I’d round up a mob and lynch him, is that the answer you want to here? We live in a country of laws and the machinery of the law is working. You get Due Process no matter how icky and horrible your crimes were.
Monty is being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal?
I think my head just exploded.
So, MadSam, which do you prefer? Justice, as society has agreed upon, with all its due process? (I note the guy is in prison already.) Or vengeance? Which becomes whatever the vengeful individual thinks it should be?
I often wonder why some people believe that my thought out and heartfelt belief in the goodness of law and due process would be magically altered by the fact that a crime occurs in my family. I see no need to return to the days of vengeance and feuds. Certainly I would hope and expect that the offender would be sent to jail/prison. This offender has.
Did you miss the part where it is stated that he is being paid out of vacation time? And that after his vacation is used up, he will be on unpaid leave until UW succeeds in firing him? (It is a no-brainer that UW will succeed.) Had the laws of Wisconsin or the rules of the University allowed him to be fired on the spot, he would still have received that money. Do you have a point somewhere?
Lets do as you all say…adhere to the laws and avoid vengence.
How many judges have you read or heard about who had culprits with repeated rapes of young children who either gave the molester a suspended sentence or a few months in the slammer. This is all legal… Do any of you have any negative ripples of emotion against these judicial decisions or can you all sleep at night because the laws were followed?
Are you comfortable with the above by just saying: The laws should be changed in this regard?
None, actually.
Ditto.
Any other straws you wish to grasp at?
This is a pretty intense change of subject from your OP. The criminal referenced in your OP received neither a suspended sentence nor a few months in the slammer. Perhaps you might like to start a new thread?
I have never heard of a judge who gave “culprits with repeated rapes of young children” a suspended sentence or a few months in the slammer. Perhaps you would care to cite some, or one?
Within the last decade.
Where “rape” means forced sexual intercourse (the standard definition).
Where “young children” means someone 12 or younger.
Just out of curiosity, how many of the criminal’s legal contracts should be instantly nullified upon conviction? Tenure? The mortgage on his house? His marriage? Royalties from publication of his writings or licensing on his patents? Residuals from past television appearances? Should all his current legal contracts be terminated?
Just wondering.
You do not know, because I haven’t bothered to tell you and especially because it’s none of your business, what has or has not happened to anyone in my family or to my close friends over the years. At any rate, thatt is irrelevant to the legal and moral issues at hand.
I respect the laws because I believe the system in the United States is the best thing going–for both those who are accused of crimes and those who have been the victims of crimes.
Possibly not. You see, I recognize the simple fact that if the man is unlawfully terminated from his government employment, the government will be in a severe bind when it comes to paying the man reparation. The governnment paying the man equals the taxpay paying the man. I also recognize that if the man lived next door to me, then he’s not convicted yet or he’s out on bail or he’s on parole or he’s living under the offender’s registration requirements.
I also recognize that if the man is unlawfully forced out of his home, he will have recourse and if it was a governmental agency that forced him out of his home, then that’s the taxpayer footing the ensuing reparation to the man.
Your posting is strawman city.
As we have already been doing: thinking critically. You see, I noticed in the story as it’s been posted on this board so far, the accused did not say he’s guilty; he said he’s not contesting the charges. In court, that seems to have the same effect as a guilty plea. Perhaps it doesn’t have the same effect when it comes to appeals when his employer’s trying to fire him. Hey, maybe it’s an important thing when evidence somehow surfaces (just a possibillity–I’m not saying it’s likely nor even that it’ll happen) that the man’s not guilty and then decides to take legal action against the employer (read: taxpayer funded institution) that unlawfully dismissed him.
Actually, on some things I am a bleeding heart liberal (BHL). Just not on many. And I’m certainly not a bleeding heart liberal if I’m expecting a convict to be permitted his lawful appeals.
Is there a doctor in the house?! Oops. Seriously, I don’t think you have to worry about your head exploding since I’m not much of a BHL after all.
I also don’t know of any. I do know of a man in my city who was recently released from jail after spending 14 years there because he was falsely accused and convicted of the rape of a young woman. I also know that a very dear friend of mine was falsely accused of being a sex predator. As a result, he was socially ostracized and his wife ended their marriage. The truth eventually came out and the principle participants are now known to have ended several marriages and frienships, but only after he moved back to my city and his marriage was over. This man is one of my closest friends and I knew the accusations were ludicrous. I was so sure of him that, even though I am a single female and he is over a foot taller than me and significantly stronger, I allowed and indeed encouraged him to stay at my place until he got settled. I know what the accusations did to him; I gather that people sincerely believed them.
