Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[Guest]

Pedophiles need treatment.
[right][snapback]109900[/snapback][/right]

The truth comes out. I assumed this was your real opinion.

This is really a broader topic. Do people break laws because they are sick or because they choose to. Should we try to repair people or should we punish them as a deterant and a way to take them out of society.

I Choose the second. You choose the first. Thats fair.


But your initial arguement was disengenous whan you spoke of "debt to society". Because that has nothing to do with treatment and nothing at all to do with the person being safe to put back on the street.



Next time be honest up front about your opinion.
I might disagree with you but I wont call you stupid.

[Xukuth]

Wow, this is only about ten miles away from where I live.

What a crazy hag of a woman.

[Rinnhart]

You arent even making sense.

My major problem with Mith is that hes confusing rehabilitaion with punishment. And I clearly pointed out him doing just that.

That was the contridiction.

Both are valid concepts(irregardless of effectivness.) Both might even be effectively used in conjunction. But they are not the same.
Im really not even going to address what you said beyond the first "paragraph because your rejoined was to flawed to worry about anything built on it.
[right][snapback]109905[/snapback][/right]

What I am saying is that punitive actions must be kept within the system's control and never allowed to be dictated by the whims of an individual. The electronic "branding" that occurs with these lists of sexual offenders makes them, and people associated, even in passing, with them, social pariahs and targets for criminal activity.

LISTS = CRIMES AGAINST THE LISTED INDIVIDUALS IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE = A BREAK DOWN IN SOCIAL ORDER = BAD.

I cannot be more clear.

[Drasca]

What I am saying is that punitive actions must be kept within the system's control and never allowed to be dictated by the whims of an individual.
[right][snapback]109934[/snapback][/right]

Applause. Vigilantes and lynch mobs make for criminal action.

[Guest]

What I am saying is that punitive actions must be kept within the system's control and never allowed to be dictated by the whims of an individual. The electronic "branding" that occurs with these lists of sexual offenders makes them, and people associated, even in passing, with them, social pariahs and targets for criminal activity.

LISTS = CRIMES AGAINST THE LISTED INDIVIDUALS IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE = A BREAK DOWN IN SOCIAL ORDER = BAD.

I cannot be more clear.
[right][snapback]109934[/snapback][/right]

Actually you are saying a lot of stuff some I agree with some I dont but only part of it deals with the oints I made at Mith.


Anyway. Your little sentence caps - just because you use caps doesnt make it true.
Im a great believer in knowedge and openess, I guess you arent. Your less than logical reasoning method could be used against anything.

One element/event being required for another element/event does not mean they are cause and effect.
Learn to think.

[Rinnhart]

Actually you are saying a lot of stuff some I agree with some I dont but only part of it deals with the oints I made at Mith.
Anyway. Your little sentence caps - just because you use caps doesnt make it true.
Im a great believer in knowedge and openess, I guess you arent. Your less than logical reasoning method could be used against anything.

One element/event being required for another element/event does not mean they are cause and effect.
Learn to think.
[right][snapback]109945[/snapback][/right]

I am a great believer in the apostrophe.

[Mithrandir]

This is really a broader topic. Do people break laws because they are sick or because they choose to. Should we try to repair people or should we punish them as a deterant and a way to take them out of society.

I Choose the second. You choose the first. Thats fair.

There are elements of both and pedophilia (or any number of things) need to start being treated as such, with a 25% relapse rate it clearly isn't working to bury our heads in the sand and keep handing out these ineffective punishments rather than addressing the core issue.

But your initial arguement was disengenous whan you spoke of "debt to society". Because that has nothing to do with treatment and nothing at all to do with the person being safe to put back on the street.

False. The "debt to society" is that because you broke the law by molesting children, you are now removed from society and forced to undergo treatment. You owe the debt because you broke the law. Your debt is fulfilled when you are deemed rehabilitated. There must be some type of communication breakdown here.

Next time be honest up front about your opinion.
I might disagree with you but I wont call you stupid.

You are acting like I am at the heart of some LurkerLounge conspiracy. I made one general statement and the beginning of the thread and from that point on have only adressed points and comments brought up by others.

[Griselda]

Learn to think.
[right][snapback]109945[/snapback][/right]

I'm a great believer in not sticking barbs like "learn to think" into posts.

