|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2015 15:52:18 GMT -6
That is an allegation, made by an alleged victim, that comports with what a number of other women have said. Whether or not it's true, it's not "wild speculation" on my part. It's not something that I personally made up. You might as well have, if nothing is provable. I can't even find where you're getting your information. You obviously have him convicted, in your mind, but to me he's just a guy who likes them young and got caught. He's no different than most of the members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I think you just said "You obviously have him convicted. Me too. But of a crime I personally regard as harmless." Edited out. We agree he is guilty of soliciting a minor for sex. You seem to want a conversation about whether that's a big deal. I'm more interested in why the larger case the police brought against him was reduced so radically by the prosecutors, and why he consequently got off lightly.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 2, 2015 8:00:14 GMT -6
"It's entirely appropriate to punish the 288 as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." --- what Joe would say, if he were consistent. Obviously you're not from California. We think differently. You can't get your mind around criminalizing recidivism in and of itself, but we've been doing it for decades.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 2, 2015 8:01:01 GMT -6
To a 50 year old pedophile, 25 to life, LWOP and the death penalty (after a couple of decades of appeals) all look pretty similar. Unless he expects the longevity of Noah. If he's on his second strike then he might as well kill the kid and be rid of the only witness. Yep. That would be true of anyone in his fifties, committing any felony.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 2, 2015 16:44:33 GMT -6
"It's entirely appropriate to punish the 288 as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." --- what Joe would say, if he were consistent. Obviously you're not from California. We think differently. You can't get your mind around criminalizing recidivism in and of itself, but we've been doing it for decades. If you understand my meaning and are now trolling me for our mutual amusement, kudos. Otherwise, you need to re-read my last few messages and see if it helps.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 2, 2015 16:46:11 GMT -6
To a 50 year old pedophile, 25 to life, LWOP and the death penalty (after a couple of decades of appeals) all look pretty similar. Unless he expects the longevity of Noah. If he's on his second strike then he might as well kill the kid and be rid of the only witness. Yep. That would be true of anyone in his fifties, committing any felony. Yes, though the argument works better for pedophilia since there is likely to be exactly one witness to remove.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 5, 2015 15:23:16 GMT -6
"It's entirely appropriate to punish the 288 as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided." --- what Joe would say, if he were consistent. Obviously you're not from California. We think differently. You can't get your mind around criminalizing recidivism in and of itself, but we've been doing it for decades. Forget recidivism. Concentrate on the first crime. Why isn't it appropriate to punish it as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 5, 2015 20:20:31 GMT -6
Forget recidivism. Concentrate on the first crime. Why isn't it appropriate to punish it as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided? So death for running a red light, then? Would that be alright with you?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 5, 2015 20:27:43 GMT -6
Forget recidivism. Concentrate on the first crime. Why isn't it appropriate to punish it as harshly as one wishes, since the punishment is easily avoided? So death for running a red light, then? Would that be alright with you? It's your logic I am quoting to you, so you tell me.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 5, 2015 20:49:38 GMT -6
It's your logic I am quoting to you, so you tell me. By my logic, recidivism in and of itself is a crime, separate and apart from the triggering offense.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 6, 2015 1:49:56 GMT -6
It's your logic I am quoting to you, so you tell me. By my logic, recidivism in and of itself is a crime, separate and apart from the triggering offense. Yeah, and you said that since recidivism was easy to avoid, we could punish it as harshly as we like. But why doesn't that go for other crimes? What's so special about recidivism?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 6, 2015 8:53:36 GMT -6
since recidivism was easy to avoid, we could punish it as harshly as we like. But why doesn't that go for other crimes? What's so special about recidivism? Recidivism represents the penultimate betrayal of public trust. That's what makes it special. That, and murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 7, 2015 10:55:33 GMT -6
since recidivism was easy to avoid, we could punish it as harshly as we like. But why doesn't that go for other crimes? What's so special about recidivism? Recidivism represents the penultimate betrayal of public trust. That's what makes it special. That, and murder. Many would say that molestation of a child is the ultimate violation of trust. And they can use your argument: the crime is easy to avoid, so we can punish it as harshly as we like. But suddenly, when they do, you don't like that argument any more. It seems you use that argument the way religious ninnies use scripture. As is convenient.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 7, 2015 21:45:12 GMT -6
Many would say that molestation of a child is the ultimate violation of trust. I am not among them. There are many more things more harmful to a child that molestation. they can use your argument: the crime is easy to avoid, so we can punish it as harshly as we like. But suddenly, when they do, you don't like that argument any more. Because they would rather see children murdered than molested. I am guessing you do, as well, which is a shame. There is a logic in punishing recidivism in and of itself, which apparently escapes you. That's OK, though, since you don't reside in California.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 7, 2015 22:04:45 GMT -6
Many would say that molestation of a child is the ultimate violation of trust. I am not among them. There are many more things more harmful to a child that molestation. they can use your argument: the crime is easy to avoid, so we can punish it as harshly as we like. But suddenly, when they do, you don't like that argument any more. Because they would rather see children murdered than molested. I am guessing you do, as well, which is a shame. You seem to think that when I use your own reasoning against you, I endorse it. I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Feb 8, 2015 12:24:27 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? Yes, why is a grown adult pinching a child's butt?? And I don't believe more children will be killed if pedo's faced the death penalty, I believe more pedo's wouldn't be around to re-offend like they ALL do.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 8, 2015 12:59:13 GMT -6
