Funny how it all comes full circle.
For years conservatives have been pushing for harsher punishment, liberals for more treatment. Now it’s becoming, “Want harsher punishment? Leave the country!” Followed, of course, by a :rolleyes:
Yet the standard “America, love it or leave it.” has been derided and decried by liberals for decades. And, of course, always followed by a :rolleyes:
Then what were you saying with your left-handed “draw the obvious conclusions” rhetoric?
How can you hold up Saudi as an example of effective criminal justice, say “draw the obvious conclusions”, then whine when I call you on the fact that you’re suggesting we model our justice system more on Saudi’s, which is brutal and dictatorial?
There are other countries with very low crime rates, but you didn’t use them as an example. You cited Saudi Arabia by name, where they cut off people’s limbs, flog cross-dressers, execute people for witchcraft, and have no guarantees of personal freedom.
If you don’t want people to “draw the obvious conclusion” that you condone Saudi’s practices, then don’t use them as an example. Cry foul all you want, pal, it gets no traction with me.
As for the suggestion that you go there, maybe while you’re asking for accurate representation of a poster’s words, you might have tried citing the following line from my post. Perhaps I should have added some emphasis:
That better?
By the way, in my experience there are few people who actually want to coddle violent criminals. There are many more people by far who want to dispense with procedures that protect the accused. Your example of Saudi Arabia leads me to suspect that you may be in the latter camp. Hard to tell, though, since you don’t really have much of substance to say.
Harsher penalties are the easy knee-jerk response. Usually, as in the current debate in Florida I cited in my related Lunsford/Couey thread cited above, the “kill 'em all” mentality that steamrolls “get tough” legislation does more harm than good, and it’s cheerleaders like you who impel it.
Everybody got scared of pushers selling crack to our kids, so we got minimum mandatories. Result? An overburdened justice system, which leads to more plea bargains overall (for reasons cited by Lissa), more government spending in areas other than crime prevention, more non-drug offenders getting out earlier, and fewer workers per parolee to try to keep tabs on them.
The people who actually work in this field are pleading with lawmakers not to rush into blanket “get tough” measures, which they (the pros) know won’t do any good. It works in Saudi because those motherfuckers are brutal beyond belief and have their hands in everyone’s private affairs. Low crime rates in Japan, for example, are not attributable to such methods.
Just stop for a few minutes and think, and do some research, before you go singing the praises of Saudi fucking Arabia.
I would guess (and I really don’t have much beyond a knowledge of sociology to back this up) that part of the low crime rates in those countries is cultural.
Saudi Arabia is an intensely religious country in which faith is still the center of many people’s lives. (The United States, by contrast, is a largely secular nation.) Japan is a nation in which, culturally, dscipline, honor and dignity are highly prized. (Even to this day, Japanese subways are as quiet as a tomb and a model of cooperative behavior.)
Criminologists and sociologists have studied and debated for years just what it is in the American psyche which makes us, as a culture, more violent. It’s a different thread, but there are aspects of the American culture which are somewhat different from the rest of the world.
Jeez, nobody picked up on this?
“Still, two of the biggest issues with sex offenses are a) The accusation is as good as a conviction, it’s a scarlet letter, whether your’re actually guilty or not. b) What constitutes a sex offense in many cases is so broad, that probably 80% of the population has committed a sex offense, without, of course, having been charged.”
What fucking planet are you on, asshole? Sex offenses remain the most under-reported crime there is, and victims still get villified and called sluts. What constitutes a ses offense—gee, I know! Let’s define sex offenses from the perspective of someone who sees a sexual assault as sexual, rather than that of the person who’s actually harmed by it–the victim. With your whining about the ‘accusation being enough’ you sound like Mathhew Hale. Problem is? Hale lived in the seventeenth century.
" "It is true rape is a most detestable crime, and therefore ought severely and impartially to be punished with death; but it must be remembered, that it is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho never so innocent. "
Yeah, how times change.
Black455, your cite is a bit suspicious because it comes from a site called ‘sex offender management.’ Of course, they want sex offenders to be regarded as manageable.
But should prison be about punishment or rehabilitaion?
The majority of prisoners in America (and everywhere else) are not there for Life or Death. Perhaps more focus should be put on rehabilitaion. The punishment is having a loss of freedom…wouldn’t it be a good thing if that loss of freedom created rehabilitated people rather the really angry fucks?
You have the death penalty. How much more extreme do you want/need? Seems Saudi Arabai is the next best option.
If deterrence was EVER a factor in crime there would be NO crime. Hell for most of us being told off by a police officer for speeding is wayyyyy deterent enough.
The MAJORITY of those who commit crimes do not share our moral code. That is the problem and that is why we should have a focus on rehabilitation.
I would WANT to hurt anyone who hurt my child…I just don’t want society to do it for me. Yes there are some freaks who had happy-happy-joy-joy lives and went on to do evil, but most crims led less then picture perfect lives. They probably want to be rehabilitated as much as we want them too be. It isn’t odd to see how many sexual abusers were sexually abused. It’s not an excuse but it does put them behind the 8 ball in learning how to “be” in society.
