Sorry, but I feel this is wrong. You served your time, they should let you out. I hate sex-offenders as much as anyone, but keeping someone locked up [span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]after[/span] they've served their time is just wrong. In other words, the government can now keep you locked up forever no matter what you were actually sentenced to. And these days you can be labeled a "sex offender" on the flimsiest of charges, [a href="vny!://blog.state-v-amero.com/2007/02/22/nancy-willard-the-julie-amero-tragedy.aspx"]like this lady, a substitute teacher, was[/a].
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]ALBANY, March 1 — Gov. [a href="vny!://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/eliot_l_spitzer/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Eliot L. Spitzer."]Eliot Spitzer[/a] and leaders of the Legislature said today that they had reached a deal on setting up procedures to confine sex offenders after they finish their prison sentences, joining more than a dozen other states that have similar laws. [/p] The deal marked the second time this week that the governor broke a deadlock on a contentious issue that had divided Albany lawmakers for years, and also succeeded in forging a compromise where [a href="vny!://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/george_e_pataki/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about George E. Pataki."]George E. Pataki[/a] had failed. Lawmakers announced on Tuesday they had struck a deal to overhaul the state's workers' compensation system, reaching accord on another divisive issue. [/p]The governor, in a joint press conference with legislative leaders, said the agreement was "perhaps too long in the making," adding, "I stood with Governor Pataki eight years ago seeking this statute."[/p][a href="vny!://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/nyregion/01cnd-civil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin"]vny!://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/nyregion/01cnd-civil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/a]
Yeah, I remember hearing something about a 'colony' on one of the islands off of washington state that is a prison for sex offenders.. even if they are done their time they are not allowed back into society. Its only for repeat offenders or those convicted of SERIOUS crimes.
I'm not sure about this. I truly believe some sex offenders should be keep locked up forever. They're the worst offenders.... I don't think they can be cured of their addictions.
Just my two cents.
I feel this is wrong. If the person remains a danger after finishing his sentence, then why not have a lengthier sentence if the first place?
Because they probably have really good lawyers or the laws at the time sucks.
Lise wrote:
I'm not sure about this. I truly believe some sex offenders should be keep locked up forever. They're the worst offenders.... I don't think they can be cured of their addictions.
Just my two cents.[/DIV]
I agree with you Lise. Some for minor offenses I can see being put into halfway houses in an attempt to reintegrate them. Others, depending on the seriousness of the crimes should be put into a separate external colony (like that place I mentioned) to be kept out of society. Expecially if they have reoffended, life in jail full stop.
Are sex offenders required to register their residences when they get out in Washington or BC as they do here in California? Their registration information (name, age, race, address, crimes committed, etc.) are available online here.
yes. and they notify the community. dont about online though??
'A new crime of [span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"]"sexually motivated felony"[/span] will also be created for cases in which there is intent to commit a sex crime even if one was not carried out.'
If it can be proven that someone has the 'intention' to do something, perhaps putting some preventative measures in place wouldn't be a bad idea. However, to charge someone for their 'intentions' seems to be sliding down the slope of criminalizing one for their "thoughts"?
Yes, if they have an intention to commit a crime, as well as a gameplan etc on how they 'intend' to carry out this crime.. again, those preventative measures should come into play.
It does make sense, in a way, to prevent crimes from happening before they happen, as opposed to charging criminals for their deeds AFTER THE FACT...... If I were a politician, I'd have to review this piece of legislation a little more before I'd be comfortable giving it the green light.
very slippery slope I would say.
Know its very unrealistic but it reminds me of that movie time cop.
It would take some fancy footwork.. prevention is the biggest thing I would say. Find out the signs then keep an eye on someone that raises all the red flags.
Prevention would mean there would be less crimes committed, yes - but how to go about "preventing" such crimes in an acceptable manner?
As evil as sex-related crimes are, I think it's our repressed and irrational perspectives regarding sex that have led us to regard such crimes as worse than murder. After all, do we lock up murderers after they've served their time? Not as far as I'm aware.
Sexual predators seem to be stigmatized worse than people who kill another human being. To me this fits into the same pattern where it's fine to show someone being shot to death on primetime broadcast television (the heroes, in fact are often the ones doing the killing), but a nipple will evoke instant outrage.
I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of sexual predation, just call into question how we view it in relation to what I would consider to be even more vile acts.
sorry..no big fancy words here. From a mothers point of view...just keep the offenders the hell away from me and my kids...and everyone elses kids. Call me close minded..but the violaters lost their rights when they violated the rights of others. I would say implant them with a tracking device..but that wouldn't stop the crime. It would just allow another person to be hurt and authorities would be able to track and convict. It isn't preventitive enough for my liking.
Well, traditionally if someone commits a crime they only lose their rights until they are released from prison. Not all sexual predators will commit the same crimes again when released. If it could be shown that a signiificant number of murderers will murder again when released should we also place all murderers on a special leper island? How about drug addicts. If it can be shown statistically that drug addicts may well go back to their old habbits and threaten society once released, should we then keep them all locked up after "release" as well?
I think this is the slippery slope that was mentioned before.
