|
Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...
...a simply BRILLIANT move! :rar:
First, there's the kid who raped and beat a woman and then tied her up and threw her off a bridge....told his friend that he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone, and that he knew he'd get away with it because he was a juvenile, then this....teenagers are more violent, more homicidal, these days...how many other teenagers are going to do things like this because they know they'll only be sentenced to juvenile life, then have their records wiped? It's bad enough that we let adults get away with it, but now we're giving them an even earlier head start to perfect their asocial behavior...No one is EVER responsible for their actions anymore... if they can't blame it on the parents, they blame it on the maturity of the brain. If they can't blame it on the brain, they blame it on peer pressure. And on, and on, and on. And it's not like he might be innocent...he ADMITTED it. :rar: :mad2: :mad: Sidhe 'Miracle' rescue of girl, 8, from landfill Teenager is charged with attempted murder, sexual batteryThe Associated Press Updated: 2:11 p.m. ET May 23, 2005LAKE WORTH, Fla. - An 8-year-old girl who was raped and buried alive told a friend she remembered her attacker towering over her before she passed out, then awoke seven hours later beneath a pile of rocks and concrete blocks when she heard the voices of rescuers. The girl, who had been staying overnight at her godmother’s house, was reported missing early Sunday. She was hospitalized in good condition Monday and a teenage boy who also had been staying at the home was arrested. Authorities said he confessed. “She said the last thing she remembers is that he looked over her with these big eyes and then she said she went to sleep. She said she was waiting for us to find her,” said 18-year-old Danielle Holloman, a family friend who calls the girl her sister. “She said she knew we would come get her. That’s why as soon as the police came, she wiggled her fingers,” Holloman said Monday. The girl was found Sunday morning when police Sgt. Mike Hall climbed into a 25-foot long trash bin, opened the lid to a 30-gallon recycling container and saw part of the girl’s hand and foot peeking out from under heavy concrete slabs, said police Sgt. Dan Boland. Hall told ABC’s “Good Morning America” he summoned a fellow officer “and he shouted out, you know, ‘her finger is moving!’ And at that point, the expression on everybody’s face just changed. I mean, it went from a hopeless scene to there’s hope there now.” Boland said there was no doubt that the girl would have been dead if Hall hadn’t found her. “She was dehydrated and in rough shape with pieces of cement blocks on top of her and she was face down,” Boland said. “There was no way for her to get out on her own.” 'No way for her to get out' He said rescuers feared the worst, but their mood turned jubilant when they realized she was alive. “There’s no doubt in my mind that this child would have been dead if he didn’t find her. She was dehydrated and in rough shape with pieces of cement blocks on top of her and she was face down,” Boland said. “There was no way for her to get out on her own.” She had been sexually assaulted, authorities said. Her disappearance rattled a state that had been outraged over the arrests of sex offenders in the separate killings earlier this year of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde. “When a child is abducted and abandoned like this, the critical thing is time,” Police Chief William Smith said. “That we found this child alive is a miracle.” The 8-year-old had been staying overnight at her godmother’s house. After police found her, the girl named her attacker and described him. The teenage boy she named, a friend who was staying in the home, was arrested. Boy, 17, charged Authorities said Milagro Cunningham, 17, confessed and was charged with attempted murder, sexual battery on a child under 12, and false imprisonment of a victim under age 13, police said. A court appearance was scheduled Monday. The teen initially told investigators that the girl may have been abducted by five men in a station wagon, and that he tried to follow them. He changed his story during questioning, Boland said. “He was a good person. He would clean and do chores, laugh and play jokes and stuff. We never thought he would do something like that,” Holloman said. “The only reason I can think he went crazy like this is his father died and his mother didn’t want him. Nobody wanted him.” Holloman said the teen stayed with an aunt until she kicked him out about four months ago. He then went to live at the home of Lisa Taylor, Holloman’s mother, where the victim occasionally spent weekends while her mother worked. Cunningham’s aunt had accused him of stealing and the teen has a relatively minor criminal record, authorities said. He was on probation for throwing a rock through a car window. Taylor was asleep when the girl vanished from the bedroom she was sharing with Holloman’s 1-year-old son. Holloman and her sister discovered the girl was missing when they came home after a night of roller-skating, authorities said. A half hour later, Cunningham knocked on the door and the sisters found him with his shirt torn and his clothes covered with dirt. Investigators said that’s when he started telling his story about the men in the station wagon. Authorities said the girl was found far enough from any homes that no one would likely have heard if she had cried out. The trash bin was in a fenced-off former landfill behind a park where she often played with Holloman, Holloman’s son and other friends. |
erm....has it occured to you that a: cases like this aren't exactly common. b: maybe, just maybe, it'd be more constructive to work on why kids end up like this than threatening them with death? If they're at a point where they don't care about getting juvenile life then maybe possibly that's the real problem?
|
Long ago, Sidhe saturated herself with all the worst elements of society, channeling them through the media.