[kandrathe]

...
Im really not even going to address what you said beyond the first "paragraph because your rejoined was to flawed to worry about anything built on it.
[right][snapback]109905[/snapback][/right]

This -- This is why we can't have anything nice in here! I thought this was a discussion topic rather than an exploration of logical fallacies. You seem abrasively dismissive here without ever facing the motes in your own eye. Let us not devolve into a debate class yelping "CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC!"Does anyone really enjoy that kind of debate if it's not for credit?

Do people break laws because they are sick or because they choose to. Should we try to repair people or should we punish them as a deterant and a way to take them out of society.  I Choose the second. You choose the first. Thats fair.

I disagree with you that excessive deterrence is a great way to reduce crime. Here is my reasoning, which you may or may not choose to address. Either way, I offer it up to the Lounge as fodder for thought.

First, because I don't believe that most criminals think they will be caught, or since their early success and forays with criminal excitement lead them to riskier behaviors. It could be that the psychology of some criminals is that their anti-social behavior is a plea for help, and they want someone to give them attention or intervene. Then again, about 80% of all reported crimes in the USA are forms of stealing, so maybe the disadvantaged are just looking for some equality by any means. Only about 10% of reported crimes are violent crimes (assault, rape, murder). An expected high level (50%) of the prison population are violent offenders, but an unusually high rate of 20-25% of the prison population are people being incarcerated for drug crimes (HRW: Incarcerated America). So perhaps deterrence doesn't work on drug addicts.

[sarcasm] Gee! Ya think? What is our image of a dope fiend? Emaciated due to lack of food, shooting up smack with a dirty needle in a rat infested crack den. Yah, they care about anything except their next score.[/sarcasm] You wouldn't believe what addicts will do to their own families to get the money to feed their habit. Anti-social? You bet. Deterrance candidate? No.

Second, because at some point the sentence does not fit the crime, and some peoples lives are more extremely affected to make an example to others. Too bad for the ones that got caught, were set up, or were just plain innocent and wrongly convicted. I've cited some examples here before, like the mother of 3 youngsters (3 yrs, 5 yrs, & 9 yrs old) who was set up and then testified against by her drug pusher boyfriend with the promise by prosecutors to knock time off his sentence. She's serving 10 years minimum as an example to other women to be more careful about your pusher boyfriends when they hide their cocaine in your house.

Third, extremism and injustice lead to social unrest and a resignation (or embracement) of incarceration as a social norm. We've spoken on the tyrrany of the majority here before, but at some point (as Doc has frequently indicated) the minority rightly will rise up in arms (so to speak). I would like to think that we all really want a justice system that is just, where punishments are commensurate to the crimes, and not cruel or unusual. Certainly there is a middle ground between no deterrence and "torture, then death to all transgressors". Finding that middle ground of fairness, in my book, is a requirement for social harmony.

Check out;
Wiki Chapter - Introduction to Sociology/Deviance

Near the end the chapter contains a section --

Social Control

Social control refers to the various means used by a society to bring its members back into line with cultural norms. There are two general types of social control:

    * formal social control refers to components of society that are designed for the resocialization of individuals who break formal rules; examples would include prisons and mental health institutions
    * informal social control refers to elements of society that are designed to reinforce informal cultural norms; examples might include parental reminders to children not to, well, pick their nose

Some researchers have outlined some of the motivations underlying the formal social control system. These motivations include:

    * retribution - some argue that people should pay for the crime they committed
    * deterrence - some argue that punishments, e.g., prison time, will prevent people from committing future crimes
    * rehabilitation - some argue that formal social controls should work to rehabilitate criminals, eventually turning them into productive members of society
    * societal protection - finally, some argue that the motivation for formal social controls is nothing more than removing the deviant members of society from the non-deviant members

You have been arguing that rehabilitation does not work, but it must work. Why? Because they wouldn't get away with spending so much money on it if they could not demonstrate some tangible success. Ok, its not 100%. You are focusing on the percentage that are not rehabilitated, but look at the positive side for a minute. Here are a bunch of the otherwise socially rejected that find a way return to society, and then are no longer a burden.

