Once a child molestor... [Archive]

ichi

11-21-2005, 16:42

Very interesting study done by DOJ in 1994. It shows that only a small percentage of convicted child molesters are arrested after their release, but this is confounded by several factors. They may still be preying on children and not getting arrested, or they may still harbor predatory tendencies but lack opportunity or are otherwise thwarted somehow.

There does seem to be some psychological data that supports the idea that pedophilia is something that doesn't go away with treatment, that it persists throughout the life of the offender. This leads people to the belief that once a pedophile is identified, that he should be constrained forever from the opportunity to molest.

I for one believe that even first time offenders should do some very long, hard time in prison. This has led some to postulate that the fear of harsh punishment leads pedophiles to kill their victims in an attempt to reduce the threat of capture. I'm not sure if that is true or if it warrants reconsideration.

We also need to do a better job of monitoring once released.

We need to strengthen our laws and stiffen penalties, but one thing I'm against is indefinite sentences. In several states convicted molesters are being kept incarcerated after their sentences have been fulfilled. That's probably not consistent with American principles of justice.

I do know that the world is a very tough place, toughest especially on the smallest and weakest. Unfortunately we can't protect everyone all of the time, and even if we had all convicted offenders locked away for ever there would still be new offenders.

This is a serious problem anddemands careful attention, to do as much as we can, but do it right.

DOJ Recidivism Paper (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf)

ichi:bow:

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 16:44

How is this a social failure?
To JAG and many of his mindset, criminals are never at fault for their crimes. If we just hugged them enough and made them feel good about themselves will cure everything.:bow:
I wonder if JAG were to have children, I wonder if he would feel differently. I wonder if it were his child that some sicko ####ed would he then see it as a "social failure". Somehow i doubt it.

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 16:46

Maybe pedophilia is genetic like many "claim" homosexuality is. Wouldn't that be something?

Ser Clegane

11-21-2005, 17:10

Maybe pedophilia is genetic like many "claim" homosexuality is. Wouldn't that be something?

Good point (though, IIRC, JAG does not think that homosexuality is genetic).

In the end - no matter if the disposition is genetic or not - actually having sex with a minor is a choice and IMO the punishment for child molesters or guys like Gary Glitter who seem to promote prostitution of children (AFAIK he is being accused of having paid a 12-year-old girl for sex) should be rather harsh.
Also child molestation is one of the crimes were further monitoring of the perpetrator after his (or her) time in jail seems appropriate.

Duke Malcolm

11-21-2005, 17:19

The best thing for him is castration or circumcision.

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 17:19

Does anyone know what the Veitnamese government do to child molestors as far as by law and what sort of sentences are handed down for these crimes?

The Blind King of Bohemia

11-21-2005, 17:20

They say he could face death by firing squad, and quite frankly i hope they shoot the sick bastard if he is going round having sex with a 12 year old girl.

I don't believe in help for these "people", anyone who prays on children are just depraved individuals. IMO they cannot be rehabilitated. Would you leave your child in the same room as an apparently "rehabilitated" Paedophile? I know i wouldn't

Ser Clegane

11-21-2005, 17:22

Does anyone know what the Veitnamese government do to child molestors as far as by law and what sort of sentences are handed down for these crimes?

According to an article I read it's up to 12 years in prison for sex with minors, if it is rape capital punishment is a possibility (from what I've read, this is not likely to be a case of rape though)

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 17:24

Good point (though, IIRC, JAG does not think that homosexuality is genetic).

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that homosexuality and child molestation are morally equivalent since homosexual acts are usually performed by concenting adults or teens. But if there is ever a gene found that makes people predesposed to child sex, as some claim that homosexuals have, would we then have medications to curb these criminal acts besides chemical castration?

Slyspy

11-21-2005, 17:36

It is interesting that Gary Glitter being arrested on allegations of child molestation completely over shadows other issues raised by this report. If only the Vietnamese and, more so, the Thais were as keen to shut down the brothels and street pimps who run these kids. Everyone knows that sex tourism of all kinds centres on these countries and they would do well to act to counter that reputation.

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 19:43

The best thing for him is castration or circumcision.Yeah, circumcision. That will teach him.

Excuse me...

Ah hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!! http://matousmileys.free.fr/rofl2.gif

Duke Malcolm

11-21-2005, 19:50

Hmm? Have I got it wrong? The general perception here is that circumcision is a terrible shame, when one has their naughty bit lopped off or has the foreskin sliced off.

Strike For The South

11-21-2005, 20:08

does circumcison mean the same thing in the UK~:confused:

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 20:21

does circumcison mean the same thing in the UK~:confused:Ever wonder why they have these high-pitched voices? :mellow:

Duke Malcolm

11-21-2005, 20:22

What? What does circumcision mean to you, then?

Kanamori

11-21-2005, 20:26

Being circumcised as an adult would hurt~:(

Duke Malcolm

11-21-2005, 20:29

Exactly

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 20:31

Why, oh why does our society still allow child molestors to breath air?So what, crime happens. And it is not as if Glitter had killed anyone. According to the article he could get five years in Vietnam.

Lemur

11-21-2005, 20:32

Being circumcised as an adult would hurt~:(
That's the origin of the schism between Judaism and Christianity. The Greeks didn't feel like going through adult circumcision. Without painkillers. Without antibiotics. The followers of Jesus said, "Eh, it's okay, you don't really have to do that," to which the Jews said, "Yes you do." It all ended in tears.

As for pedophiles, I've read some conflicting things about their recidivism rate. Not sure who I believe. Locking someone up for life is a very expensive piece of business, so I'd be all in favor of treatment, whether that's a drug therapy or chemical castration.

Also, is it just this lemur, or isn't there a pretty big difference between someone who sexualizes a teenager and somone who lusts for pre-teens? I mean, there's no linguistic or legal distinction, but it seems there ought to be. A person who wants to have sex with a gorgeous sixteen-year-old is misguided, but not necessarily bent and unfixable. On the other hand, a person who wants to have sex with a three-year-old is probably broken beyond repair.

Shouldn't we distinguish? Or is that opening a whole 'nother can of worms?

DemonArchangel

11-21-2005, 20:33

Gary Glitter? Ugh....

This man won't even be worth the dog food he'll create when we shove him into an industrial meat grinder.

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 20:44

Shouldn't we distinguish?No, we should not. You see, this thread is just another opportunity to vent adolescent ennui. So far we have castration/4, hanging or drawing/2, shot in the head/6. Faites vos jeux.

Papewaio

11-21-2005, 21:31

If only the Vietnamese and, more so, the Thais were as keen to shut down the brothels and street pimps who run these kids. Everyone knows that sex tourism of all kinds centres on these countries and they would do well to act to counter that reputation.

If there was no demand then there would be no one bothering supplying.

I think a jail sentence of a length equivalent to how much underage the person was. Rape a 15 year old, 6 years, 12 year old 12 years in jail. No parole and no concurrent sentences... as much tea and hugs as you want.

Oh and kill a child that you have raped... an inventive painful death that acts as a deterrent to any other child molestor and murderer... bamboo growing up the beep... boiled to death in a large pot of tea...

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 21:46

So what, crime happens. And it is not as if Glitter had killed anyone. According to the article he could get five years in Vietnam.
But what about the emotional damage done to the child? A life time of bad memories. So no, he didn't kill anyone, but the victim will always have this painful memory. Then again, you are from the Netherlands where your morale compass does not exactly point in the right direction, if there is such a thing as a moral compass in the Netherlands...

Papewaio

11-21-2005, 21:48

Dave... don't go insulting nations now...~:grouphug:

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 21:52

Funny how many posters think up punishments of a sexual nature for such offenders. It reveals a Medieval attitude to punishment, as if the root of the offence was somehow lodged in the sexual organs and not in the brains or the heart which are traditionally regarded as the respective seats of self-control and compassion by most primitive peoples.