I bet you 95% of her posts contain some horrifying excerpt from a news article about a five year old cannibalizing his grandmother or something. And every post, I can't help but wonder if Sidhe considers these things to be the norm, rather than the rarest of exceptions. |
Do you really think this kid is going to get a slap on the wrist for this? I doubt it, juvenile or not. When I first heard this story I was just really happy that the girl SURVIVED--that's what interested me, not whether the punk that did it would get the death penalty.
|
I grew up in the 50s and 60s when corporal punishment was standard practise, both at home and at school. I still sometimes wish that I could get one or two of my old teachers in a back room somewhere and give them a taste of what they gave me, but I realise that this is ridiculous.
I think that the trouble is that the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. Now kids are given almost no discipline, and they can even "divorce" their parents (become emancipated - I think that's the term). Add to that the level of violence that kids see every day in TV shows (CSI, Law & Order etc), and what do you expect? They become insensitive to violence, they know their legal rights, and what they can expect from the court system (they see it every day on TV - it's like a manual for crime). As Jag quite correctly points out, cases such as the one cited by Lady Sidhe are not common, but violent acts by teenagers are on the rise, nevertheless. I don't have any magic solution, but I think the answer starts at home. Even with all the "bad" kids you hear about, there still seems to be a majority out there who grow up to be at least reasonably responsible people. I don't know how you turn a bad parent into a good one. I'm starting to sound like a Bush supporter. That's a worry. :worried: |
Lady Sidhe, some facts for you:
I agree with you about responsibility. The examples you tend to quote are pretty vicious, and I wouldn't argue that IF TRUE they deserve severe punishment no matter how traumatic their childhood. However when designing a 'one size fits all' legal system (as I have often comdemned) one cannot take into account every possible permutation of murder or crime in general. Does the boy you mention above deserve the same as the woman who kills her cheating husband? It's an impossible question, and one you shouldn't be attempting to answer by purveying a 'death fits all' mentality to black, white AND grey crimes. |
oh wow.. I'll get back to this tomorrow... I did some stupid things growing up, but nothing like that.. and there in lies the problem of justice... there's a part of me that says kill the fucker.. then another part that says whoa! he needs help.. *sigh* here is my most unpopular idea, if IF we are going to have capital punishment.. here's the thing.. fuck the little lab in jail.. out in the damn town square, a brutal hanging! be-heading! whatever (although I don't think torture ought to be allowed) I mean, if it's meant to deter people from doing things like that.. get EXTREME!! WOOO!!!! (sorry TV got me all caught up).
ps. I'm glad she's alive... |
... and hanging isn't torture????
:worried: |
not if done right.. it ought to be a fairly painless death.. like i said if done right
|
damn it I always hit enter before I ought to. no wonder the ladies love me :) I studied torture for a while working on a D&D campaign (yeah I am that kind of loser), but I wanted to understand more of what might be behind the mentality of doing something that horrible to someone.. and also to apease my vengeful side.. and my other sides to know that 'damn! I could never do THAT to someone.. all told, hanging isn't that bad.. filling a persons belly with dry rice is horrible.. the death of a 1000 cuts... horrible.. being burned alive at the stake... horrible.. I could go on if you like. but you don't disagree on the the public display of 'justice'? I mean it is a better 'deterrent' than otherwise.. although I would like some dignity when I die.. and a cheering mob might not be so good for that.
|
Number of things:
wrongly accused feed and condone public appetite for violence go back 200 years didn't deter then, wouldn't deter now Before determining whether blows of justice should be dealt in public, in private or by noose or nails, one needs to examine it's purpose. So little is understood about human nature, is it really right to make a decision without knowing all the facts? If your key point is that 'well if they knew they were going to get hanged, they wouldn't do it', you should know that the death penalty has been proven (as much as you can trust any statistics) not to act as a deterrent. If they're gonna do it, they're gonna do it! How do you stop them doing it? |
Just ditto to catwoman in that neither corporal or capital punishment is a deterant, never was never will be. End of.