Now, can we do more to screen the potential re-offenders, or provide some better continual social maintenance? Sure, there is commitment, probation, treatment, half way houses, and other measures taken to insure the public is protected. The State I live in has a controversial sex offender program that could result in life long commitment to a facility for the criminally insane for those assessed to be too big a risk to society.

In 1965 Dennis Linehan pleaded guilty to abducting and strangling a 14-year-old girl from Shoreview, Minnesota. A decade later, just a week before Linehan was slated for a parole hearing, he escaped from prison, fled to Michigan, and sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl. He would eventually serve five years in a Michigan prison for that crime.  In 1994 the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Linehan's indefinite commitment to the Minnesota Security Hospital in St. Peter. The court ruled that Ramsey County prosecutors had failed to prove that Linehan had "an utter lack of power" to control his sexual impulses, as required by a 1939 law, and ordered his release. 

The decision set off a wave of hysteria. No halfway house in the state would accept Linehan. The media transformed him into an icon of sexual deviance. He was ultimately "released" to a one-man residence on the grounds of the Stillwater prison and kept under round-the-clock surveillance by the Department of Corrections (DoC). The arrangement cost approximately $300,000 a year.  Amid the uproar, and during an election year, a special one-day session of the Legislature was called to amend the state's psychopathic-personality-commitment law. Within a year Linehan was back in St. Peter. He remains committed indefinitely.

The Linehan case presents an extreme example of a common problem. 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.  Excerpt from There's no place like prison.

Life long ostracism may not be very rehabilitative, and in fact, I would venture it is not and probably detrimental. In the crime that this discussion is focused on, the majority of offenders were typically similiarly victimized as children. My argument here is that shame and guilt are already a part of the pathos of this crime, both against them and then perpetrated by them.

Now, in conclusion, I have small children and I do my best to protect them from the evils in society, and I sure would want to know that the guy living next door is not a recently released sociopath (whatever flavor) on probation. I also do not have a right to know every private little thing about my neighbor, and in this age, most public information is too obscured by volume to discover easily. I would rather think our trust should be that our society (and its systems and officials) are doing that careful balancing act of protecting the public's safety, while preserving our privacy and freedoms. They should notify us of any known public risks to our families, or suffer the wrath of angry lawsuits and voters. But, even though I trust that the government has our best interests at heart, I will still endeavor to stay aware of risks and be vigilent to protect my family from the dangers that do exist.

Hey, look! There is a guy sleeping in that car parked across the street...

[Guest]

I'm a great believer in not sticking barbs like "learn to think" into posts.
[right][snapback]109975[/snapback][/right]

Is it really any worse than positing an obviously illogical statement ?

[Guest]

I never said rehabilitation doesnt work.

I think it should be implemented as best can be with in the penal system(BTW I think ur penal system is so bad that it should only be used on people who are so dangerous that they need to be removed from society - but thats a seperate issue.)

I did say there is no way to tell if some one is actually rehabilitated. And on the other side a rehabilitation system such as Mith suggested can be abused and used as an exscuse not to release someone.


Like I said I am all for permanetly marking pediphiles and rapists. You dont have to agree with that( but dont be dishonest when you disagree or Ill be pedantic and explain your mistakes.)

[Guest]

You owe the debt because you broke the law. Your debt is fulfilled when you are deemed rehabilitated.

Thats not true. Your debt is paid when you serve your sentence according to our legal system. If you go back and read your original statment, its obvious you were refering to our legal system. We do have have parole boards that pay attention to rehabilitation, but they make it clear you have not paid your debt until your parole is over.

You seem to have confused the legal system you would like with the one we have, in the post where I first corrected you.

[kandrathe]

I never said rehabilitation doesnt work.

I think it should be implemented as best  can be with in the penal system(BTW I think ur penal system is so bad that it should only be used on people who are so dangerous that they need to be removed from society - but thats a seperate issue.)

