• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much punishment is enough?

Travis said:
The problem is that you are applying logic to something that involves children. We all know that when children are involved all logic, reason and sanity just go right out the window.
Click to expand...



No, I am applying logic to something that involves violence against children.

It is not unreasonable or insane to want pedophiles to serve life sentences without parole, as their recidivism rate is 100%. A pedophile will strike again. I have very little sympathy for pedophiles and other child abusers, and not much more for those who would defend them or excuse their behavior.

Murderers? Perhaps less so [citation requested].
 
Fnord said:
No, I am applying logic to something that involves violence against children.

It is not unreasonable or insane to want pedophiles to serve life sentences without parole, as their recidivism rate is 100%. A pedophile will strike again. I have very little sympathy for pedophiles and other child abusers, and not much more for those who would defend them or excuse their behavior.

Murderers? Perhaps less so [citation requested].
Click to expand...

You have fallen victim to scare tactics. All the figures I have ever seen are between 5% and 50% with most falling into a 5%-15% range . No legitimate source would claim 100%.

http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/psy/psylect09.htm
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r49/r49e_e.shtml
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8204/8204sa.pdf
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/health-regulations/174408-1.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E3D71F30F931A15753C1A9609C8B63
 
Travis said:
So which of these is worth a lifetime sentence without any possibility of being released?

Heck they have nothing left to live for so why not just shoot them....or behead them?
Click to expand...

Serial, drugger, violent ones.

And no slippery slopes today. I don't like the death penalty, but that is another thread.

I have first hand experience about the effects of molestation. What about you?
Click to expand...
You are being far too presumptuous.

I bet my experience trumps yours. I'll give you good odds.

Of course, the scale for comparison would be far too relative.

Besides, anecdotes are silly. [/obfuscations]
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
And no slippery slopes today. I don't like the death penalty, but that is another thread.
Click to expand...
How is that a slippery slope? I don't see much of a difference between life in prison and being shot.

Either way, your entire life is gone.
 
Fnord said:
No, I am applying logic to something that involves violence against children.

It is not unreasonable or insane to want pedophiles to serve life sentences without parole, as their recidivism rate is 100%. A pedophile will strike again. I have very little sympathy for pedophiles and other child abusers, and not much more for those who would defend them or excuse their behavior.

Murderers? Perhaps less so [citation requested].
Click to expand...

100% recidivism rate eh. That sounds..... suspicious. In fact all I have to do is find one person who didn't re-molest and that figure is instantly incorrect.

Oh and don't paint me as defending their actions. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished I'm calling into question the bounds we put on that punishment.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Serial, drugger, violent ones.

And no slippery slopes today. I don't like the death penalty, but that is another thread.
Click to expand...

Eh, either way their life is over as a result of one action that didn't involve anyone being killed.

Tsukasa Buddha said:
You are being far too presumptuous.

I bet my experience trumps yours. I'll give you good odds.

Of course, the scale for comparison would be far too relative.

Besides, anecdotes are silly. [/obfuscations]
Click to expand...

I was forced to perform fellatio on an older man when I was just 8 years old. An anecdote that I think is relevant to the discussion and not silly.
 
Retroactively adding additional elements to a punishment after the whole issue is resolved is a Bad Thing(tm).

It would basically be the same as punishing people retroactively for something that wasn't illegal when they did is, but is now.

Actually, recidivism of those molestors that are rereleased into society is lower than occurance of child molestation in the general populace. So statistically speaking you'd be better of living near child molestors. (Of course this is in large part due to no rereleasing the incurable into society).

Wether or not you believe that the "not near a school bus stop" is fair element to add to the punishment of newly convicted child molestors, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, should we retroactively apply it to people that have allready served their time.
 
Actually, recidivism of those molestors that are rereleased into society is lower than occurance of child molestation in the general populace. So statistically speaking you'd be better of living near child molestors. (Of course this is in large part due to no rereleasing the incurable into society).
Pedophiles are not curable. What keeps them out of prison once they are released is intimidation.
 
Travis said:
Not necessarily. I have a cousin who, when he was 16, made a sex tape with his 15 year old girlfriend. It was found and he was charged with possession of child pornography. He was convicted and given a ten year sentence. This November will mark his 7th year of serving that sentence. When he is eventually released he will be subject to all these new rules preventing him from living near bus stops, parks, schools etc.