The case you site is extremely rare otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, and there will be an understandable reason for it, and obviously understanding is not the same as justification. He didn't act the way he did out of boredom or wickedness and whipping him on a regular basis would not have stopped this from happening. Cowhead, how does anyone know what kind of death is painless...? Who was it reported back? What a relief the victim survived. |
Just ditto to catwoman in that neither corporal or capital punishment is a deterant, never was never will be.
Agreed. The only thing the death penalty does is make the victims' families and the public feel as if justice has been served. It does absolutely nothing more. |
What should we do about people that cannot be rehabilitated? How do we handle the cases like those, whether minors or adults? Prisons are overflowing, as everyone knows. Do we just keep building walls and bars to keep them in so the rest of "normal society" doesn't have to think about it?
|
Quote:
|
Although I am glad she survived, what I really pray for her is that she gets the years of professional therapy from qualified professionals she is likely going to need after such a tragedy. I can't begin to imagine what this would do to me mentally, and I'm 29, not 8. My heart goes out to her and her mother.
Bad things happen, it's how we react that makes or breaks us. |
I'll put this in bold so that everyone can see it over the noise.
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment! If our concept of justice is solely limited to functional pragmatism, we've missed the point. Punishing someone for a crime they commit is not justified because of some future perceived value (deterence, getting them of the street, etc.) but because of their past act. Justice is retributive, or it is not justice. If it is pragmatic, it's simple social contract, nothing more. -sm |
Quote:
|
Much as I'd rather just shoot them dead where they stand, I'm personally usually more comfortable with the rule of law.
|
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment!
This is a problem, then, because the current prison system does not reflect this. It is, at this time, both retributive and rehabilitative. Because it rides this line, it serves neither. I'm still not certain the death penalty satisfies anything useful. |
The death penalty does deter crime. Not one murderer put to death will ever kill again. That's good enough for me.
This kid admitted it. There's no wondering if we got the right guy. Research shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. I don't see why I should pay to feed, clothe, house, give healthcare, and free lawyers for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. That money could go to law-abiding citizens who need it, rather than predators. This little girl will have to live with the memory of what was done to her for the rest of her life. He'll get out of jail, and probably do it again. She'll never forget. And I agree with the public execution. I think if punishment (all of it) were public, it could perhaps make people think twice. The death penalty, used as it's supposed to be, would probably go a long way to reducing crime. But we pay millions of dollars for their bullshit appeals, AND all the years they sit on death row. That's why it's so "expensive." If they admit to the crime, that should be that. All slapping them on the wrist will do (and I consider juvenile life a slap on the wrist, especially since their records are sealed and when they get out it's as if they've never committed a crime) is teach them that they can get away with it. That's my opinion, and I know many don't agree with it. *shrug* Think what you like, I suppose.... Sidhe |
Quote:
*sigh* I think I love you.... :love: ;) |
Quote:
|
The death penalty does deter crime. Not one murderer put to death will ever kill again. That's good enough for me.