Alternatively, it could reveal the poster's own abject fascination with this particular kind of offence.

But of course it couldn't, could it? ~;)

Redleg

11-21-2005, 21:57

Also, is it just this lemur, or isn't there a pretty big difference between someone who sexualizes a teenager and somone who lusts for pre-teens? I mean, there's no linguistic or legal distinction, but it seems there ought to be. A person who wants to have sex with a gorgeous sixteen-year-old is misguided, but not necessarily bent and unfixable. On the other hand, a person who wants to have sex with a three-year-old is probably broken beyond repair.

Shouldn't we distinguish? Or is that opening a whole 'nother can of worms?

There should be and for the most part there is.

Adrian II

11-21-2005, 21:58

But what about the emotional damage done to the child?He or she will get over it.

Of course if we force the child through ten years of counselling in which he or she is constantly told that the damage done is irreparable, then it becomes irreparable.

Sorry Dave, I think your view reflects the typical bleeding-heart liberal approach that calls all of life's adversities 'traumatic' and turns them into an excuse for lifelong wailing and unhealthy dependence on outside help.

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 23:25

Sorry Dave, I think your view reflects the typical bleeding-heart liberal approach that calls all of life's adversities 'traumatic' and turns them into an excuse for lifelong wailing and unhealthy dependence on outside help.
So you're saying that if a man ####ed you in the arse when or made you provide oral sex to him when you were a child it would not effect you in the least? Interesting...

Devastatin Dave

11-21-2005, 23:29

Oh and Adrian, i believe that your response is more typical of a liberal; no concern for the victim, only sympothy for the criminal.:bow:

Redleg

11-22-2005, 00:06

He or she will get over it.

Of course if we force the child through ten years of counselling in which he or she is constantly told that the damage done is irreparable, then it becomes irreparable.

Sorry Dave, I think your view reflects the typical bleeding-heart liberal approach that calls all of life's adversities 'traumatic' and turns them into an excuse for lifelong wailing and unhealthy dependence on outside help.

Have you ever been around a child that has been molested?

Well I have - and they definetly don't just get over it. Care to try again.

Tell you whatAdrian when you have a child that is molested - and I pray you never do - then come back and talk about it. I watched my child last year collaspe in a seizure created from nothing but fear and anxity (SP) from remember the events of over 4 years ago. Oh and his councellors never told him that the damage done is irreparable - all they focused on was for him to put the past behind - it works to a degree - but when a child is violated by a molestor - they never forget - nor do they just get over it.

Adrian II

11-22-2005, 00:27

(..) they never forget - nor do they just get over it.They may never forget, but they will get over it. Not just like that, which is not what I suggested anyway. Some will not get over it, but that may not always be the fault of the perpetrator -- it may also be due to prevailing attitudes toward sexuality in the surrounding society.

I have seen no arguments here that convince me that rape or child molestation is equal to (or worse than) murder and should hence be punishable by death. In general, the victims are victimised even more by tribal notions of virginity and primitive illusions, first dispelled by Freud, of infant sexual innocence. Notions and illusions that lead the victim to believe, falsely, that the damage done is irreparable. We should not be hysterical about sexual abuse lest we want to out children to grow up hysterical.

There is a long way to go, but it can be done. A bit of historical perspective is useful here. Girls were once taught that rape was a fate worse than death. Thank heaven they aren't any longer.

Soulforged

11-22-2005, 00:29

Papewaio

11-22-2005, 01:04

1) Punish an offender so the cost benefit is negative. Easiest equated in white collar crime. Steal a thousand dollars... make it cost more to the criminal... and factor in the chance of him being caught. Steal a thousand, lose $1100 times the inverse of being caught... have a 50% chance of being caught... lose $2200.

2) Deterrent... may not work, in fact it may lead to a worse crime... so make a huge difference between an assault and death... so that covering up a crime by murdering the victim is such a step cost that they perp will think twice about using it as an avenue of escaping justice.

3) Parole... only for a first offence of a crime. Repeat offenders no parole for that offence.

4) Personal responsibility. Obvious, you do something there are consequences for it. Teach prisoners both the positive and negative versions of it.

5) Really truly crack down on drugs in prison. If a prisoner is found to be using drugs on random test ... solitary and investigate any external visitors also treat it as a health problem at the same period. Any guards found dealing should be given a twenty year plus sentence.

Redleg

11-22-2005, 01:09

They may never forget, but they will get over it. Not just like that, which is not what I suggested anyway. Some will not get over it, but that may not always be the fault of the perpetrator -- it may also be due to prevailing attitudes toward sexuality in the surrounding society.

Like I stated - its not something they forget - nor do they just get over it. If they don't get over it - it is partly the fault of the society, partly the fault of the victims close relatives, and partly the fault of the perpetrator. It is something they will always have to live with - just like any other action or event that happens to an individual.

I have seen no arguments here that convince me that rape or child molestation is equal to (or worse than) murder and should hence be punishable by death.

Lock them up for a period of time is my answer - unless of course during the course of that rape or molestation the perpetrator happens to kill the child - then it warrants the death penelty in my opinion.

In general, the victims are victimised even more by tribal notions of virginity and primitive illusions, first dispelled by Freud, of infant sexual innocence.

In general you are incorrect - my son who was molested by a family member - is not victimized in any such way nor would I allow it - I did the right thing and insured he recieved counselling not from quacks - but from individuals who after careful checking on my part - treated the child in the manner required to insure that the child recovers from the trauma and does not blame themselves for being the victim. It costs more - but its better then what most children get - because I refuse to allow my child to be taught that he was a victim and should be ashamed that this happened.

Notions and illusions that lead the victim to believe, falsely, that the damage done is irreparable. We should not be hysterical about sexual abuse lest we want to out children to grow up hysterical.

Again you make a generalization - this is not always so. The damage done is often extensive to the child - and it takes time and patenience for them to get past it. It also takes a family that does not treat the child with kid gloves in regards to the issue.

There is a long way to go, but it can be done. A bit of historical perspective is useful here. Girls were once taught that rape was a fate worse than death. Thank heaven they aren't any longer.

A bit of historical perspective is indeed needed - but a bit of understanding of what happens to a child who is molested is also something that some need to understand - its not a simple crime - nor is it one that the child gets over in a short period of time. The circumstances of the event can also trigger other problems with the child if the family does not embrace the child. Never ever treat the child as damaged - because they are not - they have only experienced a crime that is one of the most damaging to the individuals self-esteem.

There is no text-book answer.

Redleg

11-22-2005, 01:14

I think that many here take a wrong aproach possition to this kind of matters. The punishment subject should be aproached from the point of view of the convicted, not the victim, the system wants this things to never happen again, it doesn't cares about retribution anymore. This people should not receive any punishment at all. Punishment will only make situation worst, and doesn't solves anything. But of course in this big influenceable society that we live today punishments make good "examples" so it's a good way to deviate other potential rapist from taking actions, not excelent but it's good. In tha case I don't think that the punishment shoul be more than 8 years in the worst case.

People should be held accountable for their actions - if you break the law - especially one concerning children - you should be held accountable for that crime. Punishment is how society gains its retribution from the criminal.

In past times we discriminated by race, by sex (well still we do) or belief system. Now we're no better, not only we do those things, but we also have sistematized the discrimination based on actions. All people suppose that there exist some kind of "free will" but that's not prooved, so the actions are only presumed responsable. Saying that it's not social fault is denying that basic truth. It could be a social fault or not, in any case the system shouldn't pay attention to this points and be impartial, but always remembering that the person is still an human being it doesn't matter what it does, so no punishment at all should be always on the book.

