YAY our law at work.

[Fragony]

Ok, a known pedophile is caught red-handed. He confesses no less then 8 rapes. Well that would be a good reason to lock him up no? Wrong, but that's not all. One of the girls had gone to the police, but they were 'too busy'. Useless as always but that is normal. But now the judge, he released them at once, even though he had confessed, and was caught in the act by the police? Now that is bizar enough on itselve. The same day he raped two more girls, they went to the police who reluctantly arrested him again, and guess what, the judge releases him again?? wtf?? This is just begging to take matters into own hand, but I guess that will get you the hammer of apocalypse.

[rory_20_uk]

Have you considered reducing the age for consent, and possibly grounds for consent? That would free up police time.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Haven't heard about this one yet. Got link?
EDIT: nevermind, I read the TYOLT.

It doesn't say that he raped another two girls the same day - it says that another victim reported to the police the day that he was released, and that another girl he was seen with the day before that might have been a victim as well.

[doc_bean]

This is just begging to take matters into own hand,

The saddest thing is, the guy sounds like he wants help (which would at least keep him of the streets for a while).

EDIT: well, not sadder than kids getting raped, obviously ...

[Fragony]

Haven't heard about this one yet. Got link?
EDIT: nevermind, I read the TYOLT.

It doesn't say that he raped another two girls the same day - it says that another victim reported to the police the day that he was released, and that another girl he was seen with the day before that might have been a victim as well.

My bad, steam must have blocked my view. It's on Geenstijl, rules prvent me from linking.

[Fragony]

Looks like there has been some misplaced outrage here, the guy is a pervert alright, but the kind that squeezes kids in their whatisitcalled their behind and runs of giggling. Now this isn't official yet, got to love the internet. I hope this is it or they might as well make an alternative power source out of me, I could power a small town for a year probably.

[HoreTore]

Looks like there has been some misplaced outrage here, the guy is a pervert alright, but the kind that squeezes kids in their whatisitcalled their behind and runs of giggling. Now this isn't official yet, got to love the internet. I hope this is it or they might as well make an alternative power source out of me, I could power a small town for a year probably.

We could hook some cables to you and put you infront of a screen showing

MUSLIM IMMIGRANT RAPES NATIVE WOMAN WHILE PLOTTING THE DOWNFALL OF THE WEST!!!

constantly, preferably blinking.

Suddenly the world wouldn't need oil anymore... You could save us all, Frag :smash:

[Fragony]

Putting in that in red wasn't a coincidence huh ~;)

[HoreTore]

Putting in that in red wasn't a coincidence huh ~;)

haha, a little paranoid over there, eh? :laugh4:

[Fragony]

haha, a little paranoid over there, eh? :laugh4:

I seriously wonder, was that with or without irony....

[HoreTore]

I seriously wonder, was that with or without irony....

The letters were red, because that's the colour of danger. Green wouldn't be suitable, because that's the colour of safety. Now go power my lightbulb :whip:

[Strike For The South]

shoot him:2thumbsup:

[Fragony]

Looks like there has been some misplaced outrage here, the guy is a pervert alright, but the kind that squeezes kids in their whatisitcalled their behind and runs of giggling.

No he isn't, the real thing, nice smokescreen. Nice. Open borders, pro-childrape judges, a safe-haven for every pervert in Europe. And these judges are in office for life. Why do I get the feeling childrape is being decriminalised?

[Husar]

Fragony, are you arguing with yourself already? :inquisitive: ~;)

I'm just a bit worried. :sweatdrop:

It's also very nice of your country to be the safe haven for perverts, that way we can concentrate them in a small region.

[Fragony]

Fragony, are you arguing with yourself already? :inquisitive: ~;)

I'm just a bit worried. :sweatdrop:

It's also very nice of your country to be the safe haven for perverts, that way we can concentrate them in a small region.