That is true, but I find it to be a poor solution only because we've seen far too many innocent people put to death that were found not guilty years after their execution. A punishment that cannot be corrected and reversed in the event of a trial error, evidence error, frame-up, etc, seems highly flawed. The strong want of the public to see a criminal put to death is not good enough for me to endorse it when putting them in jail for life is just as effective in preventing someone from killing again. Research shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. I've heard this a lot but I've not seen any evidence to support it, yet. Source, please? I think if punishment (all of it) were public, it could perhaps make people think twice. Yeah, there are some other great countries out there that do this. You'll notice almost none of them are Westernized. I've heard the Saudis have had great success in crime reduction and that is it a great place to live... But we pay millions of dollars for their bullshit appeals Are you suggesting we don't give people this option any longer? Why? Appeals are all part of a very normal process. Again, there are many governments out there in this world that don't offer them and I'm sure you'd be very happy to live under their rule. AND all the years they sit on death row. AND you'll note that there are a large number of cases where those that sat on death row were found innocent of their convicted crimes before they went to the chair. Again, there is a reason people sit on death row so long and it has nothing to do with the system's want to suck your precious tax dollars and turn it into food and housing for someone convicted of a serious crime. This is the process. If you want the death penalty, you'd better get used to seeing a lot of it. All slapping them on the wrist will do...is teach them that they can get away with it. Agreed. Maybe its time we actually started treating people/the cause/the problem. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
For the moral objectivist, the answer is fairly simple: justice is a retributive act merited by immoral acts. If I steal $20 from you, retributive justice holds that three acts have happened: (1) An act of transgression toward you, that should be repaid by me giving you back $20 (2) An act of trangression toward the social group that we belong in. By breaking the social code against stealing, I have weakened the social fabric by an indeterminate amount. This is a harder retribution to fix, but our current legal code recognizes that it exists. I think it is also a moral fact. This is why if I steal, I might have to pay back additional fines on top of repaying the money. (3) An expression of internal impropriety, a breaking down of my internal moral ordering that prevents me from performing bad acts. This leads to two additional demands of justice: (a) equipping the person with the means and impetus to reorder their internal moral sense (rehabilitation). (b) if the internal impropriety is significant enough (i.e. a willingness to do violence to others) then a removal from the social arena until that moral ordering is repaired. For people who hold to a different sort of moral scheme, Justice becomes a much harder, much less tangible concept. If you are a moral relativist, then all justice becomes social contract, and whatever demands a society places on each other becomes the basis for justice. For a utilitarian, this becomes even harder, because all moral acts are measured by their eventual consequences. For the utilitarian, imprisoning a wrongly accused person would be perfectly acceptable if the net social gain outweighed the individual losses to the innocent person. I know we have people on this board who are social relativists and consequentialists (utlitarians), and can throw together a better representation of how those views construe the idea of justice. I'd be eager to learn ... -sm |
Quote:
|
The victim named him as the perpetrator, he confessed to the crime, and there's likely to be physical evidence from the sexual assault that implicates him as well. Trifecta.
|
Quote:
I take the position that it's not a good idea to give an arsonist any matches, though. I don't spend a lot of time reading research. I admit it. I also think that a good percentage of published research is carefully phrased bullshit, funded by large grants. This is not to say that there isn't a lot of good psych research out there, though. I have, however, spent a good amount of time dealing with men from a nearby program for sex offenders, and also speaking with their staff. These are men who are supposedly rehabilitated. They have a wide range of offenses ... some against adults (you know those sexually violent predators you hear about? I know over a dozen), many more against children. I get to inventory their property. When I find pages ripped out of a K-Mart circular featuring boys modelling Underoos, I doubt the effectiveness of treatment, no matter how well the system thinks these guys are doing. |
Quote:
I don't lose any sleep worrying about sex offenders rights or lack thereof. My point was only to say that Lady Sidhe's statment wasn't accurate. True, most sex offenders probably can't be rehabilitated, but to say that is true of every single one simply isn't accurate. That's all I was gettin' at. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Missed you, Sidhe!
Thought you were gone for good, girl. Nice to have you back in full form! |
If the death penalty were such a deterrent, then 42% of those with a high school education or less would not be cigarette addicts. It’s not the penalty that is a deterrent. Deterrence is the probability of getting caught.
|
Deterrence is the fear of being punished.
