|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 13:30:21 GMT -6
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. How do you explain all the law-abiding people with such tumors? It's always a choice.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 29, 2015 13:41:13 GMT -6
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. How do you explain all the law-abiding people with such tumors? It's always a choice. I disagree, it is not always a choice. Having a heart attack is not a choice either. Depends on where the tumor is. Nothing wrong with starting with an MRI.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 13:52:40 GMT -6
Having a heart attack is not a choice either. Depends on where the tumor is. How much would you risk to back up the absurd proposition that all those with brain tumors are pedophiles? Even Sam Harris wouldn't agree with you. Brain malformations do not vitiate freedom of action. They do not replace moral agency.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 29, 2015 14:20:24 GMT -6
Having a heart attack is not a choice either. Depends on where the tumor is. How much would you risk to back up the absurd proposition that all those with brain tumors are pedophiles? Even Sam Harris wouldn't agree with you. Brain malformations do not vitiate freedom of action. They do not replace moral agency. I never stated all" brain tumor are peds. I simply stated" if a known ped do an MRI to check on them. The frontal lobe area controls our judgenent, impulse control, social & sexual behavior & much more.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 14:34:50 GMT -6
if a known ped do an MRI to check on them. And then what? Let him out of prison early? What if he's out of prison and refuses, as would be his right? The frontal lobe area controls our judgenent, impulse control, social & sexual behavior & much more. This is obvious, but not instructive. Millions of law-abiding people have malformed frontal lobes in their cerebral cortexes. They control their impulses with great difficulty, because they know they're supposed to. You are implying that the state should manage that for them.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 29, 2015 14:45:06 GMT -6
There is a difference between sex offender's & peds. Ped's even say they cannot control it.
What is a MRI ? Cruel & torture for the ped who has raped a child? Maybe we could shut off their impulses?
Debate all ya want, the title of this tread is what to do with them, I say for the ped who raped start with an MRI.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 15:04:21 GMT -6
There is a difference between sex offender's & peds. Ped's even say they cannot control it. Then they don't belong in prison. What is a MRI ? Cruel & torture for the ped who has raped a child? Maybe we could shut off their impulses? I submit there are many more pedophiles who are law-abiding than those who aren't. If you're saying it's just a medical issue, there's no reason for them to obey the law. You'll be there with a taxpayer-funded doctor to save the day. Debate all ya want, the title of this tread is what to do with them, I say for the ped who raped start with an MRI. Fine, if it's voluntary and at his expense. The law-abiding public has no interest in medicalizing criminal behavior.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 29, 2015 16:48:47 GMT -6
Why not, if the executions are just? I hardly think that executing all the felons in the United States could be considered “just” by any stretch of one’s imagination! Besides, such action would be a blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment. There was no uproar over the mass executions of Germans and Japs in 1945. And there shouldn’t have been because the punishment fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 29, 2015 17:02:16 GMT -6
I hardly think that executing all the felons in the United States could be considered “just” by any stretch of one’s imagination! Besides, such action would be a blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment. Not every felon. Just the ones on death row. Put them in a big ditch and bury them alive. I'm not a big fan of the Eighth. Repeal it.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 29, 2015 22:51:32 GMT -6
Not every felon. Just the ones on death row. Phillips, we both know that’s not what you initially said. Put them in a big ditch and bury them alive. And you think that will win the trust of the people? I'm not a big fan of the Eighth. Obviously!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 7:04:18 GMT -6
we both know that’s not what you initially said. I was being sarcastic. My point is that nothing can be done inside or outside of the prison walls to reform or rehabilitate a criminal. That isn't the purpose of punishment. If a prison wants to become a member of the law-abiding, that's up to him. you think that will win the trust of the people? If we trust the government to execute one, we trust the government to execute them all. What difference does it make? Are you seriously telling me you would oppose capital punishment if applied with an iron fist, without mercy or hesitation, to those already condemned? What good is it? Repeal of the Eighth Amendment doesn't make us more cruel. It simply makes the alleged "supporters" of capital punishment more honest.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 30, 2015 11:56:45 GMT -6
Were you? Are you seriously telling me you would oppose capital punishment if applied with an iron fist, without mercy or hesitation, to those already condemned? Where did I say, imply, or indicate that? Repeal of the Eighth Amendment doesn't make us more cruel. And doing away with a passenger ship’s lifeboats doesn’t make it any less seaworthy.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 12:19:32 GMT -6
I was. Bernard was concerned about the dangerousness of released inmates, or at least about the dangerousness of released murderers. My suggestion was to exterminate the population giving him grief. That would solve his problem. However, I do not believe "dangerousness" is a legitimate concern of penology. After a convict has done his time, that should be it. We leave him free to exercise his choices in life, secure in the knowledge that we will punish him anew for any further transgressions of the criminal code. In California we have a three-strikes law with that in mind. I would make it two-strikes, for any felony. Where did I say, imply, or indicate that? You implied citizens would not trust a government that executes several people at once. You did not qualify your statement by restricting the executed to any population of the condemned. doing away with a passenger ship’s lifeboats doesn’t make it any less seaworthy. How is the Eighth Amendment comparable to a lifeboat?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 30, 2015 13:31:51 GMT -6
You implied citizens would not trust a government that executes several people at once. No, I implied that the citizenry would not trust a government that conducted mass executions of every felon. You did not qualify your statement by restricting the executed to any population of the condemned. There was absolutely no need for me to do so because after you wrote, “Perhaps we should just execute every felon, en masse.”, it was a given that I was merely responding to such statement. How is the Eighth Amendment comparable to a lifeboat? You think about that for a while and if you still haven’t figured it out after a week then I’ll tell you. However, I am of the opinion that you already know the answer to that.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 14:14:37 GMT -6