And you would be incorrect - individuals should be held accountable for their actions. You can argue about what type of accountablity should occure - be it imprisonment, fines, community service or whatever else you desire for insuring the individual is held accountable for their actions - but to say no punishment, which is the accountablity, is not an acceptable solution.

bmolsson

11-22-2005, 03:57

I have one experience in a child molesting case. A good friend of mine married a woman with a 14 year old daughter. The daughter did have some issues, but he tried to care for her. After 2 years marriage it didn't work any more, the woman had a different view, and they had a little boy together. Never the less, the step daughter brought up charges against my friend and accused him of molesting her when she was 14. The whole machinery started. There where several Daves in the local community and my friend lost a small construction business, was dragged through the press and finally got convicted for incest and molesting the girl. He all the time claimed to be innocent.
After three years in prison, the girl stepped forward and admitted that it was all a lie she used to get government help to move out and get social wellfare.
The case was reviewed and all witness admitted that they had been biased and assumed him guilty. He was released as innocent. He lossed his business. He had not been allowed to see his son. His name was dragged in the local press. His life was ruined.

Regardless to the above story, child molestion is horrible, but I learned one thing. People with views like Dave will sooner or later ruin a life, just because their biased and unbalanced view on the world. There is always two sides of a story. We should all put our emotions away from any legal procedings and use common sense rather than traumatic emotions with only purpose to make our selves to feel better........

bmolsson

11-22-2005, 04:10

And you would be incorrect - individuals should be held accountable for their actions. You can argue about what type of accountablity should occure - be it imprisonment, fines, community service or whatever else you desire for insuring the individual is held accountable for their actions - but to say no punishment, which is the accountablity, is not an acceptable solution.

Would you consider treatement in a mental institution a punishment or a treat ?

Soulforged

11-22-2005, 04:54

3) Parole... only for a first offence of a crime. Repeat offenders no parole for that offence.Parole is a very obscure institution that treats the person not the action, not good for a proper Rule of the Law.

5) Really truly crack down on drugs in prison. If a prisoner is found to be using drugs on random test ... solitary and investigate any external visitors also treat it as a health problem at the same period. Any guards found dealing should be given a twenty year plus sentence.So...Not only you sustract his freedom and condemn him to a life of stress and pure danger, you also have to prohibit them to escape that reality?:no:

People should be held accountable for their actions - if you break the law - especially one concerning children - you should be held accountable for that crime. Punishment is how society gains its retribution from the criminal.Retribution has no social gain, it's supposed to be expiration of the self considered in himself only. I'm not saying that they're not to be accountable, however it's a different thing to say that always in the real world adults are really responsable, that all persons reaching a certain age are really adults. Of course the law presumes it for impartiality and efectiveness, but they should always keep in mind human dignity and abolishment before punishment.

And you would be incorrect - individuals should be held accountable for their actions. You can argue about what type of accountablity should occure - be it imprisonment, fines, community service or whatever else you desire for insuring the individual is held accountable for their actions - but to say no punishment, which is the accountablity, is not an acceptable solution.I clearly said that 8 year will be acceptable as maximum, or did you miss it? However as I said many times I'm looking forward to a system without punishment.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-22-2005, 05:00

So, Bmolsson, what you're saying is that women are liars?

...and here we have Gelcube, suggesting that you "hold this grenade for me for a couple of seconds while I go to the can."

So Gel' when did you stop beating your wife? ~:rolleyes:

bmolsson

11-22-2005, 05:09

So, Bmolsson, what you're saying is that women are liars?

What makes you think that ? ~:confused:

Redleg

11-22-2005, 05:12

Would you consider treatement in a mental institution a punishment or a treat ?

Since the prepetatur of the molestion of my son was the 16 year old step-son, I keeped it out of the courts. In the deal I worked out with the Child Protective Service - I sent my step-son to a in-patenient facilality that specialized in helping teenager with possible severe mental illness, that acted out in a sexual nature.

While the step-son never would admit to me that he did the act - nor would he ackownledge that the mental instution help him deal with his problems. One of my neices - who is someone the step-son talks to about everything - let me know that the instution did help him out - and he admitted to her that to his shame he did something he shouldn't of done to his brother. So while the young man refuses to ackownledge to me - he has also apoligized to his brother for his act - and they now have a relationship where my son is not scared witless in the presence of his brother. But that has taken several years - and having the older boy out of the house completely.

It is never an easy thing - but for the most part - first time offenders in my opinion should be treated in a mental instution to determine if its a condtion of irrational thought processing - or if its something else.

On the second conviction - prison and a tough sentence as punishment is the course I recommend.

However if the child is killed by the molestor - then life in prison without the possibility of parole is the minimum, however its one of the crimes that justifies the death penelty in my opinon. But life in prison is probably just as apporiate.

Redleg

11-22-2005, 05:15

Parole is a very obscure institution that treats the person not the action, not good for a proper Rule of the Law.
So...Not only you sustract his freedom and condemn him to a life of stress and pure danger, you also have to prohibit them to escape that reality?:no:
Retribution has no social gain, it's supposed to be expiration of the self considered in himself only. I'm not saying that they're not to be accountable, however it's a different thing to say that always in the real world adults are really responsable, that all persons reaching a certain age are really adults. Of course the law presumes it for impartiality and efectiveness, but they should always keep in mind human dignity and abolishment before punishment.
I clearly said that 8 year will be acceptable as maximum, or did you miss it? However as I said many times I'm looking forward to a system without punishment.

To put it simply - a legal system without punishment is a legal system that does not hold the convicted individual accountable for their actions.

hellenes

11-22-2005, 05:46

In my opinion there are two dimensions of child molestation:
The commercial.
And the personal.
While we all feel angry and aggreviated about Western children being abused we never think about the HUGE commercial industry of child prostitution and people that invest huge amounts of money to travel to indochina and "enjoy" the local services.
Ive even heard the "argument" that: its better to have the paedophiles travel away than to prey on local kids...

Hellenes

bmolsson

11-22-2005, 05:54

I keeped it out of the courts.

I think that your decision was wise and you most probably saved your family, the step son as well as your own son. A tragic situation, but with a solution everyone can live with. :bow:

Redleg

11-22-2005, 05:56

I think that your decision was wise and you most probably saved your family, the step son as well as your own son. A tragic situation, but with a solution everyone can live with. :bow:

You do what you can - :bow:

Adrian II

11-22-2005, 09:14

You do what you can - :bow:I think we are exactly on the same wavelength, the difference in approach being that I wrote about the generalities of the issue and you wrote about the specifics of an incident in your personal life. Sounds like you managed to avert all the usual emotional traps, prejudices and overreactions, Redleg. I have no right to evaluate your private life, but I think you have done very, very well in this situation, acting on the same principles I have tried to act on in the past when necessary. Fortunately I have never been a perpetrator or a victim of this, but it does get under your skin if you are confronted with the consequences.

@BMolsson, well said, I am very sorry to hear what happened to your friend.

@Dave, I think the best way for you to start is to come to The Netherlands and discover that you can have a great time here because there are none of the myriad moral threats and legal perversities you seem to imagine.

Ja'chyra

11-22-2005, 09:47

I think that many here take a wrong aproach possition to this kind of matters. The punishment subject should be aproached from the point of view of the convicted, not the victim, the system wants this things to never happen again, it doesn't cares about retribution anymore. This people should not receive any punishment at all. Punishment will only make situation worst, and doesn't solves anything. But of course in this big influenceable society that we live today punishments make good "examples" so it's a good way to deviate other potential rapist from taking actions, not excelent but it's good. In tha case I don't think that the punishment shoul be more than 8 years in the worst case.

In past times we discriminated by race, by sex (well still we do) or belief system. Now we're no better, not only we do those things, but we also have sistematized the discrimination based on actions. All people suppose that there exist some kind of "free will" but that's not prooved, so the actions are only presumed responsable. Saying that it's not social fault is denying that basic truth. It could be a social fault or not, in any case the system shouldn't pay attention to this points and be impartial, but always remembering that the person is still an human being it doesn't matter what it does, so no punishment at all should be always on the book.

What??? Seriously what is wrong with you?