They’re angry fucks to begin with. (I notice you don’t mention the anger of the victims)
Prison is about punishment. That’s why they’re there. Do the crime, pay the time and all that.
I’m not against rehab. It would be stupid and counter-intuitive to not try for it. What I’m suggesting is the shitbag serves his or her punishment, then has a chance to rehab and show they deserve a second chance in society with the rest of us.
It’s a better option than the dead little girls have.
Of course, I want the death penalty for anyone that rapes and kills a child, but I’m willing to go my suggested route to see if it might work.
But in all honesty, I don’t think even that will work. I just don’t think people that do this shit should ever see the light of day again. It’s a hard-line and severe stance, but I’m not in any position to do more than offer my opinion. Maybe it’s for the best. One thing I won’t do is apologize for my feelings on this.
Hey duffer I would never want you apologise for your feelings. I just don’t want to apologise for mine.
In GENERAL (yes I know there are many exceptions to this) violent criminals have not had pleasant lives. You are a good law abiding type, who knows what you could have been given the wrongest of starts to life.
I believe prison is as much about punishment as it is about rehabilitation. Or should be anyway.
That kid being abused behind doors just down the (hypothetical) street from you will grow up and take his anger out on someone else.
I believe our societies are too consumed with retribution and punishment to stop for a moment and think about intervention and rehabilitaion.
We need to start putting ambulances at the top of cliffes.
See, I think the big problem with discussing rehabiliation is that you can’t conflate violent and non-violent offenders. John Douglas and Robert K.Ressler, two former FBI agents, have drawn that line. Non-violent offenders are a good bet for rehabilitation, but they say that somebody’s who’s repeatedly been violent might not be redeemable. It’s an interesting theory, definitely.
Before the personal insults fly, can I ask for a cite to those two gentlemen? Stating that will require backing it up, and not doing so will vilify you. Just trying to help as I agree with the statements.
Again, offer the cite before the loons trash your name.
Why would anyone ask for a cite? It’s explicitly stated as a hypothetical, not fact.
Personal insults? Jeez, that’s exactly the sort of statement that causes personal insults to fly.
John Douglas and Robert K. Ressler both have had several books a piece on the NY Times best seller list.
It’s an idea, not a fact.
Somehow I missed the “theory” part. My apologies. My previous post wasn’t an attack in any way. But I am interested in reading what they have to say as, again, I agree with them. If it’s not linkable, is it in anything I could peruse at the library or at any other site?
And only now do I notice you said they have bestselling books. :smack: Never mind. Thanks for your time and patience in cluing me in. :o
My pleasure. I 'm sorry I got a bit impatient. FWIW, I believe that your best bet is Ressler. It’s been ages since I read the books in question—when their books are current, they’re always on the NY Times best seller list—and they’re all boxed up in my basement. If I can paraphrase a bit, the author talks about how many criminals commit crimes against property, and that violence in a criminal must be regarded quite seriously. He also makes the point that one must consider what one will be rehabilitating such a criminal back TO. He also talks about how one must intervene quite early in the violent criminal, that the stage might be set a great deal earlier than it’s popular to believe.
Really, he believes in rehabilitation, but not for the habitually-violent offender. He says that the violence tends to escalate, if the person is a sex offender. And that’s all I can remember without caffeine.
Not in the slightest. For ten years, they have been caged up and kept apart from society, as should be. That is the emphasis, not some hypothetical what-if.
thanks for proving my point. The fact that they virtually all prisoners will be released from prison at some point is not some hypothetical what-if. The fact that prisoners who serve their full sentences are not in the system and not under the watch of parole officers is not some hypothetical what-if.
It wasn’t an emotional appeal. Nor am I advocating turning them into “punitive hell holes”. I’m saying put them in prison and keep them there, period. Most criminals think of prison sentences these days as nothing more than a vacation at state expense because they know they aren’t going to be in there all that long. Prison is not a deterrent at all to them. But if they knew they were going to do every day of their sentence and that sentence would be long, I cannot help but feel that prison would then function as a deterrent.
As far as I’m concerned, Couey has used up all his breathing rights, and I don’t give a flip what happens to him, no matter how nasty it might be. He’s a disgusting affront to what it means to be a man.
That said, as a man I also want to be smart about how I deal with guys like Couey. My basic goal is to see that girls and women aren’t subject to their predations. What I’m all for is doing whatever kind of studies or research it takes to find out what it would take to reduce their chances of preying on others down to some tiny fraction of one percent, and how much that would cost. Then do the most cost-effective thing that would provide the most protection. To me, this is simple logic.
For example, Lissa makes an interesting point when she sites the fact that her husband has little or no resources to rehabilitate prisoners. that’s dumb, if we’re releasing them.
Call me a bleeding heart if you like, but I think a lot of people who are red-hnot about Couey are doing more than a little bleeding at the brain. Bleeding-brain conservatives. I like that.