Sexual predation is being used as a test case because it inflames peoples emotions and they are willing to make an exception to the general rule, but really, why stop there? Once we set the precedent that we can lock someone up after they've served their time simply because they represent a statistical risk, the same logic can be applied to any number of crimes.
EDIT: By the way, I respect your emphatic position on the matter and your focus on protecting your children. I don't mean to blow that off. I'm just trying to look at some of the implications.
On a related subject, since Pit seems to be talking specifically about pedophilia, if that is a form of insanity (which I think most people would agree), then dealing with it in the court system seems like a mistake to begin with. Why would you expect a pedophile to be cured of their affliction simply by spending a decade or two in prison?
Why wouldn't you treat it like any other insanity, where the crime is a result of their mental condition (i.e. a psychopath who commits murder) and lock them in an asylum for the criminally insane? That's not perfect either, of course, because someone still has to decide when they're sane enough to release, but it's a hell of a lot better than simply placing them in a prison cell and releasing them after an arbitrary amount of time (or holding them prisoner for their lifetime).
Criminality should be regarded as a form of Psychopathy and treated as such.
Who's to say the "Criminal mind" hasn't been completely obliterated from their brains after serving a term of say, 20 years? Why should such a long span of time change the way their mind works? The person is the same person, regardless of time spent behind bars. Locking someone up simply isn't enough. I think that prisoners should not only be locked up, but during those 20 years, or what have you, undergo comprehensive psychological re-training in order to be released into society.
Overall, I feel that prevention is key and as such, we should be looking at ways of deterring crime from being committed in the first place. Whether this means introducing stiffer penalties such as not releasing criminals after their term is served, I do not know. Maybe it would act as enough of a deterrent.
Certainly, re-introducing the death penalty would do the trick. ;)
Mother of god...
I think that I am going out on a limb here...but...If dogs bite...attack..maim...or kill a person...they are humanely ( we hope) euthanized. An elephant that rampages...isn't always met with rehabilitation. Man eating tigers etc. are hunted and killed. Bears...sharks...and so on and so forth. If a human turns in ways such as posted above....then why aren't they humanely euthanized? Are we protecting the criminals families? The criminals mental health? I know that I sound cruel...which I am not...but what is good for the goose apparently is a double standard for the gander.
Humane euthanization...would cut back on taxpayers money...violence in prison...
I do understand that there are the few that have been wrongly convicted...that would be an issue for sure. But in the end...the brain has a wire that is short circuiting...whether it be human..or animal.
What you describe is indeed very "efficient" and many authoritarian regimes throughout history have shared a similar view of "social defectives" and pursued the concept of cleansing the human species of such detrimental elements through harsh mental reprogramming or simple mass murder. China springs to mind. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander? As Ghandi said, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. I don't believe in murdering murderers because murder is unethical.
Killing in self-defense can be justified. But killing for revenge, or killing because someone may or may not kill in the future is murder. State sponsored murder doesn't make it any less vile IMO.
Murdering criminals is, I believe, unhealthy for the soul of a society.
There are more important things in life than safety, but the specter of fear leads many otherwise rational human beings to support agendas that they would not consider while in an "unheated" state.
EDIT: P.S. please don't take these posts as slams. They are not meant as flames and I hope you don't interpret them that way. I believe both of you support the things you're talking about for the right reasons, even though I disagree strongly with the solutions you propose.
I don't believe in murdering murderers because murder is unethical.
It is then, in your eyes, unethical to euthanize a dog for attacking a child?
We may disagree where this is concerned, but the value of a dog's life and that of a human being are not equivalent. A dog's life has worth, without question, but it is a sliding scale, no? Do you ask your dog for permission before cutting off its testicles? Would you keep a human being outside in cold weather chained to a doghouse?
tenkani wrote:
Mother of god...
That was for emphasis, btw. ;)
EDIT: P.S. please don't take these posts as slams. They are not meant as flames and I hope you don't interpret them that way. I believe both of you support the things you're talking about for the right reasons, even though I disagree strongly with the solutions you propose.
Not to worry Tenk, I would never think that you would dream of comparing me to someone like say.. Hitler.
*muah*
Never!!!!
Stalin?
All I am saying is that specific "deterrents" are to be used in order to prevent dangerous crimes from being committed.
I'm not so concerned with penalizing those who B & E as I am those who commit dangerous, malicious crimes. Those are the criminals I would like to specifically target -- and deterr -- with proper legislation put in place for judicial remediation.
Just what kind of "deterrents" are acceptable? Is the question we need to be asking ourselves as a society and come up with some viable solutions to be put into practise.
tenkani wrote:
Never!!!!
Stalin?
Uh, how dare you associate me to the Communists? >:(
You've got it the other way 'round. (//vny!://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/engel/d015.gif)
I think we should bring back the death penalty as well for certain crimes. I agree with what you say Tenk, but for certain crimes I see no reason to let them live.
Sorry to disagree with you on something you feel so strongly about :(, only I feel strongly about this as well.
