Kolya on 27/5/2009 at 00:58
Tocky, what you made up is a case of self-defense, that is covered by existing law and doesn't interfere with human rights in any way. Basically you could shoot the rapist in this situation.
Does it make me cold blooded that I know a bit about the subject and don't go for the emotional reaction at hand? It is a crime we're talking about and for good reasons crime is handled by law, not by opinion polls.
Quote Posted by fett
I wonder if pressed, whether those inalienable rights or the right to protection for innocents is primary?
When is "if pressed"? If you mean that a sentenced child molester is expected to re-offend by SPECIALISTS (not by the mom next door), then he should get psychological treatment, possibly in a closed ward. This is in fact often part of the sentence, at least here around, and these people have to undergo that treatment on top of their jail-time. Again there is no conflict with their human rights.
But if someone has done their time and the court says they're free to go, and you go to their door with rubber bands and a kitchen knife to castrate the child molester or chop off the thief's hands or cut out the liar's tongue, just so you can feel more secure, then you're outside of the law and a criminal. And if you're waiting with an armed gun behind the curtain to shoot off the bastard's head, in case he ever dares to look at a child again, then you're a danger to the society you pretend to protect. (And a nutcase.)
Tocky on 27/5/2009 at 01:18
Fair enough. But I don't see why a molester can't be offered castration for a reduced sentence (if they truely do want to be rid of the burden of thier warped sexuality there is the chance). I don't see why sentences can't be tougher. I don't see anything wrong with protecting your children by knowing the location of molesters whether they are parents or single.
I just want kids to be safe. I'm getting damned sick of reading about childrapers. Maybe I am mad and not thinking clearly but the level of depravity for losing it and killing one of the bastards doesn't approach the level of depravity for raping a child. I fully support your right to jail me if I do though. Okay?
I didn't exactly pull that situation earlier out of my ass either. Read the novel "Joe" by Larry Brown. Don't worry, he is very criticly acclaimed.
I almost want to apologize to vigil and sdm because they were at least funny but they have been around so little they assumed I am an idiot. I'm just sick and tired. I know I'm emoting but I can't seem to help it on this subject. But they were assholes who put nothing on the table but mockery whereas Muzzy and Koyla were thoughtful. Sorry if I insulted anyones pets. Hows that?
fett on 27/5/2009 at 01:27
@ Koyla: Again - agreed. When I say "pressed" I mean if I was forced to choose between protecting an innocent and protecting a known molester's rights, I would choose the former, based not on what is fair, but on the high rate of recidivism. Is that fair to the reformed, rehabilitated molester? Of course not. Which is why the law tries to preserve both with neighborhood offender notices, online search databases, etc. But if I had to choose between letting the guy live next door and hoping he's truly reformed, or locking him away again simply on suspicion that he will act again, I would lock him away. My (somewhat flawed) reasoning is that he's already perpetrated what is in my mind the ultimate crime - predation and violation of an innocent, whereas the kids in my neighborhood have done nothing and shouldn't be put at risk because society wants to give a molester a second chance. In other words, I wouldn't sacrifice the safety of future victims on the altar of human rights for the perpetrator. Like Stitch said, that's a slippery slope that we shouldn't have to go down, but the parent in me has a lot of trouble being bothered by that. That's where I wholeheartedly empathize with Tocky. Hopefully the fact that I recognize my own lack of objectivity is a sign that clearer thinking is on the horizon (for myself).
I do think the sentences should more acurately reflect those high rates because it not only keeps an established predator locked up for longer, but it sends a strong message to potential offenders that such behavior will be met with strong consequences. While they are serving those long sentences, I'm all for rehabilitation, despite it's piss poor success rate. As is stands in the U.S., the short sentences for child assault (not murder) send the message that we place very little value on the innocence of kids. (edit: ) Which makes my knee jerk reaction to child rape stories much more radical.