Without the three C's punishment doesn't work. Certainty Celerity Severity |
Quote:
|
glatt, thank you. SO many people wouldn't have thought of - or would have rejected - that question. It's so good to hear someone else saying something so important. :love:
Anyway, let's address the question. Do we need justice? Scenario A Man commits murder. Man is sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Man will never kill again. Scenario B Man commits murder. Man is sent to prison. Man no longer a danger to society. Man gets released. Man has the option of a) rehabilitation or b) comitting another murder. That is man's choice. Scenario C Man commits murder. Scenario A appears to be the safest, most logical option, if we agree that murder is bad (I will make this assumption) and that the act of murder is likely to be repeated (I wouldn't assume that) and an indicator of an unsafe human being (ah my assumptions are coming unstuck). Let's start again. "Murder is bad." Agreed. We can be sure of that as we can be sure of anything. "The act of murder is likely to be repeated." The man killed someone, therefore he will kill again. I'm sorry, I can't make this leap of logic. Past should not be taken as an indicator of future on it's own merits. It can be an indicator, but one needs to analyse the present to be completely sure. (For example, when I was 16 I liked Boyz2Men. Now I don't. The fact that I once did is no indication that I do now.) The final principle, "Murder is an indicator of an unsafe human being" is closely linked, but instead of suggesting that the man who committed the murder is likely to do it again, it insinuates that there is an underlying factor that caused the man to kill, and this underlying factor is irredeemable, and thus, logically, if murder is bad, the man is bad, and should be destroyed or removed from society. Scenario A most effectively caters for this line of thinking. Now, to Scenario B. The man is punished, but it's a bit of a half-ass punishment. He is sentenced to 25 years but only serves 12, costs the country a good few dollars and then returns to society. If rehabilitation has occurred (ie he will not kill again), the punishment has served its purpose. If it hasn't, that's thousands of dollars and another victim wasted. So how do you know if rehabilitation has occurred? In the first instance, one needs to look at what the word suggests. 'Re-habilitation'. Re-habiting. The man was once 'habitable' (fully integrated into societal habits ie not killing), and broke the habit. Therefore he needs to be rehabilitated to become once more a correctly functioning member of society. This suggests that he is not inherently BAD, but he broke the rules and, more importantly, that the act of breaking a rule as a one off incident and not a mark of a habitable person - a person who's habit is murder. The word 'murderer' also suggests that there is no such thing as a one-off killing. Once labelled a murderer, he will always be a murderer, even if he only did it once. Is it right that because I stole some make up when I was 12 I am forever labelled a thief present tense? So, we now have two arguments. The 'that man is bad' argument, concluding in the death sentence or life imprisonment; or the 'that was a one off' perspective, concluding in rehabilitation. Finally, Scenario C. Man commits murder. Nothing is done in the way of punishment. Questions are asked only by academia, not society. There is no cost on society in the way of dollars or emotions - including news reportage, court cases, moral debates. The person he killed is dead. He continues to function in society as he did before the murder. I would recommend Scenario C for the one-off rule breaker. The woman who snaps and kills her violent husband. The son who kills his mother's rapist. I would recommend Scenario B for the habitable. The serial killer. The child porn fanaticist. These are people with a passion, a compulsion, a habit. It's just the wrong habit. Redirect it to something constructive. It's not the habitual nature in itself that's at fault, but the way in which they choose to express it. Some people switch lights on and off 12 times before leaving a room. This obsessive compulsion is the same as that of a celebrity stalker, or a serial killer. They have an obsession. Treat the obsession, redirect their obsessive nature towards church or music or anything less dangerous. Now, one might (quite understandably) agree that the compulsive nature is not evil in itself, and one could tolerate obessive compulsive behaviour in friends or hell even mildly in themselves. But then, why does HER compulsion manifest itself in harmless activities such as light flicking whereas HIS compulsion becomes something much darker: a murderous compulsion. Do you see that this does not matter? I am going to go slightly back on myself now and say that is IS the compulsive nature that's at fault, NOT the manner in which it is lived out. The compulsive light-flicker has the same internal makings of a serial killer. They are just better integrated into societal habits: better conditioned. If you are religious, you may believe in clear-cut good and evil. And if we agree to live in a theocracy then people who murder should be sentenced to death. Not out of spite or retribution, but to remove them from the planet. Destroy the enemy. You don't need to gloat in public, because if they are actually evil it won't have any impact anyway. If they're not evil, and they feel embarrassment at public humiliation, maybe you shouldn't have prescribed Scenario A, as this person is clearly capably of retribution because he feels embarrassed. Embarrassment is a social feeling, betraying a desire to be socially accepted which means he is habitable. I'm tired of writing now. Hopefully someone else can pick up from here. |
Thank you for a perfect example of why sometimes homicide is justifiable. :rolleyes:
|
I'm autistic and don't understand sarcasm. Please explain.
|
Quote:
{Foghorn}It's a joke son! You're too short son! The fast ones go right over your head!{/Leghorn} But seriously, those three things are the most important part. 1) They have to know that they will be punished, 2) They have to know that the punishment will be delivered quickly, 3) They have to know that the punishment will be severe enough to make the experience one they don't want to repeat. The rest of it is making the punishment fit the offense. |
Murder is baaaaaad, mmmmkaayyy?
|
I agree entirely, whether perpetuated by the state or the individual.
|
Onyx, thanks...good to be back.