Gah just bitter I am getting so sick of it. Each night cars are set ablaze, police does nothing. Pedophiles galore, police isn't interested. Caught red handed, judge says have some more is ok. Old man who has never done anything wrong in his life writes an imam a letter expressing his concerns about the imam's remarks about Hirsi Ali (head of murder blood death the usual) and gets lifted from his bed in the middle of the night by a swatteam, how dare he question the value of islam to society. No referendum over constitution that isn't a constitution except that it is. Screw this leftist government, a pox upon their houses their wifels their children.

Gah

[InsaneApache]

You not getting a referendum as well? That's because you gave the wrong answer last time. :laugh4:

[Husar]

Hey, that's democracy, you can elect another party with similar policies in the next elections. :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

You not getting a referendum as well? That's because you gave the wrong answer last time. :laugh4:

Is what was promissed to us, but they gave it another name and didn't feel it was necesary anymore even if it is EXACTLY the same thing. Well minus the europe anthem lol, yeah that was why we voted against it, the anthem. This is by far the worst government we ever had, as if there never was a thing like Fortuyn, who, I cannot stress enough, was killed by a lone gunman who is not in any way a member of the extreme left, and did not, I repeat, did not, have two types of ammunition in his body.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It's also very nice of your country to be the safe haven for perverts, that way we can concentrate them in a small region.
Why not go a little step further, and restrict that safe haven to a circle with a radius smaller than a nuclear blast, and making it a country of its own? :skull:

Edit: seriously, about harsh/low sentences/law, I'm a bit annoyed that no country is sticking to a middle opinion - only the extremes seem to be implemented in practise today. In the harsh places, there is often death penalty and an attitude that "killing 100 innocents to get 1 guilty is ok". And in the places that go for tolerance, when the offender is mentally disturbed or has limited self-control and needs treatment, the man is often released with no consequences at all even in cases where it's obvious he will commit new offenses.

Why not stick to a system in between these extremes? A mentally disturbed offender without self-control needs treatment more than moral judgement to stand a chance of gaining an ability of self-control, but if he annoys and/or threatens others, there's a good reason to keep him locked up during the treatment. Just because you remove the sense of strict punishment and harsh moral judgement against people with mental problems of a type that limits their self-control, it doesn't mean you should skip keeping such individuals locked up while they're still not completely rehabilitated. What is interesting is that the (over-)tolerant places have lower crime rates than the harsh places despite letting criminals repeat their offenses a lot. This is most likely due to the less judgement-oriented attitude from society, which seems to be good at keeping the large majority of the population (the non-offenders) from becoming becoming criminals. But the refusal to lock up offenders while they're a danger to others (even if your moral judgement says they can't control themselves), does not help reducing crime rates or the safety of the innocent masses, that the law is intended to protect. Why not use a system which combines the best parts of both systems, namely: 1. limited moral judgement instead of demonizing attitude towards offenders, and 2. realizing the practicality and necessity of keeping people without self-control locked up before they've been treated completely? And perhaps also no. 3: if someone has committed repeated offenses despite mental treatment after the previous offenses, increase the time they're locked up when they're caught the 3rd, 4th or 100th time. In such a case, the person has been given many chances, as well as a supportive and understanding attitude rather than moral judgement from everyone around him, and it is obvious that none of these treatments could rehabilitate him. Again, you don't need moral judgement, just realize the necessity of keeping such a person locked up. He will realize that he's there not because he is a spawn of satan, but because he has kept committing offenses and must remain there for as long as there's no risk he will repeat them. And that in all possible tests with which you can with certainty determine that he won't repeat the offense (i.e. the multiple chances he got), he has refused to take. The society has a strong "casus belli" to keep him locked up - he has no "casus belli" whatsoever to complain about such a state of affairs.

[HoreTore]

Why not go a little step further, and restrict that safe haven to a circle with a radius smaller than a nuclear blast, and making it a country of its own? :skull:

And then claiming that they're supporting terrorists?

[Fragony]

Dear god, he got caught again..... now do mind, he just got released for the second time, and is about to be released for the third time no doubt.