I did say there is no way to tell if some one is actually rehabilitated. And on the other side a rehabilitation system such as Mith suggested  can be abused and used as an exscuse not to release someone.
Like I said I am all for permanetly marking pediphiles and rapists. You dont have to agree with that( but dont be dishonest when you disagree or Ill be pedantic and explain your mistakes.)
[right][snapback]109987[/snapback][/right]

The figures I've seen are that roughly 20-35% of convicted sex offenders re-offend, but with treatment that number is reduced by about half. The reality is that most murderers, rapists, and pedophiles will eventually be released some day (they need to make room for more drug offenders). I would rather there be fewer victims, so the investment in treatment is worth it, even if it is only 50% effective. I don't really agree with the "Scarlet Letter", public branding of the convicted. But, I would agree to a life sentence of psychiatric care and careful oversight paid for by the offender from their earnings.

[Griselda]

Is it really any worse than positing an obviously illogical statement ?
[right][snapback]109986[/snapback][/right]

I thought that you weren't big on Hammurabi's code.

[Guest]

How clever.

If you ever notice I have an over developed sense of fairness. But I am wary of codified fairness - it has it points but its often less than fair.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is it really any worse than positing an obviously illogical statement ?
[right][snapback]109986[/snapback][/right]

Yes, because the person lacking in logic may be either ignorant of logical forms as a result of years in the baby sitting service that passes for a school system in the USA or too mentally deficient to be able to grasp the concept of logic. His failure may well be unintentional and the logical thing to do may be to educate him. But pretty much anybody capable of forming a coherent (or even semi-coherent) post understands insult and realizes when they've used it. It is thus a form of intentional anti-social behavior.

Thus spoke the pot ;)

--Pete

[Mithrandir]

Thats not true. Your debt is paid when you serve your sentence according to our legal system. If you go back and read your original statment, its obvious you were refering to our legal system. We do have have parole boards that pay attention to rehabilitation, but  they make it clear you have not paid your debt until your parole is over.

You seem to have confused the legal system you would like with the one we have, in the post where I first corrected you.
[right][snapback]109988[/snapback][/right]

You can't just brush aside parole, because that's the whole point... prisoners can be released early if they are deemed able to become a productive member of society once more, aka they are considered rehabilitated.

Your debt is fulfilled once you are able to re-enter society since the payment of your debt began when you were removed from society. A conditional release does not completely invalidate the payment of your debt, it just means that you are kept under a watchful eye to make sure your rehabilitation is genuine, if it is not genuine then you are sent back to prison.

This has devolved into arguing over semantics.

[Occhidiangela]

A good outline of release, parole, and conditional release in ideal settings.

This has devolved into arguing over semantics.[right][snapback]110059[/snapback][/right]

That devolution is common in internet discussion thanks, in my observation, to the extremely loose understandings people have of words and terms, not to mention English's lovely trait of multiple meanings for words. Lawyers spend extra years learning vocabulary and argument. The end result is an express understanding of how to use words to either cloak, or clarify, meaning as the situation warrants.

Most internet posters lack that expertise. Many posters, due to either ignorance or indolence, present poorly articulated arguments. I disagree with those who hold that brevity au outrance holds inherent virtue. I find it useful to spell out, or to amplify, in order to concisely present what I mean. I don't always get my point across, but at least more information is available to that end.

One can always be more concise, it just takes another edit. ;) On the other hand, no amount of editing can help muddled thinking.

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

Hi,
Yes, because the person lacking in logic may be either ignorant of logical forms as a result of years in the baby sitting service that passes for a school system in the USA or too mentally deficient to be able to grasp the concept of logic.  His failure may well be unintentional and the logical thing to do may be to educate him.  But pretty much anybody capable of forming a coherent (or even semi-coherent) post understands insult and realizes when they've used it.  It is thus a form of intentional anti-social behavior.

Thus spoke the pot ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]110046[/snapback][/right]

I'll stick to my excuse of not having the desire to properly edit and rewrite a poorly constructed post for the sake of arguing with Ghostiger. Indeed, the malformation is mostly due to overediting to keep from derailing too much.

All that said, Ghost's need to have every point spelled out for him when he obviously allocates so little time to the quality of his own posts devalues any insult he may muster to the realm of no one #$%&ing cares.

Thanks, though, Pete. :unsure:

[Guest]

Becareful. Sematics is not such an easy out.

Sometimes a descussion devolves to semantics because 2 people used different defintions.

Other times(such as when Bill Clinton talked to the lawyers) the sematics issue arises when someone who was wrong looks for a way to obfuscate a mistake. This is such a case.