Wolf: right on! You said it much better than I could have (in re rehab of sex offenders) SM: You said it much better than I could have...all of it. I tend to come across a little strongly to people who don't know me, or know how I debate. If I argue a point, I argue it from one side, because I've already looked at all the options and information and made my decision, and then argue from there. I sometimes---ok, I USUALLY--tend to forget to explain how I got to where I am...it's forgetting those little details that just smacks me in the back of the head. I looked at things from a utilitarian point of view for a long time, but, believe it or not, I've become more moderate since college. Justice, to me, does not have to be exclusive of revenge. It is justice that one who takes the life of another, in cold blood, should pay life for life. The murdered person will never get a second chance. Why should the person who took that life, destroying the lives of not only the individual, but their family and friends as well, get one? And if prisons were self-sufficient, I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it. But I resent having to pay to take care of people who would kill me with indifference if it suited their purpose...or who would rape and kill my daughter because they get off on little kids. Some people just need to be recycled, you know? ....soylent green is peeeeeeeeeople......(sorry, couldn't resist) Sidhe |
Quote:
|
I understand the philosophy of it, LS, but do you really feel comfortable with our govt/legal system making the choice as to whether a person's life should be taken? What about folks who were innocent, or acted in self defense? That isn't probably considered "cold blooded" to you, but why should we leave that decision in the hands of an already misguided, if not incompetant group of people? Who is fit to make that judgement? You? Me? The victims of a crime? An educated removed individual sitting behind a wooden podium? A group of conditioned people sitting in wooden benches having had all kinds of spin flung at them by lawyers looking to win a case? I don't feel comfortable giving anyone that kind of power.
Sure, there are a lot of sick people out there, looking to hurt you or your family. And if one of them does, how does revenge on that person really fix the problem? It just gets rid of the person who did it, but it doesn't rid you of the experience. It will happen with other sick people and their innocent victims. So are we just going to shoot everyone who gets acused of a crime worthy of it? And which crimes *are* worthy of killing someone? |
I understand the act of settling on a point and then arguing from it without explaining. It can get tiring repeating your 'workings' and you can forget them somtimes ('I know this is my point of view I just can't remember why').
Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.' Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error. If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice. |
I really really don't want to resurrect the relativism thing, but how can anyone get anything done if they spend their entire lives wringing their hands and saying "what do we dooooooo?!?! There's no black and white! We can't decide!" The world keeps spinning while we flail around in a perfectly grey puddle of indecision and angst. The kid will die of natural causes before anyone can agree on whether he needs rehabilitation more than the world needs to be rid of him.
Happy Monkey has it right. Let out the weed growers and there will be plenty of room to keep the murderers while we decide what to do with them. But please, someone decide SOMETHING. While the life of a murderer might have equal intrinsic value to the life of anyone else, it does NOT have the same value as the scores of potential victims he will create if he's not kept out of society forever. |
Agh. Please read my post, someone. What makes you think he'll do it again? There have only ever been a handful of serial killers (not counting presidents and prime ministers). Stop. Basing. Arguments. On. The. Doings. Of. An. Extreme. Minority.
: pulling hair out : |
yes, let's not project the actions of one child rapist on the scores of decent, hardworking child rapists who might not re-offend. How narrow of me.
|
Keep in mind that pedophiles typically will have molested 10 kids before they get caught, and that many victims do not come forward, for lots of reasons.
