|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 19:42:57 GMT -6
Not talking about police efforts to catch pedophiles, but on the public appetite to punish them. It seems that pedophiles provide people with an excuse to express their most sadistic desires. No punishment is too cruel. I do not believe rape should call for the DP. I do know some are just centered on underage children for sex. Main thing we should be protecting are." our" children. So yes, it is extremly normal to fear for our kids. If society wanted to protect its kids it would find ways to encourage pedophiles to seek help before they commit a crime, not shame and terrify these poor weirdos into the shadows.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 2, 2015 22:07:30 GMT -6
I do not believe rape should call for the DP. I do know some are just centered on underage children for sex. Main thing we should be protecting are." our" children. So yes, it is extremly normal to fear for our kids. If society wanted to protect its kids it would find ways to encourage pedophiles to seek help before they commit a crime, Problem is we the public do not know they are pedophiles until they commit the crime. So, how do we help them seek help before the crime.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 22:59:50 GMT -6
If society wanted to protect its kids it would find ways to encourage pedophiles to seek help before they commit a crime, Problem is we the public do not know they are pedophiles until they commit the crime. So, how do we help them seek help before the crime. You create an atmosphere where they may wish to identify themselves, instead of terrifying the *f---* out of them with a spectacle of sadism and hate.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Apr 8, 2015 14:22:24 GMT -6
Thats just too much. Pedos are simply good targets for peoples sadism...its usually NOT motivated by the desire to actually help or protect children. What an unusually insightful comment for this board. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 13, 2015 7:08:43 GMT -6
How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when first degree murder might get you as little as 25? Or nosepicking, if such were a felony. I am OK with punishing recidivism separate and apart from the underlying offenses.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 14, 2015 12:18:08 GMT -6
How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when first degree murder might get you as little as 25? Or nosepicking, if such were a felony. I am OK with punishing recidivism separate and apart from the underlying offenses. As I suspected, you are not disgusted by murder. You are simply irritated by rule breaking.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 15, 2015 14:13:39 GMT -6
you are not disgusted by murder. You are simply irritated by rule breaking. Based on what reasoning? I'd impose an automatic death penalty to acts of murder. Recidivism is worthy of punishment. I have made the case for that several times.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 15, 2015 14:57:24 GMT -6
you are not disgusted by murder. You are simply irritated by rule breaking. Based on what reasoning? I'd impose an automatic death penalty to acts of murder. Recidivism is worthy of punishment. I have made the case for that several times. You've certainly repeated it several times, but the case you make is confusing. You say "How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently." But by the same logic, how can you support life sentences for 3 x shoplifting when we punish first degree murder with only 25 years?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 16, 2015 7:54:20 GMT -6
You say "How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently." But by the same logic, how can you support life sentences for 3 x shoplifting when we punish first degree murder with only 25 years? You just don't get it, do you. The life sentence wouldn't be for shoplifting. It would be for recidivism in and of itself. I argue we should remove second degree murder from the California penal code and force prosecution of all murders as those of the first-degree, a crime with a punishment set by the penal code, not by any judge.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 16, 2015 13:47:44 GMT -6
You say "How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently." But by the same logic, how can you support life sentences for 3 x shoplifting when we punish first degree murder with only 25 years? You just don't get it, do you. The life sentence wouldn't be for shoplifting. It would be for recidivism in and of itself. I think I get it Joe. You think that a second time shoplifter should get the same sentence, LWOP, as a second time rapist. Because both committed the same crime. Namely, RECIDIVISM. Which means you fail to make a meaningful distinction between RECIDIVISM 2nd degree murderRECIDIVISM attempted murder and RECIDIVISM rapeon the one hand, and RECIDIVISM smoking a jointRECIDIVISM copyright theft and RECIDIVISM urinating in the streeton the other. It's all just RECIDIVISM to you, and all RECIDIVISM deserves life imprisonment. What you're telling this forum is that you aren't particularly bothered by violent criminals repeatedly preying on peaceful citizens. On the contrary, any repeat rule-breaking puts the same bug up your a$$.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 17, 2015 7:11:35 GMT -6
No, you obviously don't. You keep mentioning crimes that have nothing to do with recidivism. Which means you fail to make a meaningful distinction No distinction is necessary. You're still hung up on crimes OTHER THAN recidivism. You don't recognize recidivism itself as a crime, the way Californians do. That's your problem, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 17, 2015 17:54:30 GMT -6
You keep mentioning crimes that have nothing to do with recidivism. Recidivism involves other crimes, Joe, by definition. You know that. You agree, then, that you fail to make one. You don't distinguish between RECIDIVISM in the case of copyright theft and RECIDIVISM in the case of armed robbery. This is why I conclude that you're simply not that concerned about criminals returning to a life of rape and murder. It's all just recidivism to you, and no worse than returning to a life of illegally downloading music. I rarely see anyone agree with you Joe, so I doubt that the rest of California does.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 22, 2015 9:08:59 GMT -6
