Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[Guest]

I know you are right. But I tend to take such "insults" poorly. I should work on it.

What really annoys worse though are when "fair minded" nincompoops come in and try find a middle ground in the argument with out acknowledging the nonsense used by one side.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

OMG Roland said youre naive - burn him.




Anyway Im done here. Fortunetly Ill working out of town a few days and wont be able to continue.

[Assur]

Anyway Im done here. Fortunetly Ill working out of town a few days and wont be able to continue.
[right][snapback]110217[/snapback][/right]

Thank God

[Griselda]

You Need To Stop Insulting People When You Post.

[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

[Occhidiangela]

You Need To Stop Insulting People When You Post.
[right][snapback]110224[/snapback][/right]

For Gris: Try telling an Italian not to talk with his hands.

For kandrathe: cajones. ;)

Occhi

[Roland]

OMG Roland said youre naive - burn him.

Ghostiger:
Actually, no. I explained the two most likely views on his statement, and explained how one of those views would be a naive stance to take. The other, of course, being perfectly logical. I was not calling him naive. I was calling one possible stance naive, and that if he fell on that side, he would thus be embracing a naive point of view. I did not outright call him naive, and he knows this.

At any rate, I have nothing further to discuss with you on the matter, and no real intentions of discussing anything further in this thread, least of all now (I'm plagued by headaches from insomnia and stress, and reading all these posts puts a strain on it even worse). Nothing personal against you, of course. I just don't really have the inclination to dive head-first into a very detailed (not to mention emotional) discussion on such a... what's the word I'm looking for... complex subject, especially given my health as of late (nothing serious, of course; just another insomnia relapse coupled with a little more than my usual dose of stress - that, and I think I need new glasses again; it IS that time of year).

Occhi:
Somehow I don't think your wife would take it too well if we went all "Brokeback" on each other. :P Thankfully for both of us, that's not my gig. ;) But the comment was amusing, nonetheless.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi:
Somehow I don't think your wife would take it too well if we went all "Brokeback" on each other. :P Thankfully for both of us, that's not my gig. ;) But the comment was amusing, nonetheless.
[right][snapback]110272[/snapback][/right]

Not a " bareback mountin' " sort anyway, so your egress is safe from me. :lol:

Occhi

[kandrathe]

In the eyes of the law? That could be a naive statement, depending on how you take it, or rather, how you meant it. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the words and texts written and followed, I'd agree with you. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the individuals who enforce the laws, you're naive, and I don't mean that to sound insulting.
...

After reading your post, I'm doubting "naive" is the right word. Naive implies the writer is uninformed or ignorant. The concept "overly broad" or "too simplistic" might be better descriptions. I often find people arguing issues using a black and white view, when I believe the topic may be more graduated. Also, it might be that the writer was using an "imagined ideal' for simplification, rather than address reality which is usually more complicated and might require a dissertation qualifying one for an advanced degree in sociology or criminal justice.

So to further analyze your premise, when Mithrandir said, "Whether it is applied in practice 100% of the time or not, the fact is that in the eyes of the law you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison.", it might be considered optimistically reaching to think that in practice parole boards, or "the eye's of the law" would consider released prisoner is rehabilitated. Of course we can't crawl into the brains of the parole board to know what they are thinking. I fear they are looking for fresh bed space. Occhi's source and the ones I've looked at would indicate that recividism is high (around 60% iirc) for drug offenders, and also high for offenders commiting property crimes. Parole boards must realize that the majority of the people they release will end up right back in jail within a few months to years. They are released anyway, since in our system once you have served your sentence you have the right to return to society.

Although, the case of Melissa WolfHawk is an example of just how far the state has gone toward denying felons (and their wives) basic human rights. When this rapist was convicted in 1983 I bet he didn't realize he would be denied parenting for life. Granted they both seem to be somewhat loco, and the state of Pennsylvania might have very good cause to be worried about any children raised in the home for other reasons, but according to the arcticle "But officials say that their primary concern is the record of her husband, DaiShin John WolfHawk, although there is no evidence, they say, that he has abused children recently." I would rather move the topic forward by addressing this type of (mis)use of a sex offender registry, rather than disect one persons intentions on one sentence for 20 posts.