And not every woman who is raped comes forward, for many reasons. **A victimization survey conducted by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and Statistics Canada discovered that only 38% of females who had experienced a sexual assault during 1981 reported their victimizations to police. The survey estimated that 15,100 women above the age of sixteen (or about 6 women per 1000 in the population under study) experienced some form of sexual assault during a one year period in the seven Canadian cities that were surveyed. For you stat/research-wanters, here's some stuff I found: **To examine differences in recidivism rates across sex offender type, we separated the offenders into three groups: incest offenders, pedophiles and rapists (see Table 2). This revealed that among newly released sex offenders, rapists had the highest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to any other group. In contrast, incest offenders demonstrated the lowest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to pedophiles or rapists, regardless of whether they belonged to the caseload or newly released samples. It is notable that the pedophile group on caseload had the highest rate of sexual recidivism relative to incest offenders or rapists. One exception to this trend involves homosexual pedophiles. These offenders are considerably more likely to reoffend than are heterosexual pedophiles. **http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm Studies of Sex Offenders of all types, and recidivism rates **Is chemical castration an acceptable punishment for male sex offenders? Resources used to support "yes" Sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and exhibitionists, are among the highest reoccurring offense populations in the United States probation system. These offenders commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. These offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime(s) just because they have gone through a treatment program, most or which cannot show a significant success rate. Chemical castration is an ideal punishment for sex offenders. When Depo-Provera is administerd, recidivism rates fall to 5%. Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. Although men administered this drug are capable of having sexual intercourse, many people argue that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is countered by the fact that sex offenders are required to get injections only once a month. What is "cruel and unusual" is allowing sex offenders to attack innocent women and children. This effective therapy will protect future victims. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. [LaLaunie Hayes.] (I have no problem with chemical castration, if it works. But if it doesn't work and s/he reoffends, THEN can we kill them?) **Researchers admit that existing studies provide only limited estimates of the number of reoffences committed by sex offenders. Most recidivism studies report on reconvictions that take place within a two to three year period following convictions for sex offences. However studies that have tracked sex offenders over extended follow-up periods have found higher recidivism rates. Another problem with recidivism rates is that figures based on reconvictions only provide information on offenders who have been officially detected. **http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/.../e011i_e.shtml Research on Sex Offenders **Reoffense rates tend to increase over the years and, around the ten year mark, reoffense rates among treated offenders is nearly the same as among untreated offenders. So, let's say, just for shits and giggles, that a sex offender, of whatever type, gets out of jail...he hasn't seen a woman/man/child for however long he's been in. Now, considering that straight men who get out of jail probably head for the nearest piece they can find, what makes you think that this guy won't? So we let this guy out, and say, "Oh...he's been in treatment. He's safe." And he goes out and the first thing he does is get him some from somebody who doesn't want to give it. What do you say THEN?? "OOpsie...we fucked up. Sorry about that, miss. Sorry this guy raped you and your little girl, then beat you both and threw you in a dumpster and left you for dead. Our mistake. You know how it goes."?? ONE victim that could have been saved is worth it. Letting him out and giving him the benefit of the doubt may sound nice, but it doesn't mean jack to the next person he harms. It all comes down to choice. He chooses to engage in his behavior. I think we should choose to punish his ass as severely as possible. This isn't breaking a window or boosting a car. Sex crimes are the ultimate INVASION. Victims never really feel safe again. How does someone pay for THAT?? And before someone slams me about the "choice" issue, check this out: I read in this in Time magazine a few years ago, and this stuck with me because I admired what this man did...The story was about this priest who was caught messing with kids. This man was so remorseful that he voluntarily gave up his collar and went to live in the friggin' MOUNTAINS. He lives in a cabin in the mountains, and he only comes down once a month to get supplies and to give talks to other priests. He refuses to be around children at ALL. Now THAT'S remorse. THAT'S rehabilitation. That's choosing NOT to engage in, or even put oneself into a situation to engage in the behavior. That's what crime comes down to. It's not your mommy's fault, it's not your daddy's fault, and it's not society's fault. It's YOUR fault. Choice. Sidhe |
Quote:
