Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[kandrathe]

Mith could be accidentally wrong . But I personally think Mith is smart enough to understand the error I pointed out.

Your post is kind of lame actually. My big problem here is over an issue of fact not the difference of opinion. Like most everyone else here you are happy to critque my method of discourse but you dont have the balls to just say Mith was wrong about how people are released from prison.
[right][snapback]110216[/snapback][/right]

My instinct is to let this thread rot. But I am compelled (as a fly to excrement it seems) to attempt one last attempt to penetrate the steamy fog. Griselda forgive.

I might say "I find your abrasiveness, lack of tact, impossible grammer, absent spelling and sloppy logic to be lame." Would that be the kind of cajones you are looking for? It seems in your case, the Moderators try to be polite enough to overlook your dishevled posts since you are an intelligent person. I have accepted that. But, you might not care what I think since I can only assume that you believe me to be that "fair minded" nincompoop who refuses to take your side of the argument. In my view, Mithrandir has the faculties to defend himself, if he desires to wallow in the mud pit so be it and I don't have time to "take sides". I try to contribute to the conversation and instigate a discussion. My fair minded lameness was an appeal to you for civil discourse, which you seem incapable of grasping.

When Mithrandir stated "You serve your time, you are released, you are free... oh wait, no. Either you are rehabilitated and ready to become a productive member of society or you aren't. I fail to see the gray area here." You offered him "stupid" or "naive" as options? You set the tone of the following discussions. Maybe you don't communicate as well as you might think you do.

Perhaps he meant that a life of being branded a public enemy is excessive punishment, since the person has served their prison sentence, has been paroled, and maybe even completed their probation. That is what I read into his statement. If he forgot about the probationary period, then it was his error. It wasn't an important nit for me to pick at, and it wasn't a salient point. You went for the insults. I don't think it is productive to pick at nits, or be insulting. What are the salient issues in the discussion? The perpetrator is eventually released and is put on the register. Will they re-offend? Can they be rehabilitated? How should society deal with the dilema of recividism? Those are the issues.

In my lengthy post I quoted "After serving their time, the vast majority of people who commit sex crimes are not detained as sexual predators, like Linehan, but are released into the community. And, simply put, nobody wants them." Then I tried to engage the topic of recividism and rehabilitation, and that with treatment 50% fewer heinous crimes is a good thing and probably worth doing. Your summary was roughly; revenge(bad), deterant(a great purpose), rehabilitaion(a nice idea but impossible to determine) and removal(effective but expensive). To which I concluded your advocacy was for harsh penalties and lifelong incarceration or death if they were affordable. I argued against excessive deterence, and supported rehabilitation where it works.

It is easy to claim that you want to be tough on crime, but it is harder to advocate destroying peoples lives and even harder to be the hangman. Justice needs to be for the victim and also the criminal, otherwise we are just like the barbarians. You have stated "But I would also consider laser etching a "P" on their forhead to be fair." Maybe also "M" for murderers, and "G" for gang bangers?

The sex crimes are heinous, but so are killing, shooting, or brutally assualting people. Yet, those people have high enough recividism rate and are also released with no need to register. With treatment 10-15% of sex offenders re-offend, which means that the list could be considered an injustice to 85-90% of them. I believe that if a person is deemed to be a sexual psychopath and incapable of controlling their sexual appetites, then they should be commited for life or until deemed to be rehabilitated.

You state that even 5% recividism is too high a risk, and therefore "I consider it NAIVE to leave this to chance. I consider the list to be a life sentence and a fair sentence." I believe in a just system for even despicable people, but we disagree and I've beat this horse all I'm going to tonight.

edit: Cajones for Occhi. :D