being free, we no longer trust him with that responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 26, 2015 8:35:49 GMT -6
When the murderer abuses the responsibility that comes with being free, we no longer trust him with that responsibility. That does not square with the reasons we release murderers from prison. Obviously we do trust him with his freedom, or we wouldn't be letting him out.
|
|
|
Post by john - uk on Jan 26, 2015 9:27:49 GMT -6
I didn't have the time to watch the video at the moment, but I agree with Joe regarding the execution of sex offenders. I wonder, would it be posible to make being sent to this establishment part of the sentence?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 26, 2015 9:48:20 GMT -6
I didn't have the time to watch the video at the moment, but I agree with Joe regarding the execution of sex offenders. I wonder, would it be posible to make being sent to this establishment part of the sentence? Or all of it. If pedophilia is a "disease," then pedophiles belong in medical facilities, not prisons.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 26, 2015 11:45:05 GMT -6
Reagan gutted mental health treatment, which swept them into jails, prisons & homeless on the streets.
Ironic" Reagan in 1981 was shot by a man suffering from mental illness. !!!
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 26, 2015 11:51:17 GMT -6
Why? We don't feel that way about murderers. Sure we do. When the murderer abuses the responsibility that comes with being free, we no longer trust him with that responsibility. Sure we do"" we let them out all the time back onto our streets. Is that not trust?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 26, 2015 12:18:00 GMT -6
Reagan gutted mental health treatment, which swept them into jails, prisons & homeless on the streets. No, he didn't. He merely signed into law the Lanterman Act, which was authored and passed by the Democrats in the state legislature. The Democrats have controlled state government ever since, for more than 40 years, and haven't lifted a finger to change the law. There's a reason for that.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 26, 2015 12:37:51 GMT -6
Reagan gutted mental health treatment, which swept them into jails, prisons & homeless on the streets. No, he didn't. He merely signed into law the Lanterman Act, which was authored and passed by the Democrats in the state legislature. The Democrats have controlled state government ever since, for more than 40 years, and haven't lifted a finger to change the law. There's a reason for that. And..whats the reason for that?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 26, 2015 12:42:45 GMT -6
whats the reason for that? Because liberals are more concerned with the civil liberties of the crazies than for public safety.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 26, 2015 13:29:38 GMT -6
whats the reason for that? Because liberals are more concerned with the civil liberties of the crazies than for public safety. Can't argue with that !!
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 26, 2015 19:34:38 GMT -6
When the murderer abuses the responsibility that comes with being free, we no longer trust him with that responsibility. That does not square with the reasons we release murderers from prison. Obviously we do trust him with his freedom, or we wouldn't be letting him out. If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel he has been rehabilitated.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2015 19:50:12 GMT -6
Reagan gutted mental health treatment, which swept them into jails, prisons & homeless on the streets. Ironic" Reagan in 1981 was shot by a man suffering from mental illness. !!! Actually, it was the Donaldson decision by SCOTUS on the mentally ill that did so. The case was brought by the lead counsel for the ACLU. This resulted in much of the chaos you describe above, because formerly institutionalized persons who were unable to care for themselves could not be confined confined against their wills. "A State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends." supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/563/case.html
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 26, 2015 19:55:17 GMT -6
If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel he has been rehabilitated. You just don't seem to get it. One does not have to be rehabilitated to live within the law. The public may have an idea of "rehabilitation" as (a) the restoration of someone to a useful place in society (b) the act of restoring something or someone to a satisfactory state (c) vindication of a person's character and the re-establishment of that person's reputation. Living within the law requires none of this. Fortunately.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 26, 2015 20:08:46 GMT -6
If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel he has been rehabilitated. You just don't seem to get it. One does not have to be rehabilitated to live within the law. The public may have an idea of "rehabilitation" as (a) the restoration of someone to a useful place in society (b) the act of restoring something or someone to a satisfactory state (c) vindication of a person's character and the re-establishment of that person's reputation. Living within the law requires none of this. Fortunately. Actually it requires (b). Unless you find the idea of a released murderer killing again "satisfactory".
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 27, 2015 7:07:48 GMT -6
Actually it requires (b). Unless you find the idea of a released murderer killing again "satisfactory". I don't, but we're all in a "satisfactory state," whatever that is, and we're all capable of murder. Murder is a crime of volition. You can't prevent murder with "rehabilitation."
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 27, 2015 16:30:17 GMT -6
Reagan gutted mental health treatment, which swept them into jails, prisons & homeless on the streets. Ironic" Reagan in 1981 was shot by a man suffering from mental illness. !!! Actually, it was the Donaldson decision by SCOTUS on the mentally ill that did so. The case was brought by the lead counsel for the ACLU. This resulted in much of the chaos you describe above, because formerly institutionalized persons who were unable to care for themselves could not be confined confined against their wills. "A State cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends." supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/563/case.html I can't stand the ACLU.. to the point of hating them. Not easy for me to hate.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 27, 2015 22:27:13 GMT -6
Actually it requires (b). Unless you find the idea of a released murderer killing again "satisfactory". I don't, but we're all in a "satisfactory state," whatever that is, and we're all capable of murder. Everybody has the capability for murder, but not everybody has the disposition. If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel that he no longer has the disposition.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Jan 27, 2015 23:16:40 GMT -6
They can't be rehabilitated and should be executed to protect our children, why is there even an argument.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 27, 2015 23:27:10 GMT -6
They can't be rehabilitated and should be executed to protect our children, why is there even an argument. It seems difficult to draw an appropriate line. If a pedophile pinches a 10 year old's bottom, but nothing more, do you think that's enough for lethal injection?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 28, 2015 7:37:28 GMT -6
If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel that he no longer has the disposition. No, we trust him to obey the law, regardless of his disposition.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 28, 2015 7:56:51 GMT -6
They can't be rehabilitated and should be executed to protect our children, why is there even an argument. So you're saying an abused child is as good as dead. A pedophile who faces the death penalty for his actions might as well kill his victims. It would be the smart thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 28, 2015 8:33:39 GMT -6
If we trust him, as you say, then we must feel that he no longer has the disposition. No, we trust him to obey the law, regardless of his disposition. We do not trust him to obey the law if we think he is still disposed to break it. We are releasing him despite our lack of trust, because the law says we must.
|
|