The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-25-2005, 10:20 AM   #46
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
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.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 10:23 AM   #47
Catwoman
stalking a Tom
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: on the edge of the english channel
Posts: 1,000
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 :
__________________
I've decided I'm not going to have a signature anymore.
Catwoman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 11:29 AM   #48
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
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.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 12:41 PM   #49
Lady Sidhe
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it....
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hammond, La.
Posts: 978
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
__________________
My free will...I never leave home without it.
--House



Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be.
-Rita Rudner

Lady Sidhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 12:55 PM   #50
Lady Sidhe
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it....
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hammond, La.
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catwoman
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 :

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.


Sidhe
__________________
My free will...I never leave home without it.
--House



Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be.
-Rita Rudner

Lady Sidhe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 01:03 PM   #51
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe
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.
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.

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.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 01:20 PM   #52
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
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.
Again, where does severity of the punishment stop crime? There is no more severe penalty than death. And still 42% of the least educated people take up cigarettes. Why? There is no more severe punishment. Still, they do so only because they don't expect to get caught. They don't expect to die. They assume emotionally rather than logically. Emotionally as in many of the above reasons to justify the death penalty.

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.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 01:44 PM   #53
Kitsune
still eats dirt
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 3,031
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!
Kitsune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 02:33 PM   #54
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.

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.
You want to see emotion? Try explaining this position to the mother of a baby whose body has been found buried in the woods with her skirt hiked up around her little neck. "Ma'am, I feel your pain, but we mustn't be too extreme. Take a deep breath and think about how badly we would all feel if we were to wantonly PUNISH this man without regard for gentlemanly codes of conduct."

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?
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 02:52 PM   #55
jaguar
whig
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
- Twain
jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 03:01 PM   #56
mrnoodle
bent
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: under the weather
Posts: 2,656
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.
__________________
Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh
mrnoodle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 03:13 PM   #57
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
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.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 04:20 PM   #58
Happy Monkey
I think this line's mostly filler.
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnoodle
You want to see emotion? Try explaining this position to the mother of a baby whose body has been found buried in the woods with her skirt hiked up around her little neck. "Ma'am, I feel your pain, but we mustn't be too extreme. Take a deep breath and think about how badly we would all feel if we were to wantonly PUNISH this man without regard for gentlemanly codes of conduct."
That's why the family of the victim isn't involved in sentencing.
__________________
_________________
|...............| We live in the nick of times.
| Len 17, Wid 3 |
|_______________| [pics]
Happy Monkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 04:38 PM   #59
jaguar
whig
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
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.
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.
- Twain
jaguar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 10:55 PM   #60
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.
Why only two? Who made that decision, you? I see at least one more and maybe there's more between the extremes you have decided are at issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
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.
Oh stop it for God's sake. Of course her fears are relevant, everyones fears are relevant, that's why we have cops and jails. Nothing, repeat nothing, has a larger impact on quality of life than being able to allay those fears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
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.
And when logic replaces your assumtions, there are more solutions than the ones you've outlined. Your not going to win this one by creating an emotionally charged atmosphere of you're with me or your a rabid murderer. Not this time bro, any fool can see their are more than two options to this one. :p
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.