Maybe we should give them all a badge and a nice house next to the school, than they can pick theoir next victim from the comfort of thir own home.

Quote:
5) Really truly crack down on drugs in prison. If a prisoner is found to be using drugs on random test ... solitary and investigate any external visitors also treat it as a health problem at the same period. Any guards found dealing should be given a twenty year plus sentence.

So...Not only you sustract his freedom and condemn him to a life of stress and pure danger, you also have to prohibit them to escape that reality

He's in prison, that very fact means that he has done sonething serious enough for him to lose his freedoms. How does denying him drugs condemn him to pure danger????

In fact don't bother answering cos you'll only wind me up even more, we'll just have to disagree, totally.

Devastatin Dave

11-22-2005, 15:13

DemonArchangel

11-22-2005, 18:33

~:rolleyes:

How about you make sure the molester in question is GUILTY before punishment? If you haul off and screw over the alleged perpetrator every time a child molestation case comes up, especially without a trial, then you get what happens in bmolsson's case.

IMO child molestation is just outright horrible. Though I just think it's the result of an irrational mind. First time offenders should be treated, just like anyone else with a mental illness. Repeat offenders should be condemned to psychiatric hospitals, because they are obviously not fit for society.

Devastatin Dave

11-22-2005, 18:51

How about you make sure the molester in question is GUILTY before punishment? If you haul off and screw over the alleged perpetrator every time a child molestation case comes up, especially without a trial, then you get what happens in bmolsson's case.

IMO child molestation is just outright horrible. Though I just think it's the result of an irrational mind. First time offenders should be treated, just like anyone else with a mental illness. Repeat offenders should be condemned to psychiatric hospitals, because they are obviously not fit for society.
Where the hell did you and bmolsson get off by saying I wouldn't give the accused a trial? When did I say that... Oh wait, i didn't, bmolsson and you are just making shit up. Get your facts straight bright guy before opening your fortune cookie hole.

Fragony

11-22-2005, 18:55

He or she will get over it.

Wow AdrianII, they will have to don't they. I am sure you could get along fine with her,

http://www.stopannemariehoogland.nl/hoogland5.jpg

Adrian II

11-22-2005, 20:39

Wow AdrianII, they will have to don't they. I am sure you could get along fine with her,

http://www.stopannemariehoogland.nl/hoogland5.jpgI don't know her, but if she is against lynching, vigilantism, racial profiling, deportation of minorities, fake statistics and everything else you advocate, what can I say? I already like her.

DemonArchangel

11-22-2005, 21:38

Where the hell did you and bmolsson get off by saying I wouldn't give the accused a trial? When did I say that... Oh wait, i didn't, bmolsson and you are just making shit up. Get your facts straight bright guy before opening your fortune cookie hole.

You just seem like that sort of guy.

Kanamori

11-22-2005, 22:40

After all, he is a card-carrying member of the ACLU

Papewaio

11-22-2005, 22:57

Retribution has no social gain, it's supposed to be expiration of the self considered in himself only. I'm not saying that they're not to be accountable, however it's a different thing to say that always in the real world adults are really responsable, that all persons reaching a certain age are really adults. Of course the law presumes it for impartiality and efectiveness, but they should always keep in mind human dignity and abolishment before punishment.

Why is there no social gain in retribution?

I can understand the social gain in long sentences:
1) The molestor will lack the oppourtunity to repeat the offence while in jail.
2) Lack the oppourtunity to father a family... so if there is a gene association with molestation it will help to cull it out.

As for impartiality of the law I thought that was to be equal in front of it. So your race, sex or creed is not taken into account as far as your guilt or sentence length. I do not see how impartiality is hurt by giving child molestors longer sentences then they currently serve?

The law should always keep in mind human dignity of the victims and society. A criminals dignity should not out weigh that of the victims.

Also the length of the sentence should look at the chance that the criminal will repeat the offence, the more likely they will repeat the longer the sentence should be... this is partially looked at with parole.

Soulforged

11-23-2005, 01:04

To put it simply - a legal system without punishment is a legal system that does not hold the convicted individual accountable for their actions.
To put it simply, many jurists plan on a system with out punishment. A resharsitory (I couldn't find the word for this in english, but it means paying to undo the damage) system, but we're not having this discussion again are we? You're forgetting that there's other kinds of law, not just penal, many people thing that the penal law is the first resource, when in fact it's the ultima ratio of all the system.

1) The molestor will lack the oppourtunity to repeat the offence while in jail.That's not retribution, it's general prevention.

2) Lack the oppourtunity to father a family... so if there is a gene association with molestation it will help to cull it out.So we're planning a Nazi kind of society, were the "evil seed" is out of the face of the planet!! :no: I don't know where some people get this facist ideas, seriously, it doesn't seem to go with you somehow Pape...
Also this is a social problem, not natural. Well let's be sincere here, the human is an animal, a repressed animal who possible was rejected for the opposite sex over and over will look for other methods to achive his goals.

As for impartiality of the law I thought that was to be equal in front of it. So your race, sex or creed is not taken into account as far as your guilt or sentence length. I do not see how impartiality is hurt by giving child molestors longer sentences then they currently serve?Did I said that? Read again please.

The law should always keep in mind human dignity of the victims and society. A criminals dignity should not out weigh that of the victims.That's correct, however the reality shows the opposite. The dignity is not always respected in trial or during jail time.

Also the length of the sentence should look at the chance that the criminal will repeat the offence, the more likely they will repeat the longer the sentence should be... this is partially looked at with parole.Well this is pretty hard to explain. But the system only should judge actions, to prevent that actions from happening again. Parole violates that principle, putting a mark on a convicted that now is treated as an ex-convict not an human. It goes against equal treatment. It doesn't matter how much effective you think the system could be, dignity and equality is always first.

What??? Seriously what is wrong with you?

Maybe we should give them all a badge and a nice house next to the school, than they can pick theoir next victim from the comfort of thir own home.You should ask yourself what's wrong with humanity, that we need punishment...Vengeance is not representative of a justice system, vengeance is archaic, though people still think that all will be better if they use vengeance instead of reason. A wise man did said sometime something about this, maybe you should reflex a little about those words.

He's in prison, that very fact means that he has done sonething serious enough for him to lose his freedoms. How does denying him drugs condemn him to pure danger????
In fact don't bother answering cos you'll only wind me up even more, we'll just have to disagree, totally.Drugs put him in danger? Another that will do better to read before answering. He's in danger in the prison, if you take the drugs away (wich shouldn't happen to anybody) you're forbidding him to escape that wonderful reality.

Papewaio

11-23-2005, 01:11

As for impartiality of the law I thought that was to be equal in front of it. So your race, sex or creed is not taken into account as far as your guilt or sentence length. I do not see how impartiality is hurt by giving child molestors longer sentences then they currently serve?

Did I said that? Read again please.

I was asking a few questions, not just stating answers.

====

So we're planning a Nazi kind of society, were the "evil seed" is out of the face of the planet!! :no:

No, I grew up on a farm and culling is standard practice.

Multigenerational Welfare without work is a form of eugenics. Society helps those who will not help the rest to have many children from many different partners who then repeat. While all the time doctors, nurses, scientists and great thinkers tend to have less and less children.

So when we overrun the planet with muling idiots who will save them then?

Redleg

11-23-2005, 01:14

To put it simply, many jurists plan on a system with out punishment. A resharsitory (I couldn't find the word for this in english, but it means paying to undo the damage) system, but we're not having this discussion again are we? You're forgetting that there's other kinds of law, not just penal, many people thing that the penal law is the first resource, when in fact it's the ultima ratio of all the system.

Undo the damage of a crime - great concept - it might even work someday when we are all clones and living in great commune's like ant colonies - but I have never seen a legal system that can undo the damage of a crime, nor is there a workable model of such a system.

Again what your attempting to state is not a legal system based upon holding the individual responsible for thier actions.

