How much punishment is enough?

[Tokenconservative]

It does not matter if it is a highly unusual crime it should be treated like any other crime unless it is indeed always an incurable sickness in which case they should be sent to a specialized, and secure, facility.

But that's only if you can prove that absolutely 100%, not 80% or 90% or even 99%, are incurable.

We should only punish people for what they've done not what they might do in the future.

Don't ask for a link--LLIIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!--'cuz I don' have one, cuz...but virtually anything I've ever read on the subject says ACTUAL pedophiles (not the kid at 17 who has sex with his 15 yr-old girlfriend and is tagged as a pedo by our hyper-feminist courts for the rest of his life...are REAL pedo) are never "cured" by prison and only very, very rarely cured with mental health treatment.

This is why the recidivism rate is so high...virtually 100% in fact. Apparently, all catching and convicting them does, is teach them to be more careful in future.

Now, of course, in America (not sure where you are) our psychiatric industry is extremely powerful and they have decided that they'd rather try and make $$ off pedos, and so they continue to tell us there is some magic-bullet treatment out there, and so our left-liberal courts, marching to that drummer, do things as insane as probation and community service (you know...forcing a pedo to put in some "free" work at the community day care, that sort of thing...) for guys who rape little kids.

It sends a...mixed message to other pedos.

In the old days, "baby rapers" got sent to prison and were not in any way protected while there. Today, even in local city and county lockups, they are segregated from the general population. That's because in the old day, few of them lasted past their first night.

Which was certainly both an effective means of curbing recidivism and sent a very clear message to those not yet caught, convicted and imprisoned.

Tokie

 

[Lonewulf]

This is why the recidivism rate is so high...virtually 100% in fact.

Evidence?

 

[timhau]

Don't ask for a link--LLIIIINNNNKKKKKK!!!--'cuz I don' have one, cuz...but virtually anything I've ever read on the subject says ACTUAL pedophiles (not the kid at 17 who has sex with his 15 yr-old girlfriend and is tagged as a pedo by our hyper-feminist courts for the rest of his life...are REAL pedo) are never "cured" by prison and only very, very rarely cured with mental health treatment.

I don't really care whether they're "cured". For all I care, they can think 6-year-olds are hot and have wet dreams about them as long as they leave real-life kids the [rule10] alone.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't really care whether they're "cured". For all I care, they can think 6-year-olds are hot and have wet dreams about them as long as they leave real-life kids the [rule10] alone.

Word.

 

[Tokenconservative]

I don't really care whether they're "cured". For all I care, they can think 6-year-olds are hot and have wet dreams about them as long as they leave real-life kids the [rule10] alone.

I don't care either, but as a father and member of this (American--not sure where you are) society, I have an interest in seeing that we don't just wish rilly, rilly, RILLY hard for bad thing to not happen, but work reactively and proactively to prevent bad things from happening.

I think this is at minimum, as important as keeping some little rat or finch or frog or fish comfortable in its habitat.

But then, I am a conspiratorial rightwing nutcase.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Evidence?

Link?

LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?

 

[timhau]

I don't care either, but as a father and member of this (American--not sure where you are) society, I have an interest in seeing that we don't just wish rilly, rilly, RILLY hard for bad thing to not happen, but work reactively and proactively to prevent bad things from happening.

Sure. But do we really know what the best way to do this is? Is it better to attempt to shift the focus of the creeps' attraction from children to adults than to teach them not to act on their urges?

 

[Lonewulf]

Link?

LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?

Juvenile tantrums aside, do you have any evidence for your claim? If not, then you should probably retract it.

 

[Dancing David]

Ignorance is ugly....complete ignorance is just pathetic.

Pithy little ad homs are not critical thought either.

cant defend your "It is the fault of the feminists " theory?

Why not?

Where is your data , where is the evidence?

When "we" married off 14 yr-olds, they were not viewed as children.

No they were viewed as property, just as they are when they are married off today , in this world.

Childhood, in fact, is a fairly recent invention...about the middle of the 19th century for rich folks, not until oh, the 1920s-30s for the rest of us.

Duh, stating the obvious as though it addresses my point is also not critical thought.

Good reasons for this, by the way...um...since it's only been in the last 150 or so years that people (Western) have been routinely living past oh, 50 or so,

Shows how much you know about mortatlity statistics, now doesn't it. yes adults died at a much hiogher rate than today, but the reason that the number is 29 or so is that so many children died before the age of five. So what? I can argue that childhood is the result of disposable wealth and the non need for child labor in survival.

Funny how you are defending your statement that feminism is responsible for the 'sexualization of children'.

Why aren't you?

and since the mortality rates of women giving birth were horrifically high, it only made sense to "marry" a younger woman.

Wow, so what happened to the older women whose husbands dies?

Just because you say it makes sense doesn't make an argument wither.

Just another unsupported assertion of your cultural bias.

And of course, in the good ol' days, it was commonly held that a man should not marry until he was able to SUPPORT a wife and fambly

Suuure, just until the girl got pregnant in many cases.

Oh, I see you were talking about some sort of cultural fantasy.

(they had no daytime TV or welfare than to suppor the other baby-daddy culture then--and before you shriek,yes, other things happened like premarital sex, marriage of young people etc., thats why I used the term "commonly"--do TRY and pay attention, k?).

Wow, it might appear that rather than defending your theory "Feminism causes the sexualization of children." that you are just flailing around.

Typically (hmmm...'nother one a them words!) a man in those days was not able to support a fambly until he'd gone out into the world and from his father's house and made something of himself.

Uh huh, where, when and what culture, there are many paths to the attainment of 'adulthood' in different societies.

Also, the mortality rate kept the numbers of eligible females down to a more manageable number.

red herring. No data, just your straw.

A hint: ignorance of something is not proof of the thing you believe. Learn it, love it, live it.

Tokie

Funny, you don't defend your assertion that feminism led to the sexualization of children and just kind of flail around.

Can you support your theory with evidence? Or critical thought?

 

[Dancing David]

Oh.

Well, since I am not permitted typos, neither are you.

And I know many educated Christians. By the way, unless you have some sort of finger handicap (oops! "differently abled fingers") it's not really much more difficult to spell Christian is it? Would you say
"Xuslim"? "Xindu"? "Xecularist"? "Xlobal Warmingist"?

If not, why not?

Raw, unapologetic bigotry?

Tokie

Tokie

Huh?

I mainly do it to annoy Xians, does it annoy you?

 

[Dancing David]

LOL!

I love this sort of rationalization best! It's like IDers who use science to prove that science is wrong.

The X, in American culture, comes from Xmas...a means of removing Christ from the picture in our secularist society.

But you keep trying,

Edited by Cleon: 

Inappropriate personal insult removed.

Tokie

Huh, and i thought it should be "Cross'mass and 'Cross'ians.

Seems that you lack critical thought and engage in comments that get edited,

 

[Dancing David]

Once again...I love this kind of rationalization on the part of leftist-secularists.

The MODERN use of the "X" in place of Christ dates only the 1960s...are you (and other brilliant thinkers in here) seriously arguing that this term came into common usage in America because after all, it was in use in the Levant 1800 years ago?

LOL!

You people crack me up.

Tell me...do you get headaches from pretzelizing logic in this fasion inside your head?

Tokie

This reminds me of some one, not Jedi Knight, more like Hamme, American or Patrick.

Jedi could play along with a joke.

 

[Dancing David]

Wrong. As I said, the "can't live anywhere legally" argument is bogus. A simple check of your area's listings in your state's sex offender registry will prove more than adequately that they can obviously find plenty of places to live legally.

Well , thay may or not be the truth. there are some who are grandfathered when they change the rules, and it actually is a problem in many communities. they keep expanding the boundaries. There are some towns like Banana and Champoo where the number of parks is astounding, then you factor is schools and in some cases day cares and you really can't live anywehere.

And POs often look the other way because you would rather have an address where you can find them, other wise they end up untracable and back in prison, or living with their sister and het kids.

the real question is this , are they really sexual predators and who gets labeled?

Believe me, there are many very very dangerous people who never get the label because of money. They get court supervion, they get pled to a lesser charge, they get the record expunged, they can do all sorts of things that people without money can't do.

Go volunteer for your local child abuse center. It is kind of astounding how the judicial system works.

 

[Dancing David]

Yep. It's exactly the sort of thing you see the nannyists doing with drinking, continually lowering the blood-alcohol level that will get you in trouble.

Here, they were trying to get it lowered to, in effect, a level that meant you could not have a glass of wine or a beer with a meal.

When is enough enough, PCers?

Tokie

Uh, you can drink all you want.

But when you get in a car the rules change.

I suppose that drunk drivers present no harm to others?

 

[Cleon]

(not the kid at 17 who has sex with his 15 yr-old girlfriend and is tagged as a pedo by our hyper-feminist courts for the rest of his life.

If you're referring to Gennarlow Wilson, you do know that it was conservatives that wanted him "tagged as a pedo," right? That's what happens when a black kid is caught shtupping a white girl in the South.

Feminists, like the rest of the rational world, thought the whole thing was stupid.

 

[Dancing David]

Link?

LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!?

Hmm, I wonder what that is evidence of?


"The bible says it it must be true"?

 

[Lonewulf]

Hmm, I wonder what that is evidence of?


"The bible says it it must be true"?

I think that what Token Conservative is going for here is pretty much this:

"The louder I shout out in mockery, and the more letters I put in, the less likely people are to notice that I got nothing! BRILLIANT!"

 

[Elaedith]

The first line of the second paragraph should have read. The law says that a convicted sex offender cannot live within 70 yards of a school bus stop.

If there any evidence that living within 70 yards of a school bus stop increases the likelihood of re-offending? Will those who decide to re-offend will only do so if they don't have to bother walking more than 70 yards?

 

[timhau]

If there any evidence that living within 70 yards of a school bus stop increases the likelihood of re-offending? Will those who decide to re-offend will only do so if they don't have to bother walking more than 70 yards?

You know, this might just possibly be the best question in this whole thread.

 

[Cuddles]

You're questioning whether the lack of available victims has anything to do with a predator's lack of reoffense. I propose a common-sense relationship between the two. Consider WHY the recidivism rate is supposed to be so low: do any child molesters molest more kids while they're in prison? Of course not. A pedophile cannot molest kids if there are no kids there to molest.

Since you're appealing to common sense, let's try using some. Can someone who wants to molest a child walk 70 yards? Yes. Therefore, living 70 yards away will not stop them reoffending, if they actually want to. So how exactly will banning them from living near a bus stop actually make any difference? If you banned them from ever going there it would at least make sense logically. As it is, it seems an utterly pointless measure that does nothing other than make things difficult for people. If that's what you want, fine, but don't try to pretend there it is a child safety issue instead.

They knew it was coming, Cleon; they knew it and didn't care, they decided to do it anyway. Their loss, not mine.

But the whole point is that they didn't know it was coming. How could they have if it is being applied retroactively? Can they be upset about jail time? No. Can they be upset about being on a list? No. Can they be upset about someone telling them to move out of the house they've been living in for years? Damn right they can.