You think about that for a while and if you still haven’t figured it out after a week then I’ll tell you. However, I am of the opinion that you already know the answer to that. The Eighth Amendment is what is used to abandon capital punishment, i.e. the sinking ship. That's the best I can do.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 30, 2015 15:13:59 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? Like a deliberately induced peaceful death by anesthetic? If breaking the law is not an option, the criminal has no choice but to comply. But weren't you just telling whitediamonds that there is always a choice? However you square that circle, you're agreeing with me. Despite yourself. Again. If rehabilitation means making the punishment so terrible that recidivism is not an option, I have no problem with that, at least not when it comes to the most heinous crimes. I say as much in response to Nils on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 30, 2015 15:15:34 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 seems that, to you, it's not a concern at all.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 30, 2015 15:17:02 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. This is a question for a lawyer, but I wonder how it's possible to prosecute someone for breaking the laws of Arkansas when there is some considerable doubt as to whether they were in Arkansas at the time.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 17:49:29 GMT -6
I wonder how it's possible to prosecute someone for breaking the laws of Arkansas when there is some considerable doubt as to whether they were in Arkansas at the time. Thomas Andrew Erickson was nabbed for sex acts in Thailand that violated U.S. law. We may have some agreement with the Thai government on that.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 18:00:56 GMT -6
It seems that, to you, it's not a concern at all. I am concerned, but not to the point where we jettison the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of safety. Of the fifty states, the District of Columbia and the federal government, the state of California has the longest average time served for murder, although I expect Michigan will exceed California in a fe years. , That isn't perfect but it's in the right direction. Executing them, or letting them die in prison, or releasing them with very little left to live for -- that seems appropriate for acts of murder. As for child rape, the punishment should fit the crime. To deal with the dangerousness of pedophiles, we have a three-strikes law, which I'd modify to two strikes.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 30, 2015 18:09:16 GMT -6
you're agreeing with me. Despite yourself. Again. If rehabilitation means making the punishment so terrible that recidivism is not an option, I have no problem with that, at least not when it comes to the most heinous crimes. I say as much in response to Nils on the other thread. Yes, I do, except with your employment of the word rehabilitation.In its most common usage, it implies social responsibility for recidivism, that a criminal's return to prison is somehow our failure, not his. That belief, especially as promoted by people who don't live here, I find repugnant.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 14:02:08 GMT -6
It seems that, to you, it's not a concern at all. I am concerned, but not to the point where we jettison the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of safety. But it's okay to jettison the constitution in pursuit of other things? "I'm not a big fan of the Eighth. Repeal it." - Joseph D. Phillips, further up this page.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 14:08:06 GMT -6
As for child rape, the punishment should fit the crime. To deal with the dangerousness of pedophiles, we have a three-strikes law, which I'd modify to two strikes. So though you believe that "LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14", you're all for LWOP if someone does it twice?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 14:17:19 GMT -6
So though you believe that "LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14", you're all for LWOP if someone does it twice? That is pretty close to what we have now for a 288. I would extend that punishment to apply to any felony, however.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 14:20:04 GMT -6
I am concerned, but not to the point where we jettison the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of safety. But it's okay to jettison the constitution in pursuit of other things? "I'm not a big fan of the Eighth. Repeal it." - Joseph D. Phillips, further up this page. The repeal of a constitutional amendment is itself constitutional. We repealed the 18th. The 8th is equally disreputable.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 14:31:45 GMT -6
I wonder how it's possible to prosecute someone for breaking the laws of Arkansas when there is some considerable doubt as to whether they were in Arkansas at the time. Thomas Andrew Erickson was nabbed for sex acts in Thailand that violated U.S. law. We may have some agreement with the Thai government on that. Well then perhaps you can explain why Jeffrey Epstein got only 18 months for running a pedophile ring with kidnapped minors, was let out after serving two thirds of it, and got immunity for his clients?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 14:33:59 GMT -6
So though you believe that "LWOP or death... is not the appropriate punishment for sex with a minor under the age of 14", you're all for LWOP if someone does it twice? That is pretty close to what we have now for a 288. I would extend that punishment to apply to any felony, however. Sure. But I am puzzled by your stand. You speak of having proportionality in sentencing, but then you favor two strike laws. You say it's not our business to stop the creep from reoffending, but then you want to put him jail forever after one failure to reform. I'm not hearing any consistent message here.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 31, 2015 14:37:09 GMT -6
But it's okay to jettison the constitution in pursuit of other things? "I'm not a big fan of the Eighth. Repeal it." - Joseph D. Phillips, further up this page. The repeal of a constitutional amendment is itself constitutional. But you aren't in favor of amending the constitution in the name of safety. So what is a good reason to amend?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 16:35:44 GMT -6
But you aren't in favor of amending the constitution in the name of safety. So what is a good reason to amend? A good reason to amend? That's a good question. I am not a strict majoritarian. I think any attempt to repeal the second amendment would lead to civil war, as it should. I am not enamoured of the pedophile, but we take away his incentive to be law-abiding if we punish him -- as we punish all sorts of non-violent sex criminals , as well-- upon release from prison. I would do away with the sex registry altogether. It's a joke.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2015 16:40:31 GMT -6
You speak of having proportionality in sentencing, but then you favor two strike laws. You say it's not our business to stop the creep from reoffending, but then you want to put him jail forever after one failure to reform. I'm not hearing any consistent message here. It's totally consistent. Recidivism should be a consideration in punishment. It already applies in traffic violations. Why not apply such consideration to felonies? Punishment of any crime only makes sense if we agree on the volitional nature of criminal acts. Each such act is a violation of the public's reasonable expectation of compliance. The patience of the law-abiding isn't infinite, that's all.
|
|