It's a small, ugly world

[srellim234]

I'm interested in starting a discussion about our treatment of molesters in this country.

Since this story has been been all over the news, I may as well let you know. My heart is pretty heavy even though I switched away from that religion years ago.

This was my high school principal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12abuse.html?_r=2

[heliochrome85]

I'm interested in starting a discussion about our treatment of molesters in this country.

Since this story has been been all over the news, I may as well let you know. My heart is pretty heavy even though I switched away from that religion years ago.

This was my high school principal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/12abuse.html?_r=2

disgusting. absolutely disgusting.

[srellim234]

At the same time, I find that some of our treatment of "molesters" is ridiculous. This practice of making "molesters" register and put their pictures and addresses on the internet amounts to a life sentence for some crimes that are getting labelled as sex crimes that aren't. Some leeway should be given dependent upon the nature of the crime, is it a repeat offender, psychiatric care received, etc. We are currently giving those lifetime sentences to many people who really don't deserve it and forcing the really bad offenders underground which defeats the purpose of the lists.

[IBCoupe]

The lists are completely abhorrent to any sense of justice. If you're being punished, it shouldn't be because we don't like you or because we don't like your taste in women. It should be because you pose a danger to society. And if you're a danger to society, you should be separated from it, and we, as a society, should share some of the pain of separating people from society so that we don't do it willy-nilly.

Putting people on registries and setting them free allows us to continue to ruin their lives without taking on any of the pain ourselves. What the hell do we care what trouble you go through? No skin off my back.

If you're out of prison, it should be because you're no longer a danger to society. If you're no longer a danger to society, then we should let you live freely. If you're so dangerous as to need to be tracked, we should keep you in prison longer.

And despite the popular notions, recidivism among sexual abusers and child molesters are among the lowest of any crime, and have been since long before registries were set up. Compare the recidivism rates on those to, say, theft or murder, and then ask yourself, "Who should really be the ones we watch carefully?"

[stebo0728]

I have to echo IB on this one. Ive said from day one that we either keep locked up, or set them free, no middle ground. I would agree that some of the charges requiring registration are asinine, anything from peeing on the golf course (who wants to freaking hike all the way to the RR to sprinkle a bit? 'Sides GOLF means Gentleman Only Ladies Forbidden anyway so why are women who worry about seein some dude pee even doing on the course anyways, u mad bro?) and then theres the whole idea of the possibility of as little as 3 or 4 days age separation causing trouble for someone, just because one happens to be 17 and the other 16?

But the magnitude of the crime is a distraction to the issue, no matter what the crime, as IB says, if the person is likely to endanger society again, keep them out of society. Im not against the death penalty for some charges, violent rape of minors for instance, but thats another discussion i suppose.

[srellim234]

So much of it stems from something AZ points out quite often. Reactionary laws are almost always bad laws.

Plus, politicians have used the issue to create public enemies to rally against and deflect attention from the fact that the politicians themselves are really public enemy #1.

[IBCoupe]

Speaking of reactionary laws, I hate the way we treat the mental insanity defense.

We're currently using the really old defense - the one that says you were only innocent by reason of mental insanity if you weren't aware that what you were doing was wrong. Psychiatric and Psychological professionals successfully got us off of that plan, saying that you shouldn't be sent to prison (but should, instead, be subject to treatment away from the general population for perhaps longer than the prison sentence would have been) if your crime could have been shown to have been a "product" of your mental illness. They argued that it isn't all that uncommon for a person suffering from a mental insanity to be fully aware of what they're doing, be fully aware of how wrong it is, but simultaneously be unable to stop themselves.

Then Reagan got shot. And the guy (a certifiable loon) successfully invoked the defense. And then we went bonkers, not because a sane guy got off, but because the crazy guy shot someone we really liked. Suddenly, nine unelected officials behind a bench who can never have their pay docked and can never be fired (except for gross misbehavior) seems like the much better form of government, to me.

[AZhitman]

Not sure what your position is from that post. Humor an ACJ guy and clarify, wouldja? I've got some input on this one as well (and the SO issue).

[dusred]

I'm very much opposed to the way "sex offenders" are treated. The reason why is because many who are innocent are convicted. All it takes is for some insane girl to say that you raped her and make up a good story and you're convicted. I have an Uncle who is a registered sex offender. I've known him since I was a toddler and he is the most awesome guy around. He's very popular. Everyone loves him. He married this crazy b**** and soon after they were divorced and she filed charges saying he raped her. He spent 1 year in prison and will be on probation for the next 10 years. Since I'm not God I can't say for sure whether he did or not but I'm 99% sure. The chick is mental who accused him. His life is now ruined because of it.

Now just to clarify: Sex offenders are the most disgusting people on earth and in all seriousness I can't think of a punishment that is "too harsh" but be f*** sure you are convicting a guilty man. I'd say the sex offender list should only apply to those who are convicted on hard, physical evidence and not just testimony.