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research395.html "Only about 1% of the population are serial killers. Yet the number of identified serial killers has risen dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Whether this is an increase in the actual number of offenders or whether it is due to better police work is unknown. Whatever the reason, the serial homicide rate has risen tenfold. The FBI estimates that there are currently 500 serial killers at large. Other estimates are much lower, around 35 - 100 serial killers currently committing crimes. In 1983, they estimated that 5000 Americans, or 15 people a day were killed by strangers. Every year, between 3500 - 5000 people in America are the victims of serial killers. In the past 20 years, 160 serial killers have been identified or captured, and 120 of them were in the United States. " http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.002/hinch.html "It has been estimated that between 10 and 500 serial killers are active at any time in the United States (Egger 1990a; Kiger 1990; O'Reilly- Fleming 1996). In Canada, estimates range from 5 to 30 (Ratner 1996). The variation in these estimates can be attributed to a variety of problems with data sources: arbitrary definitions; small samples; samples biased toward only known/apprehended serial killers; and samples relying upon secondary sources such as biographies or newspapers. These alternative data sources have been used primarily because official data are not reliable. For example, the FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies across the United States and publishes it in the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR). The Supplemental Homicide Report(SHR), part of the UCR, provides additional information about victims, offenders and circumstances. The intention is to reflect all criminal offenses that come to the attention of the police. The data, however, are incomplete and unreliable. First, because reporting is voluntary, the information is incomplete (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Second, there may be organizational pressures within particular police jurisdictions not to alarm the public about the possible existence of a serial killer in that area. This may prevent reporting and/or effect homicide classification procedures (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Third, homicide data records only those crimes known to the police. Missing persons and undiscovered bodies are excluded." Hm. Only a handful. I'd hate to see what you consider a significant number. :worried: Sidhe |
Quote:
You have no right to expect extreme protection. You only have the right to expect protection as best available - and still protect others rights. A percentage of all murders who get out will murder again. That is expected and cannot be avoided. So therefore we should fry all murders. I appreciate your fear. But life is about risk. Deal with the logic. Your fears are not relevant. We do the best we can to minimize your risks. But that does not justify the frying of all murders, pedophiles or rapists. And yet with all the emotion in your post, that is exactly what you advocate. It is what happens when fear replaces logic. |
Quote:
Like it or not, the nuclear option on criminals only makes things worse - ie Stalinism. Ultimate punishment solves nothing. Deterrence is found in the probability of getting caught. If he murders again, why? Because he does not expect to get caught. 20 years or capital punishment means nothing. He does not expect to get caught. As well proven in NYC, people who get away with petty theft and traffic violations only learn with each more severe crime that crime does pay. How did NYC reduce murders? They enforced the little crimes such as pick pocketing and those 'squeegee men'. And how did NYC do this? Every two weeks, precinct commanders were subject to review - and possible loss of command. Why? Deterrence is in getting caught doing the little crimes. All without using the ultimate punishment. Using an emotional response to crime does zero to eliminate crime. The solution is only in logical actions. Logical actions are not perfect. And frying all murders only because some might murder again is nonsense - the classic emotional response. |
It looks to me as if some more people have fallen victim to availability error and are freaking out over the endless national news stories about kidnappings, murders, etc. I'd really hate for the news to actually report the real number of children kidnapped and people murdered everyday. The short-sighted decisions made then might be disasterous.
Calm down, people. Sheesh. Killing them fixes everything! |
Quote:
Gulags my ass. When you stop being angry about this kind of shit, that's when you are ripe for takeover by a dictator. He knows you won't do anything to stop him. One other point.. "A certain percentage of murderers who get out will murder again." Actually, that is the point, isn't it? :rar: |
So.....extreme emotional responses and over the top revenge are the correct answer?
'gentlemanly codes of conduct' as you so tritely put it are what separates us from savages. |
depends on one's definitions of "extreme", "over the top", and "savage".
Someone who does something like that to a child should be subject to extreme justice, over-the-top measures to ensure he doesn't do it again, and savage consequences for repeat performances, yes. Gentlemanly codes of conduct work among gentlemen, but when the savages come to our place, they should be dealt with in kind. I suppose it's best I don't hold public office, because I'm tired of the predators being handled with kid gloves and the prey lying out in the street forgotten. While we bicker over access to law books and cable TV for these bastards, the little kids are still DEAD. |
On the one hand, on an intellectual and moral level, I believe the death penalty is wrong.
On the other hand, a sniper in my town a couple years ago victimized me and my family for a month or two. We stayed inside for a couple of months for fear of being shot. We were the lucky ones. They caught the sniper. Malvo, the asshole. You've probably heard of him. He's a kid. He's most likely insane. He's going to be put to death. I don't care. On an intellectual level, I think he shouldn't be put to death, because it's not consistent with my beliefs. But in my gut, I don't care that he's going to die. I'm not looking forward to his death. I'd be equally happy if he spent the rest of his life in a maximum security mental facility or prison. If I were called to be on a jury in his case, I would admit my bias and remove myself from the jury. Similarly, I believe emotions have no place in an argument about whether the State should kill its citizens. That's a lynch mob mentality. We are better than that. |
Quote:
|
your semantics say it all really. What's 'extreme justice' ? Sounds like a polite way of saying cruel, sadastic revenge that sounds more palateable to me. Which makes you no better.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.