|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 28, 2015 9:11:02 GMT -6
We do not trust him to obey the law if we think he is still disposed to break it. Sure we do. We have to. We punish past crimes, not future crimes. If the guy's done his time, we let him out. If he chooses to commit another, that's on him, not on us. We are releasing him despite our lack of trust, because the law says we must. Perhaps we should just execute every felon, en masse. That would solve your trust issue.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 28, 2015 12:47:28 GMT -6
Perhaps we should just execute every felon, en masse. That would solve your trust issue. On the contrary, it would do exactly the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 28, 2015 13:28:53 GMT -6
On the contrary, it would do exactly the opposite. You don't trust the dead?
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 28, 2015 14:39:54 GMT -6
I paedophile sex offender is far more likely to re-offend than a murderer. Murder is, usually, contingent on circumstances. Leaving aside sociopaths murders are overwhelmingly in response to a particular situation. Sex offences, on the other hand, are driven by disposition.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 28, 2015 19:45:52 GMT -6
I paedophile sex offender is far more likely to re-offend than a murderer. Murder is, usually, contingent on circumstances. Leaving aside sociopaths murders are overwhelmingly in response to a particular situation. Sex offences, on the other hand, are driven by disposition. Irrelevant, unless you are arguing that everyone with a disposition to crime should be identified and executed. I would also argue the sociopathy of anyone who commits murder, regardless of motive, if a motive exists.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 28, 2015 20:38:57 GMT -6
I paedophile sex offender is far more likely to re-offend than a murderer. Murder is, usually, contingent on circumstances. Leaving aside sociopaths murders are overwhelmingly in response to a particular situation. Sex offences, on the other hand, are driven by disposition. Irrelevant, unless you are arguing that everyone with a disposition to crime should be identified and executed. I would also argue the sociopathy of anyone who commits murder, regardless of motive, if a motive exists. You may disagree but it's not "irrelevant". If a crime is committed to sate an ongoing need then clearly the offender poses a greater ongoing risk than one who has committed a crime in response to a temporary set of circumstances. Also, sociopathy is no more an indicator of a homicidal tendency than wearing a hat is an indicator of baldness.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 28, 2015 22:13:39 GMT -6
You don't trust the dead? It's not about the dead, Phillips; simply put, the American people would never trust a government that carried out mass executions.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 28, 2015 22:57:40 GMT -6
We do not trust him to obey the law if we think he is still disposed to break it. Sure we do. We have to. We punish past crimes, not future crimes. You're making my point for me. We let him out, not because we " trust" him to behave in future, but because he has served his sentence for the crimes he committed in the past.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 28, 2015 22:59:15 GMT -6
I would also argue the sociopathy of anyone who commits murder, regardless of motive, if a motive exists. Then we must all be sociopaths, since you were just saying we all have the capacity for murder.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 7:32:18 GMT -6
the American people would never trust a government that carried out mass executions. Why not, if the executions are just? There was no uproar over the mass executions of Germans and Japs in 1945. The government did that, with impunity.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 7:35:10 GMT -6
we must all be sociopaths, since you were just saying we all have the capacity for murder. To a degree, yes, we are. We are each capable of throwing off moral restraint and extinguishing the life of another, with premeditation and malice. And yet 99.9999 percent of us do not. Anything unique among the 0.0001 percent, which would distinguish itself from the remainder, would have been identified by now. We are forced to conclude that the only difference is the collective attitude among this population. Attitudes are within one's control.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 7:36:10 GMT -6
You're making my point for me. We let him out, not because we " trust" him to behave in future, but because he has served his sentence for the crimes he committed in the past. Then why are you concerned with rehabilitation? It's not a social problem.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 7:42:13 GMT -6
If a crime is committed to sate an ongoing need then clearly the offender poses a greater ongoing risk than one who has committed a crime in response to a temporary set of circumstances. What difference does that make? Every act of murder is equally morally reprehensible. No one "needs" to commit murder. It's always a choice. That's as true for Marianne Bachmeier as for Andrea Yates as it was for Richard Chase. The future "dangerousness" of murderers is a silly concept. Who cares? Kill them or let them die slow and alone, man-in-iron-mask style.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 9:22:34 GMT -6
You're making my point for me. We let him out, not because we " trust" him to behave in future, but because he has served his sentence for the crimes he committed in the past. Then why are you concerned with rehabilitation? It's not a social problem. Because I believe in behavioral reprogramming. It's possible with mice. It's possible with dogs. It's possible with monkeys and with dolphins. Humans have the same neural hardware, ultimately speaking, as any other mammal. So while we have the felon in our power, why not take the opportunity to change his attitude?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 9:25:15 GMT -6
If a crime is committed to sate an ongoing need then clearly the offender poses a greater ongoing risk than one who has committed a crime in response to a temporary set of circumstances. What difference does that make? Every act of murder is equally morally reprehensible. No one "needs" to commit murder. It's always a choice. That's as true for Marianne Bachmeier as for Andrea Yates as it was for Richard Chase. The future "dangerousness" of murderers is a silly concept. Who cares? Kill them or let them die slow and alone, man-in-iron-mask style. But what about the future dangerousness of pedophiles? The same?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 9:46:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 9:48:51 GMT -6