[Furious Mental]

"And in the places that go for tolerance, when the offender is mentally disturbed or has limited self-control and needs treatment, the man is often released with no consequences at all even in cases where it's obvious he will commit new offenses."

In all fairness, it's usually the case that the judge is placed in the very difficult position of choosing between two highly undesirable outcomes:
- Offender is mentally disturbed and may reoffend;
- The chronically underfunded mental health system does not have room in secure facilities to hold him while he is treated;
- If he is sent to prison (which is a decidedly nasty place) he is extremely likely to commit some act of violence and his disorder will get worse in that environment;
- If he is released into the community (it would be exceptional if they were literally set free; they are generally subject to numerous conditions) he may abscond and/or reoffend, but the chances of him improving are better.

But unfortunately some people simply have a dysfunctional personality which renders them incapable of respecting others and society's rules in general, and makes them predisposed to violence.

[Fragony]

Yeah thier kind become judges here. That pro-pedo activist is now responsible for 11 rapes, and more to come because he will send him off again. But if you do what you have to do because those that don't just don't you get 8 years in prison. Sick country.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yeah thier kind become judges here. That pro-pedo activist is now responsible for 11 rapes, and more to come because he will send him off again. But if you do what you have to do because those that don't just don't you get 8 years in prison. Sick country.
Well, rather than doing what I assume you are thinking, you could always rape them brutally instead... :dizzy2: :wall: :oops:

[Rodion Romanovich]

"And in the places that go for tolerance, when the offender is mentally disturbed or has limited self-control and needs treatment, the man is often released with no consequences at all even in cases where it's obvious he will commit new offenses."

In all fairness, it's usually the case that the judge is placed in the very difficult position of choosing between two highly undesirable outcomes:
- Offender is mentally disturbed and may reoffend;
- The chronically underfunded mental health system does not have room in secure facilities to hold him while he is treated;
- If he is sent to prison (which is a decidedly nasty place) he is extremely likely to commit some act of violence and his disorder will get worse in that environment;
- If he is released into the community (it would be exceptional if they were literally set free; they are generally subject to numerous conditions) he may abscond and/or reoffend, but the chances of him improving are better.

But unfortunately some people simply have a dysfunctional personality which renders them incapable of respecting others and society's rules in general, and makes them predisposed to violence.
Such a situation should never be allowed to arise. If it does, it's a sign that that society is too poor to function properly and is probably in great need of sorting out its internal corruption, lowering the salaries of the very much overpaid politicians, and requesting foreign monetary aid.

If despite this the economical problems can't be solved, the judge has a dilemma. In such a situation, all human beings must however be considered of equal worth as a precondition, or at the very least - the criminal should be considered of no higher value than any other citizen. If there's a very great risk he will commit many repeated offenses (and he HAS already committed one by the time he comes to the judge!), locking him up is the only option. Him getting worse mentally ill in prison can be solved by simply moving around prisoners a bit so that certain isolated prisons or wards are devoted to sexual criminals and others to other criminals. Additionally, he can be released on probation, with an electronic device around the leg to check his position and make sure its possible to stop him if he tries to commit any new crime. If he is then caught just before he begins doing it, he can very much justifiably be put back in prison without having to hurt another victim.

[Fragony]

Such a situation should never be allowed to arise. If it does, it's a sign that that society is too poor to function properly and is probably in great need of sorting out its internal corruption, lowering the salaries of the very much overpaid politicians, and requesting foreign monetary aid.