[stebo0728]

Just a thought here, but if you are making a distinction between conviction based on testimony alone, and conviction based on physical evidence, and the distinction speaks to the issue of whether we register the person, shouldnt the distinction also speak to whether we convict and punish the person as well? I probably didnt say that quite so well, but what I mean is, you either convict them or you dont, and all the acceptable consequences apply, you dont have "degrees" of conviction. Either it stands or it doesnt. Im with you on the testimony only thing. Ive say on a jury that had problems such as that, and we found the guy not guilty because no good evidence besides a crying little girl who was lead all over the interview room by the deputy that took her statement.

[srellim234]

The lists, if they are used, should have an set time limit for those listed. If you get convicted, the same way that we limit the time a person is incarcerated, given probation, or on parole, being on the list should be limited to a set period of time. A life sentence is unreasonable.

[dusred]

I guess the crux of the matter is that I don't have faith in the legal system when it comes to convicting sex offenders. Emotions always run high in a sex offender trial and the legal system shouldn't run on emotion, but hard fact. I agree, though, it should be a conviction or not a conviction but until the courts and my fellow citizens take that attitude of "set 10 guilty free before condemning 1 innocent" I'm opposed to the harsh punishments put on sex offenders.

[IBCoupe]

Not sure what your position is from that post. Humor an ACJ guy and clarify, wouldja? I've got some input on this one as well (and the SO issue).

Are you asking me?

[AZhitman]

Did I forget to say "pretty please"?

[stebo0728]

Maybe its just me, but it seems cold blooded murder REQUIRES at least some level of insanity. Why is this a defense? Regardless of insane, sane, the person needs removal from society, permanently in my opinion. The faster the better, make execution quicker, and televise it. Popcorn and fried baddies, friday night special!!

[dusred]

make execution quicker

What happens when someone is found out later to be innocent and you just took their life? The media has now made the jury system much less effective. I'm all for lobbing off the heads of murders' but I cringe at the thought of ending the life of an innocent man/woman.

I think the prison system and other systems need some change but the real problem is with the justice/court system. My fellow countrymen watch Nancy Grace and Sean Hannity and then they get put on a jury with their minds already filled with bias and then convict on emotion rather than fact. I'm not sure I have a solid solution. Maybe I'll have to think it over for a few days and see if I can come up with anything.

[IBCoupe]

Did I forget to say "pretty please"?

:P

I couldn't tell if you were asking someone else and coincidentally posted after me.

Re: Mental Insanity Test
I think we should return to the "product" test, if for no other reason than that's what people who are familiar with mental illness favor. Justice should be about making it right, but you can't do that unless you get it right, too. If we treat the mentally ill like criminals, then we're failing them. Are they dangerous? Surely. Should they be removed from society? Yes, and they most certainly would be, even if found to be not guilty by reason of insanity. It's not a way to get off scott-free; if the dangerous aspects of you can be removed, we will do so, and we will detain you for that purpose for as long as we need. Often, people who successfully invoke that defense end up confined to a hospital longer than they would have been in prison.

But, for me, the issue is about making sure we're using the strong arm of the law appropriately.

Re: Sex Offenders
I don't have a really clear position on this issue; I'm not emotionally-invested in it. My opinions on it are related to the proper role of the criminal justice system, not to the criminals within it. I don't know what a proper prison sentence should be. I don't seek the responsibility of making an arbitrary determination like that - that's for a judge's experience to decide. I do know that whatever we decide that sentence should be, unless a person is out early on parole, it should end as soon as they walk out the front gate.

If we decide that we can start punishing people after they've left prison, too, it takes the burden off of our shoulders. It's probably a lot more expensive for us to keep someone imprisoned than it is to have them wandering the streets, subject to limitations on their lives. And, in order to keep ourselves in check, we need it to be expensive. We need it to suck for us to put people in prison, so that we don't forget how serious a thing it is.

[stebo0728]

make execution quicker

What happens when someone is found out later to be innocent and you just took their life? The media has now made the jury system much less effective. I'm all for lobbing off the heads of murders' but I cringe at the thought of ending the life of an innocent man/woman.

I think the prison system and other systems need some change but the real problem is with the justice/court system. My fellow countrymen watch Nancy Grace and Sean Hannity and then they get put on a jury with their minds already filled with bias and then convict on emotion rather than fact. I'm not sure I have a solid solution. Maybe I'll have to think it over for a few days and see if I can come up with anything.

Good point, here is my position on that. The death penalty should only be used on cases where non disputable physical evidence is presented. For instance, lets consider the Virginia Tech shooter. There is no way to dispute the cold hard fact that this person did what he did. Too many witnesses, its cases like this where the term "alleged" is useless. This person was never "allegedly" the shooter. In cases like this, convict, sentence, give 1 year to appeal, then nightie night.

Now when you have cases built more on his word against anothers, and no real hard evidence comes forth, then the death sentence should be off the table, because its plausible that in the future certain evidence may shed light on the person's innocence. Im open to the idea of even having further sentencing hearings at such a time that harder evidence is presented, but as time passes evidence losses its value worse than a Chevy vehicle.

[srellim234]

Finally, a politician is willing to amend the way we do things and differentiate between those who really pose a continuing threat and those who don't. Hopefully this measure (if passed) will save us a few dollars while it is focusing enforcement where it should be.

http://www.caivn.org/article/2011/02/25 ... ration-act