You don't distinguish between RECIDIVISM in the case of copyright theft and RECIDIVISM in the case of armed robbery. That is correct, because I wish to punish recidivism as a crime in itself. I don't understand why you can't grasp such a basic concept. The electorate here does. This is why I conclude that you're simply not that concerned about criminals returning to a life of rape and murder. Because that's not on me. That's on them. It's all just recidivism to you, and no worse than returning to a life of illegally downloading music. A felon is a felon. Why shouldn't repeat felons serve life terms, regardless of the crime?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 26, 2015 17:15:57 GMT -6
It's all just recidivism to you, and no worse than returning to a life of illegally downloading music. A felon is a felon. Why shouldn't repeat felons serve life terms, regardless of the crime? Because it is inconsistent with a moral and penal tradition in which crimes are punished according to their gravity. Copyright infringement, no matter how many times it is repeated, never approaches the level of evil involved in rape, murder, attempted murder or even common assault.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 27, 2015 8:38:46 GMT -6
That argument doesn't apply. You're not punishing copyright infringement. You're punishing the crime of recidivism.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 2:57:54 GMT -6
That argument doesn't apply. You're not punishing copyright infringement. You're punishing the crime of recidivism. You don't add gravity to repeat copyright infringement just by renaming it "recidivism". That's foolish.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 7:25:12 GMT -6
You don't add gravity to repeat copyright infringement just by renaming it "recidivism". That's foolish. Not if it's a felony, defined as a crime against the state, and therefore against all its people. I've not heard of felony copyright infringement, but I haven't studied the criminal codes of all fifty states.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 13:19:06 GMT -6
I've not heard of felony copyright infringement, but I haven't studied the criminal codes of all fifty states. It's a federal crime, hence a crime in California. A felony if it involves more than $2500. Nonsense. Copyright theft and murder are not equal in gravity just because both are crimes against the state.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 13:20:51 GMT -6
You don't recognize recidivism itself as a crime, the way Californians do. That's your problem, not mine. Actually, I think that it's yours. I have found nothing that attests to recidivism itself being a crime in California or anywhere else. No-one is ever charged with "recidivism". You must be mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 13:35:17 GMT -6
I have found nothing that attests to recidivism itself being a crime in California or anywhere else. No-one is ever charged with "recidivism". You must be mistaken. That is essentially what a three-strikes law is. It is punishment simply for having committed a third felony -- any third felony.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 13:36:58 GMT -6
Copyright theft and murder are not equal in gravity just because both are crimes against the state. And yet neither matter to the punishment of recidivism. Proportional sentencing only matters the first two times around.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 13:39:17 GMT -6
I have found nothing that attests to recidivism itself being a crime in California or anywhere else. No-one is ever charged with "recidivism". You must be mistaken. That is essentially what a three-strikes law is. It is punishment simply for having committed a third felony -- any third felony. You are incorrect. The three strikes law applies only in the penalty phase. The criminal is tried for murder, rape, etc, not "recidivism".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 13:40:17 GMT -6
Copyright theft and murder are not equal in gravity just because both are crimes against the state. And yet neither matter to the punishment of recidivism. Proportional sentencing only matters the first two times around. I guess we need to decide whether you are advocating for the law or merely reading it back to me. Only the former is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 14:06:00 GMT -6
You are incorrect. The three strikes law applies only in the penalty phase. The criminal is tried for murder, rape, etc, not "recidivism". Actually it's decided in the penal code. Districts attorney have no discretion.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 14:07:54 GMT -6
Only the former is interesting. I am advocating for the law, which seems to baffle you if only because you don't live here.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 14:12:41 GMT -6
You are incorrect. The three strikes law applies only in the penalty phase. The criminal is tried for murder, rape, etc, not "recidivism". Actually it's decided in the penal code. Districts attorney have no discretion. I never said they did. The point is that the three strikes law governs the severity with which a felony is punished. It is not a felony in itself. No-one is suspected of "recidivism". No-one is charged with "recidivism". No-one is tried for "recidivism".
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 14:16:17 GMT -6
Only the former is interesting. I am advocating for the law, which seems to baffle you if only because you don't live here. Your advocacy has not been impressive. It consists solely of the sophism "if you lived here, you'd understand".
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 16:02:10 GMT -6
Your advocacy has not been impressive. It consists solely of the sophism "if you lived here, you'd understand". And yet I sleep soundly, comforted by the California's three strikes law, even if it has been weakened recently. I expect the pendulum to swing back in the direction of harsher punishment soon, and permanently.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2015 17:24:09 GMT -6
Your advocacy has not been impressive. It consists solely of the sophism "if you lived here, you'd understand". And yet I sleep soundly, comforted by the California's three strikes law, even if it has been weakened recently. Yes, weakened to exclude the nonviolent felons whose permanent incarceration you have been defending. It seems California doesn't agree with you, Joe. Have you thought about leaving?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 28, 2015 17:33:46 GMT -6
It seems California doesn't agree with you, Joe. Have you thought about leaving? The electorate is fickle. A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't had his car stolen yet. Better times are ahead.
|
|