Money can become the problem when there is just too much to spend, our idealists are perfectionists, but no such thing as perfection. This guy will be treated by psycholigists with academic tunnelvision, it has to be explained from their discipline, we pay them to do that. They will do what they can. After that he will be declared fit for society, and problems in the neightbourhood that will arise will be explained by sociologists with the same curse, and we pay them as well. Everything gets solved but the problem and a lot of money changes hands, but some people just cannot be helped simple as that.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Money can become the problem when there is just too much to spend, our idealists are perfectionists, but no such thing as perfection. This guy will be treated by psycholigists with academic tunnelvision, it has to be explained from their discipline, we pay them to do that. They will do what they can. After that he will be declared fit for society, and problems in the neightbourhood that will arise will be explained by sociologists with the same curse, and we pay them as well. Everything gets solved but the problem and a lot of money changes hands, but some people just cannot be helped simple as that.
The rehabilitation of criminals is a subject which is so full of prejudice, taboo, and other things that I doubt it has ever been very scientific or academic. Most of the research results aren't papers exploring the causes of crime, but most of them rather seem to be presentations of "a new treatment form", later to be proven absolutely useless, where a lot of the points in the treatment form seem to be taken out of the blue or by a doubtful reference to another similar, useless paper, rather than supported by scientific methods. Another problem is that all measurable quantities are very loosely correlated to all quantities that are philosophically believed to be the most interesting ones to measure.

If we are to reason about the causes of crime - which I personally think are much more interesting both for the sake of improving the legal system and the treatment of criminals - I'd say I think that all crimes probably have one or more of the following causes:
- extreme burden of real threats causing accumulated fear, frustration and panic. These threats may be the same as what the criminal strikes against, (example: a poor man may commit theft), but they may also be something else than what the criminal strikes against (example: a young criminal who has problems getting any job/future at all, may strike not in the form of a robbery or theft, but by a random act of violence against a randomly chosen innocent person)
- perceived (imagined) threats. The criminal imagines a non-existing threat and feels a need to strike against it. May be caused by the former point. Naturally, there are also situations lying in between this and the former point. A threat may have probability 0.8 of turning into a real, dangerous situation, for example, or the probability may be hard to estimate, and to be sure, the person chooses a higher probability estimate.
- calculation. The criminal sees that the expected utility of committing a crime is higher than not committing it, based on his judgement of what utility is, and that the solved-crime rates and sentences are low. This may be reinforced by an irrational feeling of invincibility, and/or a risk-taking personality, and/or greed. Greed is interesting - it can be both a sexual-status seeking procedure, or a desire for greater margins against threats in a seemingly very unstable society

The most sensible way of eliminating the first of these causes would seem to be, in society, to remove as many as possible of all real threats that a large enough minority of the population considers to be unethical, unjustified and highly stressful. One example is that there's no guarantee that the next elected government will not remove all social security in a way such that the poorest will starve, or war will cause blockade of food supply. One example of how it can be solved: make it part of the constitution that certain types of social security - in particular enough money for food supply - should be provided always, and make sure the country is self-supporting in terms of food, even if this costs more money than importing food. This was just an example and shouldn't be taken too literally. But indeed there is reason to worry about food supply: cheating with quality, addition of dangerous chemicals, increasing prices, no VAT reduction for food compared to other products, future environmental problems are likely to reduce harvests and causes a massive immigration of hungry people, and it's known that a new economical crisis similar to the 1930ies depression could cause massive starvation even in places such as Europe and America. I see no argument why society shouldn't always strive to do its best to eliminate all risks of such threats that it can. A good argument for eliminating all such threats is the sheer amount and scale of the massive world problems we have today, and that all continuation of crime costs society a huge amount of money, which causes more crime, which causes more loss of money etc etc. Political, mathematical, economical and historical research could take us very far in this field, especially as a lot of these threats/risks could be removed rather easily and without any cost.

As for the second point, it remains an open question how many criminals actually belong to this group, and where you should draw the line in terms of probability (how likely is it that the threat has bad consequences) and magnitude of the threat (what consequences it could have, at worst). Personally I believe there's always some degree of imagination involved, but one shouldn't underestimate the magnitude of the real threats that may cause accumulated stress, frustration and irrationality, which trigger an increased tendency to act on imagined threats.

The most sensible way of treating the third type seems quite obvious too: to demonstrate principles by an effective police force, a high solved-crimes rate, and no redeeming circumstances when persons are found guilty of a crime caused merely by cold calculation. I'm convinced that almost all sexual crimes belong to this group, which is why, I assume, most people (correctly) have much less understanding and sympathy for sexual criminals than for any other forms of criminals.