And no I am not forgetting that there are other forms of law - however criminal law - involves the penal system regardless how you view it.

Soulforged

11-23-2005, 01:19

I was asking a few questions, not just stating answers.I didn't said anywhere that by giving a higher penalty you're hurting impartiality.

No, I grew up on a farm and culling is standard practice.Well just a counsel then, don't try to bring up concepts from plants to human life, if that's what you meant.

Multigenerational Welfare without work is a form of eugenics. Society helps those who will not help the rest to have many children from many different partners who then repeat. While all the time doctors, nurses, scientists and great thinkers tend to have less and less children.Is their problem. We cannot plan a society when the state or even the same society decides who can have children and who not. Please think it, it's so evidentely wrong that you should be able to realize it.

So when we overrun the planet with muling idiots who will save them then?Discrimination Pape, again?:no: The muling idiots are humans. You do get the meaning of impartiality no? The planet will be overrun by humans anyway but the future is not the present, and justice does little politics it cares about the now, it cares about dignity and humanity, not vengeance or personal problems, or natural problems either.

Soulforged

11-23-2005, 01:27

Undo the damage of a crime - great concept - it might even work someday when we are all clones and living in great commune's like ant colonies - but I have never seen a legal system that can undo the damage of a crime, nor is there a workable model of such a system. Again with that tired false concept of "it didn't worked (or didn't exist) so it cannot work (it cannot exist)". Sorry Red but science doesn't work that way, you can, and always will be able too, refute the so called stablished truths, wich aren't truths at all. You'll never know if you don't test it. Of course it's not easy to do laboratory work with society, but what's the worst that can happen, humans enjoying of freedom? What I don't understand is that anology with ants but... :shrug:

Again what your attempting to state is not a legal system based upon holding the individual responsible for thier actions.Again you're wrong. Civil law is fine by me...

And no I am not forgetting that there are other forms of law - however criminal law - involves the penal system regardless how you view it.No it doesn't, that's why I'm saying that there are other models including one that extirpates penal system.

Kaiser of Arabia

11-23-2005, 01:28

http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/merchantfiles/3310326/29.jpg
+
http://www.abesupply.com/images/echo-chainsaw.jpg
+
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/language/german/label/leg/label.GIF
+
http://www.bulkpeppercorns.com/images/White_Sea_Salt.jpg
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.rubatos.com/a_happy-face.gif

Papewaio

11-23-2005, 01:29

Everyone should have equal oppourtunity to succeed.

Everyone should be considered equal in front of the law.

However we are not all equal at everything we do. That is not in itself a bad thing. Specialisation within a society is a strength.

What is silly is to think that everyone is equally capable at everything that humans can do.

Well just a counsel then, don't try to bring up concepts from plants to human life, if that's what you meant.

Until we are not made of genes we are subject to the laws of nature. Evolution is still working on us and our laws and social mores dictate the environment that we live in. What makes humans special are ideas and the ability to change them without changing genes.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 01:47

Again with that tired false concept of "it didn't worked (or didn't exist) so it cannot work (it cannot exist)". Sorry Red but science doesn't work that way, you can, and always will be able too, refute the so called stablished truths, wich aren't truths at all. You'll never know if you don't test it. Of course it's not easy to do laboratory work with society, but what's the worst that can happen, humans enjoying of freedom?

LOL - once again how do you undo a crime - if someone murders another individual how do you "undo" the murder. So your attempt at labeling it a false concept - is false on your part.

What I don't understand is that anology with ants but... :shrug:

Not a hard one to understand - think about it for a bit and come back if you can not understand it. It has something to do with the fact that humans are individual creatures with individual thoughts.

Again you're wrong. Civil law is fine by me...

Easy for you to say - but impossible for you to prove. All legal systems are based upon the concept of holding the individual accountable for their actions. Civil law does this, so those criminal law. Attempting to say no punishment will be involved - removes the ability to hold people accountable for their actions. No consequence - no punishment - no accountablity.

No it doesn't, that's why I'm saying that there are other models including one that extirpates penal system.

Then you are not speaking of penal law - since penal system deals with criminal justice based upon the individual breaking the law.

Soulforged

11-23-2005, 02:00

[QUOTE]Everyone should have equal oppourtunity to succeed.
Everyone should be considered equal in front of the law.Correct.

However we are not all equal at everything we do. That is not in itself a bad thing. Specialisation within a society is a strength.I think this too. But too far on specialization and everyone ends thinking that what's said on their camp of action if the correct option.

What is silly is to think that everyone is equally capable at everything that humans can do.I never said that.

Until we are not made of genes we are subject to the laws of nature. Evolution is still working on us and our laws and social mores dictate the environment that we live in. What makes humans special are ideas and the ability to change them without changing genes.That's certainly truth, but you're ruled by the laws of the state not the natural laws (ie common sense). For instance you've to think in abstract, abstract precepts that from time to time don't have any evident relation with reality.

LOL - once again how do you undo a crime - if someone murders another individual how do you "undo" the murder. So your attempt at labeling it a false concept - is false on your part.
No Red. When you accidentally (to put it in real cases) hurt a person, let's suppose an accident car, the person will receive compensation, now compensation means exactly what I stated. You cannot turn back the time to the status quo, but you can compensate.

Not a hard one to understand - think about it for a bit and come back if you can not understand it. It has something to do with the fact that humans are individual creatures with individual thoughts.LOL ants have no thoughts...The man is a sociable individual for instance aparting an human from society will not serve any purpose.

Easy for you to say - but impossible for you to prove. All legal systems are based upon the concept of holding the individual accountable for their actions. Civil law does this, so those criminal law. Attempting to say no punishment will be involved - removes the ability to hold people accountable for their actions. No consequence - no punishment - no accountablity.Read the above example, it should explain things a bit, though I've said many times how do I think.

Then you are not speaking of penal law - since penal system deals with criminal justice based upon the individual breaking the law.I'M SPEAKING OF PENAL LAW...I'm saying that we'll be better without it, now that's part my opinion and part my study on the subject.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 02:18

No Red. When you accidentally (to put it in real cases) hurt a person, let's suppose an accident car, the person will receive compensation, now compensation means exactly what I stated. You cannot turn back the time to the status quo, but you can compensate.

And that my fine friend is a form of punishment - however that does not undo the accident. Neither does your examble explain away your earlier statement of "undo" the crime.

LOL ants have no thoughts...The man is a sociable individual for instance aparting an human from society will not serve any purpose.

Now your getting the analogy - however you are not correct in my opinion - parting the individual from society does serve a purpose if he violates the laws of that society.

Read the above example, it should explain things a bit, though I've said many times how do I think.

However you have not proven me wrong or my premise false as you earlier stated - still waiting for the retraction or the proof.

I'M SPEAKING OF PENAL LAW...I'm saying that we'll be better without it, now that's part my opinion and part my study on the subject.

Then without Penal Law the individual who breaks the law is not being held accountable for his actions under criminal law.

Your speaking of having those you break the law - only suffer the civil justice aspects of their actions. That might work for some offensives - ones not involving violence - and I would even support many of them - however once someone does violence they must suffer the consequences of their actions. Civil redress does not cover that aspect, only penal consequences address those you committ violence against members of society.

However once again you assume my postion is based upon incorrect data, poor science and false premises - not once in your statements have you shown me to be incorrect nor are my statements false - since what I have stated is exactly how much of the laws in most Western societies are done.

Soulforged

11-23-2005, 04:50

And that my fine friend is a form of punishment - however that does not undo the accident. Neither does your examble explain away your earlier statement of "undo" the crime. Technically and historically fines were labelled as "means of security" (warning it could lose meaning in the translation), not punishment or penalty. No it doesn't, but that's what I call subjectivity, if the offended person accepts the fine then it has been "undone". In cases were there's no more offended, it's a compensation to the family, they usually get one even if the convict gets prison.