Tocky on 27/5/2009 at 02:00
Very well said, Fett.
dj_ivocha on 27/5/2009 at 03:09
Quote Posted by Tocky
But I don't see why a molester can't be offered castration for a reduced sentence (if they truely do want to be rid of the burden of thier warped sexuality there is the chance).
Since when do people need dicks to rape?
Tocky on 27/5/2009 at 03:16
You don't even take the dick. You take the thing which produces the testosterone and thus the desire. It would only work on those who don't also get off on cutting the heads off after torturing them. But you are correct in that women can rape.
Vigil on 27/5/2009 at 11:52
Were I to take off my cheap paper troll hat, my contribution to this thread would be that I find it alarming that parenthood and the hormonal kindling of deep-set instincts which attend it are used not just as an excuse for, but also a vindication of, vicious and reactionary attitudes.
You've admitted that as parents you find it impossible to be detached and objective about sex offenders, or to separate your protective instincts from your views about the proper application of justice. That's a creditable perspective to have. But you've also implied that this lack of objectivity is a noble thing - some essential part of being a parent that is to be cherished - and that the melodramatic revenge fantasies in which you've framed this issue are a healthy outlet for frustration over the safety of your children.
It's not, and they aren't. The compulsion to evaluate every person, every public policy and every judgement of law primarily in terms of threats to one's own children is understandable, but it's neither helpful nor commendable nor ethically responsible. It breeds insularity and systemic distrust and it has undermined the legal presumption of innocence. The price of absolute safety for your children isn't the smaller one of a sex offender's individual human rights, but the larger and less tangible one of what a culture becomes when it stops trusting itself. I think Muzman gave (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1862407#post1862407) one pretty good example of what that price is.
snowcap21 on 27/5/2009 at 12:26
I tried to check a few facts, which isn't easy since many of the numbers you're presented with seem to be only estimations. But I've read, that about 90% of those, who molest children, aren't paedophiles at all, but would normally prefer adults as sexual partners. They pick the children as their victims because it's easier. So putting all the blame on paedophiles seems to lead away from the real problem.
On the other hand (even more complicated to get numbers here, because not many dare to admit their paedophilic inclination due to the social stigmatisation) there seem to be many paedophiles, that try really hard to keep away from children, because they know that living their phantasies would hurt them. They could use some help, and I think as long as they sucessfully suppress their urges they can even demand some respect, because they have no way to lead a normal sexual relationship. Offering the help before anything happens also means, that you have at least some sort of control and you'd hopefully learn more about the problem/dangerous situations/temptations.
Since most of the cases of child abuse seem to start "small" and without force, I do have the hope, that teaching children very early that it's their right to say no in certain situations and that they should talk about incidents, which confuse them, can help a lot.
I also agree with what Vigil said, especially the last paragraph. Ignoring human rights, even that of a sex offender, also destroys the basis of the moral system.
fett on 27/5/2009 at 12:42
I agree with you Vigil - it's why I would never want to be in a position to create policy or draft law concerning the issue. It may sound dopey, but becoming a parent is very akin to falling in love, where your logic and good sense are often overwhelmed by very powerful emotion. I know this is true of myself - probably more so than some others because I thought I couldn't have kids and then didn't think I'd live to see them beyond the age of five. I tend to be much more sappy and protective about my kids than is probably healthy, and I'm trying to correct that before it screws them up. I'm sure there are parents who can separate themselves from those emotions to make fair judgments about criminal law, and I'm grateful for our society that they exist. I just have to acknowledge that I'm simply not one of them (yet). I hope to be - I'm trying to be.
Given that 90something% of molestations are perpetrated by friends, family members, or even older kids, Tocky and I are reacting mostly to the image of the molester who stalks a kid, kidnaps him at gunpoint, etc. which rarely, rarely happens. But the thought of it is so awful and life-destroying that all other considerations go out the window. As snowcap said - it's more an issue of teaching kids what's appropriate and making sure they know to tell someone if it starts, than about arming ourselves to fend off the teeming mobs of baby-rapers beating down our doors to fondle our kids.
Queue on 27/5/2009 at 12:54
...or Jehovah's Witnesses.