It was what happened to him that fully turned me against the witch hunt of so called "sex offenders."
Click to expand...

Sounds not unlike this case. This sort of throws the "Since he got 10 years, it must have been something horrible" argument right out the window (it may have been, but we'll need to know more before we can judge).
 
I was forced to perform fellatio on an older man when I was just 8 years old. An anecdote that I think is relevant to the discussion and not silly.

I hate like Hell that you had to go through that and I hope the perp was punished soundly. I was molested myself while drugged after a tonsil operation when I was five. Digital penetration and fondling is what happened to me but being five and doped up I thought it was part of the treatment.
 
SomeGuy said:
Retroactively adding additional elements to a punishment after the whole issue is resolved is a Bad Thing(tm).

It would basically be the same as punishing people retroactively for something that wasn't illegal when they did is, but is now.

Actually, recidivism of those molestors that are rereleased into society is lower than occurance of child molestation in the general populace. So statistically speaking you'd be better of living near child molestors. (Of course this is in large part due to no rereleasing the incurable into society).

Wether or not you believe that the "not near a school bus stop" is fair element to add to the punishment of newly convicted child molestors, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, should we retroactively apply it to people that have allready served their time.
Click to expand...

And this is the heart of this issue.

I like the old-fashioned way (pre-touchy-feely, 'the pedophile is the victim!' age of modern American 'liberal' thinking) of dealing with this situation by simply throwing pedos into the general prison population when they are convicted. Why are they protected as they are? Must be a reason our "liberal" society believes they should be offered special rights in prison.

One thing is sure about recidivism: dead pedos do not molest again.

Tokie
 
Travis said:
The problem is that you are applying logic to something that involves children. We all know that when children are involved all logic, reason and sanity just go right out the window.
Click to expand...

Spoken like I would've said it BEFORE I had kids...it's amazing how logical you can be and how far you can distance yourself from nasty emotions while you look down your long, pointy, Patrician nose at filthy "breeders"....

It's true that there were pedos in the past. One method of dealing with this when one was discovered in a community, even when it was a parent, was to allow the fathers and other men (this would not include a guy like this poster) to deal with it...locally.

Sometimes this resulted in death, but it nearly always resulted in the pedophile moving on. Not the BEST approach in the second case, but one thing about being beaten half to death or being held down while a bunch of guys demonstrate to you "how it feels" (typically with a Louisville Slugger) is that you will tend to think long and hard before engaging in any sort of recidivism.

Tokie
 
Cainkane1 said:
I was forced to perform fellatio on an older man when I was just 8 years old. An anecdote that I think is relevant to the discussion and not silly.

I hate like Hell that you had to go through that and I hope the perp was punished soundly. I was molested myself while drugged after a tonsil operation when I was five. Digital penetration and fondling is what happened to me but being five and doped up I thought it was part of the treatment.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not silly. It's horrific. It's always horrific when this happens to a child.

But therein lies the rub with this entire discussion.

I don't believe anyone in here is saying we should go light on someone who forces a 5 or 8 yr old to do something. The issue is "when is it REALLY molsestation."

In your hyper-feminist, anti-male (maleness as a pathological condition) society, we've gone far overboard in the other direction, so far that we've had people languishing in prison for decades because we were told that kids simply don't "lie" about such things, even when a part of the "molestation" involved the blood sacrifice of elephants in suburban backyards....

So now we have, in this case, a 16 yr old who, after being told his entire life by pop culture--music, TV, movies, etc.--the schools, etc. that there is something wrong with him if, by age 13 or so, he's still a virgin, having consensual sex with his 15 yr-old girlfriend, going to prison because of the hyper-feminist, anti-male witch-hunt atmosphere surrounding this issue.

Is this kid a "child molester"? Is he even a rapist? It's only, apparently, just barely statutory rape in his state, so he's going to prison for a decade and that will ruin his life enough, but when he gets out, he'll also have the "sexual predator" tag following him around forever.

Yeah...that sounds like a fair approach. I'll bet reading about that keeps lots and lots of REAL pedophiles from raping little kids.