The first point should mostly be applied before crime is committed. It will have little importance to rehabilitation other than by possible giving the criminals time with economical and labor market advisors or similar rather than time with psychiatrists if point one seemed the major cause (but if such advisors as needed, the society system is too complex, and/or the information about it given in schools and publicly available folders too little, so the better solution is to improve THAT). The third point is for example solved by improving the capabilities of drawing a sharp line between calculation-based crime, improving the police, and maintaining a well-functioning system over a few years. The second point is really the only one where any form of psychology could be of any use. As mentioned: I'm not sure that more than a very small number of criminals actually belong to this group so the effects of applying such measures after crime, as a means of rehabilitation to avoid repetition, are probably limited. The greatest potential in crime reduction IMO lies in pre-work under the first point.

[Fragony]

The third kind is the only ones we have, in a country such as the netherlands crime is a choice, no common goods problems, here you are poor when you have to skip a trip. They do what they do because they can, because nobody will stop them because their perfectionist self will not accept imperfection and will look for ways to blame it on society. Sexual offenders, and especially this sort, the kiddie-rapist, are the worst type of scum, they consider their needs to be more important then anything else, such nihilism can't be treated.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I disagree that there's only criminals of the third type, especially when it comes to a lot of violence and economically related crime. Crime rates were much lower in the 50ies and 60ies in most European countries, where social security was generally better, society cared more for the individual, and there were very few parts of the major cities that could rightly be denoted ghettos. There was also a much smaller feeling of not being good enough to be respected for who you are at that time. The main changes since then is decreasing functionality of the social security, and the increase of the demands on all human beings. After all, if you're expected to work a lot of unpaid overtime etc to keep almost any job, wouldn't you be disappointed if you still get a shitty salary and disgusting working conditions, and have to live in a ghetto, and can't get any partner to live with because you're ashamed of your low status and know you can't afford lawyers to defend you if you ever got into a fight with someone, so that you're essentially a less worth and less safe alternative to choose, for anyone who would consider marrying you? Our right to basic respect for who we are, safety and freedom was removed by society the moment they claimed all the land in the country, and claimed a right to tax any piece of land or house you have in it, and forbids you to just go and find a free spot in the nearest forest to grow your own food and/or hunt your own animals for food. Thus, society must provide this for us. Any infringements society imposes to our safety and right to be respected and have a right to defend ourselves (on equal terms with the opponent) against unprovoked attacks against us, or deal with conflicts caused by misunderstandings, are unjustified and it should be every politician and citizen's greatest struggle to fight and eliminate such regulations and emergent properties that exist in the society system.

Sex performed in odd ways against the will of the partner, however, is someting you can't claim society is immoral if it takes away from you, because it hasn't taken it away from you - that "right" doesn't exist. I also think most sexual criminals are aware of this. Therefore, I think the most effective way of decreasing the amounts of pedophilia, rape, necrophilia, group rape and so on, is to consequently put proven offenders into jail. The demonstration that such crimes don't pay off is the only way to solve them.

As for the theft and type 1 crime, the solving of the problems causing segregation, poverty, and formation of ghettos, is the only way to solve their type of crime - usually theft, robbery, and violence. Nothing implies that harsher sentences decreases the crime rate among such groups, in fact, most statistics imply it increases the crime rate among them.

I'm sad to see that very few make this important distinction, as both extreme systems (over-tolerance against all crime types, vs over-harshness against all crime types) we have today increases crime rates to much higher levels than what is necessary, when in reality we could live in a much more friendly and safe society form (as proven by the 50ies and 60ies [with a few traces left of it even in the 70ies and 80ies]).

[IrishArmenian]

Absolutely terrible! Disgusting! I agree with Doc, it sounds like the guy does want a bit of help or realized what a monster he is.
And to think I thought this would be another Frag -bashing-other-cultures thread! Shame.