Now your getting the analogy - however you are not correct in my opinion - parting the individual from society does serve a purpose if he violates the laws of that society.Not to me, and this is again that old discussion. It only may serve the purpose of general prevention, but even then it's an human who's being locked, locking has nothing to do with an improved society, improved in the sense of being more able to generate relationships wich are sane and healthy.

However you have not proven me wrong or my premise false as you earlier stated - still waiting for the retraction or the proof.Well I think I've now.

Then without Penal Law the individual who breaks the law is not being held accountable for his actions under criminal law.Penal law is equal to criminal law, criminal law is used in reference to the convict, wich is a pejorative term. He/she's being accountable for their actions, he/she receives punishment in the ample sense.

Your speaking of having those you break the law - only suffer the civil justice aspects of their actions. That might work for some offensives - ones not involving violence - and I would even support many of them - however once someone does violence they must suffer the consequences of their actions. Civil redress does not cover that aspect, only penal consequences address those you committ violence against members of society.That's the aspect of retribution that has not been clearfied, however is not my work to do so. The actions are not redress in the way that Hegel thought an "evil cures another evil", it's a logical fallacy, though you cannot reduce the human to logics, the second evil will lasts longer in the individual, when he comes out he'll probably be worst, and the family wich probably lost a member will still have anger towards the "ex-convict", nothing has been cured. However in regards of the general-preventive aspect of punishment, it has it's merits because it can reduce the rates of crimes, but it's not a permanent nor the best solution.

However once again you assume my postion is based upon incorrect data, poor science and false premises - not once in your statements have you shown me to be incorrect nor are my statements false - since what I have stated is exactly how much of the laws in most Western societies are done.Yes you're correct Red. However I did show you to be incorrect when you stated the old "it's never gonna happen" statement. And you're doing it again. For the record I didn't assume anything, but sure you don't know everything do you? So it's possible, just possible, that you didn't knew those things.

Redleg

11-23-2005, 05:07

Technically and historically fines were labelled as "means of security" (warning it could lose meaning in the translation), not punishment or penalty. No it doesn't, but that's what I call subjectivity, if the offended person accepts the fine then it has been "undone". In cases were there's no more offended, it's a compensation to the family, they usually get one even if the convict gets prison.

Fines are viewed as punishment - when you pay for your traffic ticket - you pay a fine for breaking the traffic law - your punishment is to pay the money to the city for that transgression.

The acceptance of a fine does not "undo" the crime - it compensates the individual for the transgression against their person or property.

Not to me, and this is again that old discussion. It only may serve the purpose of general prevention, but even then it's an human who's being locked, locking has nothing to do with an improved society, improved in the sense of being more able to generate relationships wich are sane and healthy.

Its also punishment - which is part of criminal law. Locking individuals up in prison serves multiple functions but the fundmental purpose is punishing the individual for their actions. The secondary function is to serve as a general prevention examble based upon the severity of the sentence.

Well I think I've now.

Again you have not proven my statments incorrect - nor the premise false - as you have claimed.

Penal law is equal to criminal law, criminal law is used in reference to the convict, wich is a pejorative term. He/she's being accountable for their actions, he/she receives punishment in the ample sense.

Which goes to my point.

That's the aspect of retribution that has not been clearfied, however is not my work to do so. The actions are not redress in the way that Hegel thought an "evil cures another evil", it's a logical fallacy, though you cannot reduce the human to logics, the second evil will lasts longer in the individual, when he comes out he'll probably be worst, and the family wich probably lost a member will still have anger towards the "ex-convict", nothing has been cured. However in regards of the general-preventive aspect of punishment, it has it's merits because it can reduce the rates of crimes, but it's not a permanent nor the best solution.

Again you are proving my point without wanting to ackownledge it.

Yes you're correct Red. However I did show you to be incorrect when you stated the old "it's never gonna happen" statement. And you're doing it again. For the record I didn't assume anything, but sure you don't know everything do you? So it's possible, just possible, that you didn't knew those things.

Not at all - I am speaking of my understanding of the law and the courts - you have not informed me of anything that I did not alreadly know. Also in saying my informationis incorrect you have not shown how my premise is incorrect or false - your speaking only in terms of what could happen and what you would like to happen. That does not prove or disprove any of my statments to include the one of "its never gonna happen." Legal codes and laws are not based upon science - they are based upon concepts that utilize certain aspects of science - that being logic - but the rest of it falls within other areas.

Soulforged

11-24-2005, 05:17

Fines are viewed as punishment - when you pay for your traffic ticket - you pay a fine for breaking the traffic law - your punishment is to pay the money to the city for that transgression.Ooook Red I just hope you give up first this time. As I said they're considered in the ample sense of punishment, but technically they're called "means of security".

The acceptance of a fine does not "undo" the crime - it compensates the individual for the transgression against their person or property.We'll need your definition of crime. The vision in modern times of penal law is as an state instrument, I like it, but there's nothing preventing it from turning to private matter. Thus I consider it, in lesser cases, a private matter, wheter it's or not. But as you see I'm stuck on phylosophy.

Its also punishment - which is part of criminal law. Locking individuals up in prison serves multiple functions but the fundmental purpose is punishing the individual for their actions. The secondary function is to serve as a general prevention examble based upon the severity of the sentence.Again you're trying to solve problems wich are already treated for "la creme de la creme" in penal matter. They all put general prevention as the primary justification.

Again you have not proven my statments incorrect - nor the premise false - as you have claimed.Yes I've. Look you can argue that if it's politically correct to do what I want, or even if it's gonna work, but it has it's merits, who knows maybe people will learn to forgive and accept a little compensation?

Again you are proving my point without wanting to ackownledge it.Sorry but that whole paragraph was the antithesis of what you've stated so far. You're a partidary of retribution, that paragraph is mind-settled on general prevention. So not it doesn't proove your point.

Not at all - I am speaking of my understanding of the law and the courts - you have not informed me of anything that I did not alreadly know. Also in saying my informationis incorrect you have not shown how my premise is incorrect or false - your speaking only in terms of what could happen and what you would like to happen. That does not prove or disprove any of my statments to include the one of "its never gonna happen." Legal codes and laws are not based upon science - they are based upon concepts that utilize certain aspects of science - that being logic - but the rest of it falls within other areas.My intention was not to inform you. Repeat in sintetic terms what your premise was again. Legal codes are pure science, I think you're confusing legal code with the law as a whole, wich has an irrational component (the custom).

Redleg

11-24-2005, 05:45

Ooook Red I just hope you give up first this time.

You haven't figured out that I am a stubborn yet?

As I said they're considered in the ample sense of punishment, but technically they're called "means of security".

Punishment is what "fines" are used for. Means of security is a bond.

We'll need your definition of crime.

Simple - occurs when one breaks the law.

The vision in modern times of penal law is as an state instrument, I like it, but there's nothing preventing it from turning to private matter. Thus I consider it, in lesser cases, a private matter, wheter it's or not. But as you see I'm stuck on phylosophy.

Yes indeed you are - not a problem - I have been enjoying this discussion. But as long as the state functions for society - law breaker will be punished by the state as the representive of the people.

Again you're trying to solve problems wich are already treated for "la creme de la creme" in penal matter. They all put general prevention as the primary justification.

Nope - I am using the classic definition of punishment.

Yes I've. Look you can argue that if it's politically correct to do what I want, or even if it's gonna work, but it has it's merits, who knows maybe people will learn to forgive and accept a little compensation?

Again you haven't exactly proved anything - especially since what I stated falls within this catergory that you have just mentioned. Opinion and wether I believe the system you are attempting to explain will work. You can not disprove opinion with opinion.

Sorry but that whole paragraph was the antithesis of what you've stated so far. You're a partidary of retribution, that paragraph is mind-settled on general prevention. So not it doesn't proove your point.

Then I mis-read what you wrote - will read again when I am fresh.

My intention was not to inform you. Repeat in sintetic terms what your premise was again. Legal codes are pure science, I think you're confusing legal code with the law as a whole, wich has an irrational component (the custom).

Here it is in a nutshell - law is not pure science - it is a formulation of logical thinking, moral and ethical codes of the society. Justice is the fair and equal application of those codes on the individual for their actions. It is not a science - but it is based upon logical and sequencial thought. Punishment under the law first serves as retribution for the actions of the individual who has been found guilty of a crime. This can be accomplished by paying a fine, serving time in either a jail or doing community service - but it is retribution first and formost. The secondary effect of punishment is to serve as a general preventive to society.

littlelostboy

11-24-2005, 10:59

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/20/D8E017CO0.html
Why, oh why does our society still allow child molestors to breath air? Hopefully the Vietnamese will do the right thing.

You do know what's the death penalty is Vietnam right? If you don't, it is the execution squad, death by firing.

I'm currently living in Vietman, Saigon as a expat (I'm a teenager). The wierd thing about Vietnamese laws are that if a policeman see you forging a money or even drawing out a sketch of a money currency or any of those stuff along the lines, they get to shoot you on the spot. But if you take drugs or are found to be in possession of drugs, they just throw you into jail.

And Vietnam is not so free, the government still check and censor people e-mails and other website espiecally political websites, although now its harder to do it given the fact that Vietnam is expanding rapidly. Ironically, Vietnam has also seen a rise in experienced hackers. Most of my Vietnam friends are extrememly proficient hackers. If they want to destroy this forum, they could in a few hours. I can't even trust them with my computer data and my laptop.

And no, I don't know what is the penalty for hacking in Vietnam. I don't think there's any real laws cos Vietnam don't really know what to do.

Ser Clegane

11-24-2005, 11:38

I'm currently living in Vietman, Saigon as a expat

A bit off-topic, but - how do you like it there? My wife and I are planning to make a vacation trip to Vietnam in March.
Any "must-sees" in Saigon?

Adrian II

11-24-2005, 13:05

A bit off-topic, but - how do you like it there? My wife and I are planning to make a vacation trip to Vietnam in March.
Any "must-sees" in Saigon?I don't live there and I haven't seen much of Saigon, but I can recommend Hue and the Royal Tombs on a quiet day. Go there on bike through the rolling hills (and the insanely busy scooter traffic). Afterwards take a trip on a fast riverboat and eat out in a restaurant overlooking the Perfume River. Magnificent place. Oh, and give my regards to Doctor Trinh Bach at the (former) military hospital who cured me from a nasty infection in no time.

Ser Clegane

11-24-2005, 14:08

I don't live there and I haven't seen much of Saigon, but I can recommend Hue and the Royal Tombs on a quiet day. Go there on bike through the rolling hills (and the insanely busy scooter traffic). Afterwards take a trip on a fast riverboat and eat out in a restaurant overlooking the Perfume River. Magnificent place.
Thanks Adrian ~:) :bow:

Oh, and give my regards to Doctor Trinh Bach at the (former) military hospital who cured me from a nasty infection in no time.
Hopefully I will not have the "chance" to give him your regards ~;)

Soulforged

11-25-2005, 01:15

You haven't figured out that I am a stubborn yet?Yeahhhh....Well you know, apart from you being a conservative and a soldier, we're not so different you know...sort of...~;)

Punishment is what "fines" are used for. Means of security is a bond.Well in the books they're called otherwise. Whatever just leave this ok...

Simple - occurs when one breaks the law.Sorry Red, not that simple. There's an extense (the most extense) theorema called theory of the crime, and it's not even defined. Someone thinks that the crime could even preceed the very idea of law.

Yes indeed you are - not a problem - I have been enjoying this discussion. But as long as the state functions for society - law breaker will be punished by the state as the representive of the people.Hey I see an spirit change here. Did I read it right did you say "as long as..."? Are you saying me that you see any hope on destroying the Leviathan?~;) . No too much for me to ask right?

Nope - I am using the classic definition of punishment.You're using it as the definitive form and justification of punishment, when in fact almost all the doctrine takes the opossite direction, with fine arguments. Retribution comes from the idea of vengeance, it has not resocialization purposes, not preventive, it's not proper for a modern society of rational people (I'm not implying anything). Your country uses the theory of general prevention in greater scale (well all common-law in general really) than that of the continental system. It's really strange that living in a society with such progresist standards (apart from the death penalty of course) you can come with this ideas, perhaps it says something about your ideology. Let me guess you lived most of your time in Texas...Am I right?

Again you haven't exactly proved anything - especially since what I stated falls within this catergory that you have just mentioned. Opinion and wether I believe the system you are attempting to explain will work. You can not disprove opinion with opinion.Well I knew we'll be getting here. But it's all I've, considering that no country has taken such a huge leap still.

Here it is in a nutshell - law is not pure science - it is a formulation of logical thinking, moral and ethical codes of the society. Justice is the fair and equal application of those codes on the individual for their actions. It is not a science - but it is based upon logical and sequencial thought. Punishment under the law first serves as retribution for the actions of the individual who has been found guilty of a crime. This can be accomplished by paying a fine, serving time in either a jail or doing community service - but it is retribution first and formost. The secondary effect of punishment is to serve as a general preventive to society.You stated codes of law, if I show you a code you'll see that they're pure science, in the sense that we know it today, wich includes the method of social reasoning. However as I said you're correct, law as a whole is not a just a science, and I hope it will never be either.
That second part is again your opinion as noticed above.

Redleg

11-25-2005, 02:44

. Let me guess you lived most of your time in Texas...Am I right?

You would be incorrect.

10 years in New Mexico
going on 11 years in Texas
6 years in Utah
4 year in Washington
3 years in Kansas
3 years in Arkansas
2 years in Okalhoma
And then a year or two outside of the states

Well I knew we'll be getting here. But it's all I've, considering that no country has taken such a huge leap still.

Not sure what you mean here.

You stated codes of law, if I show you a code you'll see that they're pure science

And I say again - law is not pure science. Its a mixture of philosophy, morals, ethics, and the logical thought. If it was pure science - no mistakes would ever be made in the theory or the application of the law.

In the sense that we know it today, wich includes the method of social reasoning. However as I said you're correct, law as a whole is not a just a science, and I hope it will never be either.

As noted above - why call law - pure science when you know that it is not?

That second part is again your opinion as noticed above.

Of course its all my opinion - hell I am not a lawyer.

Strike For The South

11-25-2005, 02:45

Soul you got beef with the greatest peice of land on gods green earth

Kanamori

11-25-2005, 04:14

Of all the times I've been in Texas, far too many, I cannot remember seeing "green" very often.~;)
:duel:

Soulforged

11-25-2005, 04:34

You would be incorrect...going on 11 years in TexasAhh...But the major part of it you spent on Texas.

Not sure what you mean here.I'm wondering what kind of proof do you need to refute your statements. Is it philosophical or sociological work, legal or historic? Or you want some factical proof of the penal system tendences? Or do you want proof that "my" model could work? What I mean is that if it's the last I can't provide you anything for sure, but about the other three I can.

And I say again - law is not pure science. Its a mixture of philosophy, morals, ethics, and the logical thought. If it was pure science - no mistakes would ever be made in the theory or the application of the law.That's incorrect sociological science in general (history, antropology, sociology, etc.) has an interpretative system of learning, reasoning and refutation (besides using logic in some instances), and it's considered a science. The scientific part of the law (being any Code totally integrated on it) is just that work of sociological science. The non-scientific part is conposed by vairous parts but principally by two, the jurisprudence (wich is the result of custom in judicial power, wich is a result of the valoration of the proof, a pure interpretative task wich could be called pure spiritual) and the custom (wich are those activities repeated spontaneously by the people in general, unchanged -escencially- over certain period of time.)

As noted above - why call law - pure science when you know that it is not?The fact is that I've explained this many times. It has problems of translation. I'm not speaking of law as a precept coming from competent power (such as your bills), when I say law as a whole I'm alluding to that old concept of "directum" or "ius" of the romans, wich had a non-scientific component as noted above. However law used in the strict sense (lex), wich constitutes the Code, is pure sociological science and also logical used in the order of the Code and to give coherence.

Of course its all my opinion - hell I am not a lawyer.WOW I could have said otherwise.~:eek: ~:joker:

Redleg

11-25-2005, 05:21

Ahh...But the major part of it you spent on Texas.

Just at 1/4 of my life - the other 3/4 of my time has been else where - so I wouldn't call it a major portion.

I'm wondering what kind of proof do you need to refute your statements. Is it philosophical or sociological work, legal or historic? Or you want some factical proof of the penal system tendences? Or do you want proof that "my" model could work? What I mean is that if it's the last I can't provide you anything for sure, but about the other three I can.

historical is fine - sociological and philosophical only as it has been applied to the legal system - if it has not been applied - its only opinion/theory. Legal gets a bit more difficult because you will also have to identify the country and the number of others that use the same system - might get to complex for an internet discussion.

That's incorrect sociological science in general (history, antropology, sociology, etc.) has an interpretative system of learning, reasoning and refutation (besides using logic in some instances), and it's considered a science.

I know several things about antropology - its a science - but its not a pure science. Reason and refutation - is part of the logical thought process if my memory serves me correctly.

The scientific part of the law (being any Code totally integrated on it) is just that work of sociological science. The non-scientific part is conposed by vairous parts but principally by two, the jurisprudence (wich is the result of custom in judicial power, wich is a result of the valoration of the proof, a pure interpretative task wich could be called pure spiritual) and the custom (wich are those activities repeated spontaneously by the people in general, unchanged -escencially- over certain period of time.)

So like I stated before its definitely not a pure science. ~D Your actually stating a lot of what I just said but in a more "scientific framework."

The fact is that I've explained this many times. It has problems of translation. I'm not speaking of law as a precept coming from competent power (such as your bills), when I say law as a whole I'm alluding to that old concept of "directum" or "ius" of the romans, wich had a non-scientific component as noted above. However law used in the strict sense (lex), wich constitutes the Code, is pure sociological science and also logical used in the order of the Code and to give coherence.

Hince the dilemnia - sociological science is not a hard science - which does not equate to a pure science in my understanding since it deals with behaviors, morals and ethics and how they effect society. (Hard Sciences are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.)

WOW I could have said otherwise.~:eek: ~:joker:

Just my stubborn nature

Soulforged

11-25-2005, 06:32

Just at 1/4 of my life - the other 3/4 of my time has been else where - so I wouldn't call it a major portion.Just curious when you were outside the stated where did you go? Here for example?~D

historical is fine - sociological and philosophical only as it has been applied to the legal system - if it has not been applied - its only opinion/theory. Legal gets a bit more difficult because you will also have to identify the country and the number of others that use the same system - might get to complex for an internet discussion.I readed a book about this I'll put this information for you here when I've time, because the book is in the University and I'll have to wait until monday. Legal is not that difficult really, there are general tendences wich can be indentified with both posstions.

I know several things about antropology - its a science - but its not a pure science. Reason and refutation - is part of the logical thought process if my memory serves me correctly.Yes they're, but as I said interpretation separetes one sciences from the others. Many attempted to introduce the pure logical or empiristic method on social study, it didn't work. It's not as Hegel said "acting full of spirit" but it's however the act of a being who can reason and for instance will not react always the same as a monkey. In the history the positivists tried to put the "feelings" and the "spirit" in the category of natural consequences, they didn't saw that there could be no link between the two, and that the natural world didn't affect the mind of the human being the same way twice. Being short, it was not a action-reaction kind of science.

So like I stated before its definitely not a pure science. ~D Your actually stating a lot of what I just said but in a more "scientific framework." But I did said it was not a pure science. Again refering to the law as a whole (statutes (lex scrita), jurisprudence, custom and doctrine), not the law in strict sense.

Hince the dilemnia - sociological science is not a hard science - which does not equate to a pure science in my understanding since it deals with behaviors, morals and ethics and how they effect society. (Hard Sciences are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics.)That discussion has taken place in the XIX century between the new "socilogists" and the old positivists (well the discussion was informally much more older). The result was (in the begining of XX century) considering sociological study and method
as a separate method inside sciences, but still sciences (in fact from the XVI the social sciences have being called sciences: "sciences of the spirit"). Today it's fully accepted. I don't remember is it was Hegel or Weber, but one of them introduced what's known today as "ideal models", wich describe a subject that's constituted with all kinds of requisits it must have to be subject of an experiment, a representation of an ideal man, wich is the a valid form of logics in social science. But yes as I know it social sciences (even if they include morals as a base) are just that, sciences.

Strike For The South

11-25-2005, 06:43

soul What Is Your Beef With The Greatest State In The Union

bmolsson

11-25-2005, 07:47

Just at 1/4 of my life - the other 3/4 of my time has been else where - so I wouldn't call it a major portion.

So you are nearly Mexican..... ~D

Prodigal

11-25-2005, 08:55

Wasn't gonna post on this thread, but just heard a news bulletin about "Gary Glitter", (you can google him if you don't know who he is, or find his "story" on the BBC website); apparently today things have developed he can now face a firing squad if convicted.

Redleg

11-25-2005, 16:16

So you are nearly Mexican..... ~D

Considering that my ancestory was in New Mexico about the same time that the land was ceded - then maybe so. ~:joker:

littlelostboy

11-26-2005, 01:05

A bit off-topic, but - how do you like it there? My wife and I are planning to make a vacation trip to Vietnam in March.
Any "must-sees" in Saigon?

Hmm, Saigon..... it's really really nice. Perhaps not nice but kind of like caught between the past and the present. Some people say that Saigon has the feel of old Paris or France.

Well, there are a few sightseeings you can do in Saigon but only a few and they are mostly musems: War Musem, Ho Chi Minh Musem and a few others. The War Musem would be interesting as I've been there before. At one part, you can see two twin baby or feutus came in a preservation jar. I'm not sure if its real or not but it certainly look gross.

But the main one would be the Chu Chi Tunnels. Located about 2 hours away from Saigon in the countryside. It is the tunnel network that the Vietcong used when fighting the U.S. and it is very vey extensive network. A very interesting place to learn and sightsee for half the day and yes, you get to crawl in a tunnel too. So it will be fun~D .

Finally, some helpful tips when you are in Saigon. A lot of people there can speak a bit of English and since you are cauasian, your skin will be your passport and the Vietnamese will be eager to help you. Careful though, when you are buying stuff, the Vietnamese might raise the prices. If you buy stuff from the street or from the open-air market, bargain and bargain.

There are also a lot of pickpockets and thefts. One would recieve notable comment and they are called the Saigon Cowboys, adept at stealing your wife's purse or your backpack from the road. What they do is that they will wait for tourists or people standing at the roadside and not paying attention. Then, with a motorcycle, one guy is driving and another guy, the pillion rider will lean out and snatch the purse, handbag or backpack etc. etc. from the 'blur' and shocked tourist. And they are very effecient. It has not happened to me but I've heard it has happened to a few of my friends.

Also, there are a lot of beggers. But don't give them money as most are fakes, they are either working for gangs or for their family. It is their 'jobs' to pester people like you until you give them. Big mistake! Cause once you do, a whole host of other beggers will come after you. So you will have to use your instinct and common sense of you is really a real begger. I would give money only to those who are crippled from the war or who have lost their limbs. Those people are at a real disadvantage and really need help.

Saigon is a really accessible place nowadays. In fact, you see many expats and tourists walking around, especially the japanese and the koreans. All you need is a guidebook and a map and then you can go off exploring Saigon.