I also remember the witch hunts of the 1980’s when the people who ran day care centers were accused of ritual child abuse and molestation. The memories of the children were later found to have been influenced by therapists. (For more information on recovered memory, see here.)
Damn right I’m in favor of law and order and due process. Without them, the weak are entirely too vulnerable. That appears to be what’s happening in this case, and I support it. The concepts of “innocent until proven guilty” and due process are among the founding principals of this country and among the things which make me proudest to be an American.
Yes, I want to see this man in prison and to have him pay the price for the damage he’s done. I even support the death penalty in some cases. Before the state takes away his liberty, though, I want it to be well determined that he is the culprit. Otherwise, if someone else is responsible (a slim chance in this case, I gather), one more innocent person will be added to that person’s list of victims.
Respectfully,
CJ
From time to time, I ask to people making this kind of statement what they would think if it were their son who was accused of child molestation, murder, or whatever, and whether or not they would still think that the rights of people accused of odious crimes are too protected, and that due process of law shouldn’t apply to their child.
Generally, these “critical thinkers” are unmoved (though I changed once the opinion of a mother about death penalty with this argument). The “hardliners” think that they or they children could be victims but essentially never stop to consider that they or their kids could be the accused.
Half-related, I think the same thing when I read conmments of people enthousiastic at the idea that some ugly criminal will be raped in jail (besides the fact that it doesn’t tell much good about their moral values and the fact that actually it doesn’t happen). Weirdly enough, they never seem to envision that said ugly criminal could be the rapist behind the bars, instead of the other way around.
[hijack]Is there such a thing as a bleeding heart moderate or conservative?
I’ve never understood why “bleeding heart” was such a perjorative anyway, as Jesus is portrayed as having a bleeding heart quite frequently.[/hijack]
MadSam’s argument boils down to, “What if you were really emotional about it and completely illogical? What then, hm?” There’s a reason that relatives of victims aren’t allowed on the jury. Their judgment is clouded by emotion. It’s beyond a “strawman” argument to take the position MadSam has taken. It can be distilled as, “I know my position is illogical, but if you were illogical you’d agree with me.”
That being said, it looks like there’s really no debate here since few would really argue that it’s an option for UW to withhold his vacation pay or terminate his employment without due process (that decision isn’t even in the hands of the dept. that actually pays his salary, most likely). O’Reilly misrepresented the facts.
I don’t know if O’Reilly misrepresented the facts as I didn’t see the show, there’s nothing on the website, AFAIK, as of a few moments ago, and we just have the OP’s take on the man’s comments. I would like to see what was really said.
If O’Reilly is merely outraged that there’s no automatic dismissal provision in the law for a state employee convicted of a felony, then that’s one thing, a different thing than what’s purported to have been said.
The website This Year’s Model provided shows that the university is seeking to amend certain provisions relating to personnel issues concerning those employees convicted of serious offenses. As the university concerned is a state-run institution, I would venture to say that would require the legislature’s action at some point to amend certain laws relating to state employees.
I didn’t see it either, so I should say, “O’Reilly misrepresented the facts if he said anything like what the OP suggests.” Of course, if the OP walked away with this ill-informed sense of boiling outrage, it’s because that’s exactly what O’Reilly is selling.
I like O’reilly even more now having read your letters. Of course, CNN and BBS are far more knowledgeable than Fox News. None of you have expressed any concern for the victims of child molesters. But your concern for the poor, downtrodden criminials truly is heart rendering. :smack:
Actually, sir or madam, I have. Unlike you, however, I have also expressed sympathy for those who have been falsely accused. The idea of penalizing someone and ruining his life without taking the trouble to find out whether he committed the crimes he accused of goes against the very principles America was founded on. Indeed, I hate to break it to you, but the presumption of guilt, not innocence, is basic principle of the French legal system.
It’s easy to make accusations. I could very easily accuse you of sending me harrassing and offensive e-mails, calling me on the telephone, and generally making me fear for my safety. The standards you’re advocating would have you banned immediately without any investigation lest the SDMB appear soft on criminals.
Punish the guilty by all means, but let’s at least have the courtesy, common decency, and common sense to make sure they are, in fact guilty. Otherwise, as I said earlier, yet another innocent victim suffers while a criminal walks free.
CJ