But that's okay...we know that as a male, this kid is a "potential" rapist (all men are, right feminists?) so this is just preventative. Now, if we can just start locking people up for their "potential" to say, shoplift: if you have two hands you ARE a "potential" shoplifter, after all....

Tokie
 
An earlier poster mentioned that recidivism is low due to intimidation. Presumably by hysterical neighbours or, if still in jail, by Bubba. This is not justice.
Disregarding the emotive appeal of the involvement of children, the law is supposed to protect all, regardless of their level of scumbucketry.
Chuckling about what will happen to a child molester in prison makes us no better than them.
I personally would prefer that society not employ mob rule on my behalf.
 
Tokenconservative said:
Spoken like I would've said it BEFORE I had kids...it's amazing how logical you can be and how far you can distance yourself from nasty emotions while you look down your long, pointy, Patrician nose at filthy "breeders"....

It's true that there were pedos in the past. One method of dealing with this when one was discovered in a community, even when it was a parent, was to allow the fathers and other men (this would not include a guy like this poster) to deal with it...locally.

Sometimes this resulted in death, but it nearly always resulted in the pedophile moving on. Not the BEST approach in the second case, but one thing about being beaten half to death or being held down while a bunch of guys demonstrate to you "how it feels" (typically with a Louisville Slugger) is that you will tend to think long and hard before engaging in any sort of recidivism.

Tokie
Click to expand...


Wow the tyranny of the mob! Priceless. You are still not very funny.

So when the molestation is done by the father and they kill the wrong person, what does that do for the victim and society?

BTW I have heard that the lions in Rome are going hungry, perhaps we could donate the alleged perps to them?

'Just eighteen dollars a month can keep a pride of lions fed for two weeks...'
 
Tokenconservative said:
Of course it's not silly. It's horrific. It's always horrific when this happens to a child.

But therein lies the rub with this entire discussion.

I don't believe anyone in here is saying we should go light on someone who forces a 5 or 8 yr old to do something. The issue is "when is it REALLY molsestation."

In your hyper-feminist, anti-male (maleness as a pathological condition) society, we've gone far overboard in the other direction, so far that we've had people languishing in prison for decades because we were told that kids simply don't "lie" about such things, even when a part of the "molestation" involved the blood sacrifice of elephants in suburban backyards....
Click to expand...
And again your delusion of conspiracy are totally unsubstantiated.

Did feminsts really pass those laws?

I suppose the patriarchial pat on the back and a good cigar are the way you like things.

the people who passed the laws were not feminsists, funny how the beloved fundy Xians have more to do with it than the feminists.
So now we have, in this case, a 16 yr old who, after being told his entire life by pop culture--music, TV, movies, etc.--the schools, etc. that there is something wrong with him if, by age 13 or so, he's still a virgin, having consensual sex with his 15 yr-old girlfriend, going to prison because of the hyper-feminist, anti-male witch-hunt atmosphere surrounding this issue.
Click to expand...
As usual you just spout your nonsesne and forget that most of the laws were passed by Xian white males.
Is this kid a "child molester"? Is he even a rapist? It's only, apparently, just barely statutory rape in his state, so he's going to prison for a decade and that will ruin his life enough, but when he gets out, he'll also have the "sexual predator" tag following him around forever.

Yeah...that sounds like a fair approach. I'll bet reading about that keeps lots and lots of REAL pedophiles from raping little kids.
Click to expand...
More laws passed by Xiam white males.
But that's okay...we know that as a male, this kid is a "potential" rapist (all men are, right feminists?) so this is just preventative. Now, if we can just start locking people up for their "potential" to say, shoplift: if you have two hands you ARE a "potential" shoplifter, after all....

Tokie
Click to expand...

You aren't even making sense, go back to the FOX news forum.
 
Fnord said:
No, I am applying logic to something that involves violence against children.

It is not unreasonable or insane to want pedophiles to serve life sentences without parole, as their recidivism rate is 100%. A pedophile will strike again. I have very little sympathy for pedophiles and other child abusers, and not much more for those who would defend them or excuse their behavior.

Murderers? Perhaps less so [citation requested].
Click to expand...

Wow, you didn't even bother to hide that you have no idea what you are talking about as you are looking for someone else to provide a citation to back up your numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom