05-15-2006, 02:13 PM
You contridict yourself(and misrepresent me.)
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.
But enough on that, lets focus on your mistake..
You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "
You feel that by serving your sentence you are esentially even again with society and your past crimes dont matter. This directly implies a finallity and aceptance of the legal sentence by society. A legitmate position, whether or not its correct.
But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."
Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.
The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.
And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea, but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive and maybe not "fair" IMO)
It seems havent seperated these in your mind - you should.
You seems NAIVE because you feel that people can reasonably tell who is and isnt rehailitaed. You are even more NAIVE because you dont realize that subjective questions like that the easiest way for criminals to punished far beyond the law.
There is no way to tell if a pediphile is rehabilitaed or not. Released pediphiles given the oppertunity have a large "relapse" rate. Even if it was just 5% is would be huge. I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance.
I consider the "list" to be a life sentence and a fair sentence.
But I would also consider laser etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair.
There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant afford to trust you.
The misrepresentaion is you make it appear I championed Hammurabi's code - which is not the case.
But enough on that, lets focus on your mistake..
You say-
"...then they need to be allowed to live as normal a life as possible once their debt to society has been paid."
and
"You serve your time, you are released, you are free... "
You feel that by serving your sentence you are esentially even again with society and your past crimes dont matter. This directly implies a finallity and aceptance of the legal sentence by society. A legitmate position, whether or not its correct.
But then you say-
"Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't."
and
"If someone is still a danger to society, then they should not be allowed back into society and still be undergoing treatment."
Both of these statments contridict your first sentence because they mean ignoring the sentence and focusing on the condition of the idividual.
The basis of your argument refuttes itself - that sounds STUPID to me.
And a word on the legal system. It can serve 4 possible purposes.
-revenge(a bad purpose IMO)
-deterant(a great purpose IMO, as long as people are not disenfranchised before they enter into crime)
-rehabilitaion(a nice idea, but impossible to determine IMO)
-removal(effective but exspensive and maybe not "fair" IMO)
It seems havent seperated these in your mind - you should.
You seems NAIVE because you feel that people can reasonably tell who is and isnt rehailitaed. You are even more NAIVE because you dont realize that subjective questions like that the easiest way for criminals to punished far beyond the law.
There is no way to tell if a pediphile is rehabilitaed or not. Released pediphiles given the oppertunity have a large "relapse" rate. Even if it was just 5% is would be huge. I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance.
I consider the "list" to be a life sentence and a fair sentence.
But I would also consider laser etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair.
There are some compacts with society that if broken you you should accept dire marking because society cant afford to trust you.