what about the future dangerousness of pedophiles? The same? I believe in condign punishment for each crime. Such for murder is either LWOP or death. That is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14. There are some that disagree, but it seems they value the lives of children less than their hatred of pedophiles.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 9:55:17 GMT -6
Because I believe in behavioral reprogramming. It's possible with mice. It's possible with dogs. It's possible with monkeys and with dolphins. Humans have the same neural hardware, ultimately speaking, as any other mammal. So while we have the felon in our power, why not take the opportunity to change his attitude? A felon is not within our "power." If he's done his time, his debt is paid. The slate is clean. That's as it should be. We punish crimes, not criminals.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 10:01:17 GMT -6
While we're on the topic… it's only regular pedophiles who get thrown into an institution without recourse for the rest of their natural lives. Not in California, to my knowledge. If, however, you're a professional pedophile pimp for the rich and famous, providing a buffet of minors for some five-star big shots, you get 18 months (13 served), immunity for your clients, and sealed court documents so that nobody important gets embarrassed. In California? I doubt it. We have very stiff penalties for child trafficking. I don't know about the last two points, but it doesn't much concern me. It's easy enough to entrap the people who want to pay for sex with kids.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 10:06:43 GMT -6
what about the future dangerousness of pedophiles? The same? I believe in condign punishment for each crime. Such for murder is either LWOP or death. That is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14. Right. But what about the future dangerousness of pedophiles? You're answer in the case of murderers is "Who cares? Either kill em or let them rot in a cell forever." But you won't give that answer for pedophiles. So what answer do you give?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 10:07:53 GMT -6
Because I believe in behavioral reprogramming. It's possible with mice. It's possible with dogs. It's possible with monkeys and with dolphins. Humans have the same neural hardware, ultimately speaking, as any other mammal. So while we have the felon in our power, why not take the opportunity to change his attitude? A felon is not within our "power." If he's done his time, his debt is paid. The slate is clean. That's as it should be. Before he has done his time, before he has finished cleaning his slate, he is within our control. We can have him learn new criminal skills from his brothers in the pen, or we can take his re-education into our own hands.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 29, 2015 10:09:20 GMT -6
While we're on the topic… it's only regular pedophiles who get thrown into an institution without recourse for the rest of their natural lives. Not in California, to my knowledge. If, however, you're a professional pedophile pimp for the rich and famous, providing a buffet of minors for some five-star big shots, you get 18 months (13 served), immunity for your clients, and sealed court documents so that nobody important gets embarrassed. In California? I doubt it. We have very stiff penalties for child trafficking. I don't know about the last two points, but it doesn't much concern me. It's easy enough to entrap the people who want to pay for sex with kids. Not this guy. He held his underage sex parties on a private jet, obscuring the issue of which jurisdiction the crime occurred within.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 10:32:57 GMT -6
Not this guy. He held his underage sex parties on a private jet, obscuring the issue of which jurisdiction the crime occurred within. Under the United States Criminal Code, that doesn't matter. They've gone after U.S. citizens on foreign soil for kid sex.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 10:36:49 GMT -6
what about the future dangerousness of pedophiles? You're answer in the case of murderers is "Who cares? Either kill em or let them rot in a cell forever." But you won't give that answer for pedophiles. So what answer do you give? I did answer it. We punish crimes, not criminals. Future "dangerousness" is not a concern in penology. It's not against the law to be a pedophile. It's against the law to have sexual contact with minors under 14. A pedophile that respects the law is not a problem. The ones that can't will go back to prison.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 10:39:09 GMT -6
We can have him learn new criminal skills from his brothers in the pen, or we can take his re-education into our own hands. Why is that our problem? His "re-education" is his problem, not mine. Why afford a convicted criminal something we do not afford the law-abiding? The only education a convict needs is that prison is such a terrible place that breaking the law again is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jan 29, 2015 10:47:20 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. A childs life is hugely affected, sometimes the rest of their lives, so yes sometimes they are as good as dead. It often changes the whole pattern of someone's life leading to promiscuity (low self esteem), drugs, suicide etc. That's one hell of an impact to have on someones life .
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 11:00:44 GMT -6
A childs life is hugely affected, sometimes the rest of their lives, so yes sometimes they are as good as dead. It often changes the whole pattern of someone's life leading to promiscuity (low self esteem), drugs, suicide etc. That's one hell of an impact to have on someones life . All very true, but isn't the life of a child still the child's? Punishing child rape the same as murder is going to get a lot of raped children killed. That's just common sense.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 29, 2015 11:21:57 GMT -6
[quote source="/post/625142/thread" timestamp Punishing child rape the same as murder is going to get a lot of raped children killed. That's just common sense. Actually a good majority rape & murder the child.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 11:35:27 GMT -6
a good majority rape & murder the child. I doubt the majority do. The majority of child rapes are within families.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 29, 2015 13:09:25 GMT -6
a good majority rape & murder the child. I doubt the majority do. The majority of child rapes are within families. murder's too. All peds should have an MRI. One man raped a child, they found a tumor on his Rt frontal lobe. After removed his obsession faded. One yr later he was fixated on children again, the tumor was also growing back. Not really a choice it's the wiring in the brain as some believe too. Guess that is a beginning on what to do with them.
|
|