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? Yes, why is a grown adult pinching a child's butt?? No good reason, just as there is no good reason to urinate against a tree when there are restrooms nearby. Doesn't mean it deserves death.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Feb 8, 2015 13:39:47 GMT -6
Yes, why is a grown adult pinching a child's butt?? No good reason, just as there is no good reason to urinate against a tree when there are restrooms nearby. Doesn't mean it deserves death. So you are comparing molesting a child to urinating on a tree? The two aren't even remotely comparable and if you think they are, well that is exactly where the problem is, with not only you but our judicial system when it comes to pedo's and acting as though their crimes aren't really a big deal. I on the other hand believe if a grown adult will EVER touch a child inappropriately, I don't care if it's what you consider "bad" enough, that if they do it once they will most definitely do it again and again. I don't care if every single one of them is executed, honestly how would we be worse off if every single molester was gone off the face of the earth? We wouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 8, 2015 15:32:50 GMT -6
No good reason, just as there is no good reason to urinate against a tree when there are restrooms nearby. Doesn't mean it deserves death. So you are comparing molesting a child to urinating on a tree? No, I'm saying that you're making an insufficient case for executing a butt-pincher. The kind of case that, if it were sufficient to justify execution for butt pinching, would also justify execution for a range of trivial offenses.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 8, 2015 15:35:28 GMT -6
No good reason, just as there is no good reason to urinate against a tree when there are restrooms nearby. Doesn't mean it deserves death. I on the other hand believe if a grown adult will EVER touch a child inappropriately, I don't care if it's what you consider "bad" enough, Let's see how far down the slippery slope you're willing to go. A man who played Santa at the mall is found to have got sexual thrills from having children on his lap. He didn't touch the children any differently from a regular Santa, he just enjoyed the touches more. Execution?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 8, 2015 17:53:32 GMT -6
You seem to think that when I use your own reasoning against you, I endorse it. I don't. i use it to defend harsh punishment for recidivism, regardless of the triggering crime. The reasoning does not apply to other crimes, for reasons I have clearly and unambiguously stated. So far you have not rebutted punishment of recidivism in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 8, 2015 18:37:07 GMT -6
You seem to think that when I use your own reasoning against you, I endorse it. I don't. i use it to defend harsh punishment for recidivism, regardless of the triggering crime. The reasoning does not apply to other crimes, for reasons I have clearly and unambiguously stated. Sure it does. It's not hard to not-steal. It's not hard to not-rape. It's not hard to not-assault. These crimes are easy to avoid, and hence the punishment is also easy to avoid. But if the punishment is easy to avoid then, by your logic, we can justifiably make the punishment as harsh as we like. This is your own logic repeated back to you. I don't know why you suddenly don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 8, 2015 18:48:46 GMT -6
So far you have not rebutted punishment of recidivism in and of itself. You've presented no evidence that recidivism itself is a crime, so there is nothing to refute.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 7:34:48 GMT -6
You've presented no evidence that recidivism itself is a crime, so there is nothing to refute. It is, in California. It's called the three-strikes law.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 7:38:26 GMT -6
Sure it does. It's not hard to not-steal. It's not hard to not-rape. It's not hard to not-assault. These crimes are easy to avoid, and hence the punishment is also easy to avoid. But if the punishment is easy to avoid then, by your logic, we can justifiably make the punishment as harsh as we like. This is your own logic repeated back to you. I don't know why you suddenly don't like it. I only like it where it's applicable. It's not applicable for rape, or for theft, etc. It's only applicable for recidivism.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2015 8:20:13 GMT -6
You've presented no evidence that recidivism itself is a crime, so there is nothing to refute. It is, in California. It's called the three-strikes law. The three strikes law mandates harsher sentences for people who have committed three felonies. None of those three is ever recidivism itself. So give me an argument that recidivism itself is a crime, rather than an aggravating circumstance that places statutory limits on the discretion of the judge during sentencing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2015 8:20:51 GMT -6
Sure it does. It's not hard to not-steal. It's not hard to not-rape. It's not hard to not-assault. These crimes are easy to avoid, and hence the punishment is also easy to avoid. But if the punishment is easy to avoid then, by your logic, we can justifiably make the punishment as harsh as we like. This is your own logic repeated back to you. I don't know why you suddenly don't like it. I only like it where it's applicable. It's not applicable for rape, or for theft, etc. It's only applicable for recidivism. But it clearly is applicable for rape and theft. Those crimes are easily avoided. That's all that's required.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 9:00:46 GMT -6
it clearly is applicable for rape and theft. Those crimes are easily avoided. That's all that's required. Not for the first offense, no. If you don't accept recidivism as a crime, or something that should be a crime, in itself, you cannot understand harsh punishment for it. I am compelled to ask why you find punishment of recidivism so offensive.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 9:05:27 GMT -6
The three strikes law mandates harsher sentences for people who have committed three felonies. None of those three is ever recidivism itself. So give me an argument that recidivism itself is a crime, rather than an aggravating circumstance that places statutory limits on the discretion of the judge during sentencing California voters punish recidivism with the three strikes law. That's the whole point, and that's what the left finds so objectionable about it. The nature of the triggering crime doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2015 10:32:50 GMT -6
it clearly is applicable for rape and theft. Those crimes are easily avoided. That's all that's required. Not for the first offense, no. What makes you think it is difficult to avoid breaking the law, first time around?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2015 10:35:20 GMT -6
If you don't accept recidivism as a crime, ... I am happy to accept recidivism as a crime, once you show me compelling evidence that it is. For all you have said here, the three strikes law defines no new crimes. It merely affects the sentencing phase of crimes that are already defined in the statute.
|
|