Why should we pay 100k a year to keep someone in prison for a life sentence? And still pay for them to have better food, shelter, eductaion, and medical than 1/4 of all canadians? Serious, they are better off than a number of people not incarcerated. I hate the fact I pay for them to get a degree.. especially in they are serving a life sentence.. and we cant force them to work for something for the rest of society, like sewing garmets, picking fruit, cleaning around highways.
I think that ex criminals(convicted of serious crimes), repeat offenders, sexual predators should be implanted with GPS tracking devices.
"Why should we pay 100k a year to keep someone in prison for a life sentence? And still pay for them to have better food, shelter, eductaion, and medical than 1/4 of all canadians? Serious, they are better off than a number of people not incarcerated. I hate the fact I pay for them to get a degree.. especially in they are serving a life sentence.."
Have to say, this statement makes alot of sense to me. I know we have agreed on this subject before, in my "Remove Prisoner's Right to Vote" thread. (//vny!://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/icon_smile_big.gif) [div style="font-style: italic;"] [/div] "I think that ex criminals(convicted of serious crimes), repeat offenders, sexual predators should be implanted with GPS tracking devices."
That is one option on the table, however I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the idea of implanting tracking devices into any human.
I'm more of the 'Let's fix the problem so we don't have to implant any tracking devices on anyone' persuasion..
But how to fix them? I doubt the idea of implanting tracking devices would act as much of a deterrent. Certainly, we know that if they go out into the world, with or without tracking devices, the possibility exists for there to be more crimes to be committed by them and already it's too late.
Don't apologize for disagreeing. Only apologize if you're disagreeable (which you aren't).
This isn't DV, and it's Ok to differ. I promise not to call you a cock holster ;)
The death penalty is a troublesome issue. As it stands here in the states, it is more expensive to execute someone than to incarcerate them for life. And evidence on whether it presents a deterrent was unclear last I heard. So the only pressing reason to murder a criminal is for revenge, which is unethical IMO.
The counter argument is that people on tiral for murder 1 should have less burden of proof and fewer appeals to lower the cost of execution and make it economically feasible. Then, of course, you end up murdering more innocent people. But if your argument truly is that someone should be murdered to save the state money (since protecting the public is not an issue), then I would have to respectfully disagree. Let the Chinese put a price tag on human life. I would hope we would hold ourselves to a higher standard.
Im actually a firm believer of gps implanted tracking in released serious crimes criminals, repeat offenders, and sexual predators.
Uh, you arent talking about chopping off the 'twigs and berries' are you?
tenkani wrote:
"But if your argument truly is that someone should be murdered to save the state money (since protecting the public is not an issue), then I would have to respectfully disagree. Let the Chinese put a price tag on human life. I would hope we would hold ourselves to a higher standard."
That is not[span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"] my [/span]argument. Not at all. Price is not an issue. You can't put a price on someone's life, especially not in that way. That is when the judicial enforcers become criminals themselves.
Folks who become obsessed with absolute safety can present as large a threat to society as criminals IMHO. Think of all the liberal soccer moms who voted for George Bush in a misguided attempt to safeguard their young. We have to accept a certain amount of risk simply living in a modern society. Too many folks these days would happily cast off their civil liberties in an effort to make life just a little bit safer. George Carlin might call this the creeping "pussification" factor.
"The love of justice in most men is only the fear of themselves suffering by injustice."
-François de la Rochefoucauld
EDIT: My bad. I was talking to Russ in my last post, not you Angel.
Russ wrote:
"Im actually a firm believer of gps implanted tracking in released serious crimes criminals, repeat offenders, and sexual predators."
How would that deter crime?
While we're on the subject, I do believe that ending a criminal's life would be in order if he/she is unrepentent and promises to do more of the same, if ever he/she were to be released. How would that be more ethical than keeping them in prison for life?
For one thing, wouldn't you have to assume that they would never change their minds?
You would murder someone based on their stated intention even if you had the power to lock them up and prevent them from threatening society?
that was my point earlier...gps won't prevent the crime...but it could save hours and dollars in a hunt for an offender. Keep records on offenders whereabouts.
I don't talk about euthanizing human beings like murder...unless we start saying that euthanizing animals (more like dogs I should say)is murder. I live a simple life..and I like it that way...so...I think of simple solutions I guess you could say.
I don't think that castration will completely help either..in deterring sex offenders. It isn't their balls that they are using to hurt people.
"Euthanize" is simply a more palatable word for a detestable thing.
When you, in cold blood, kill someone who is restrained and no immediate threat to anyone it is murder. If you aren't doing it to protect society then it's for revenge. We are one of a very few 1st world countries that murder our inmates, and there is a good reason for it. The others have realized that committing murder in response to murder is barbaric.
Again, a dog is not a human being. It is closer biologically to a human being than a flea, certainly, but "humanity" or "worth of a life" or whatever you want to call it I think we would all agree works on a sliding scale so repeatedly comparing the cold-blooded execution of a human being to killing a dog is a red herring.
[SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"]"What if that child was your neice for example?"[/SPAN] I would want to rip that person to shreds myself and would probably demand it.
But that's irrelevant. Even as I cried out to be allowed to murder that person, I would know in my heart that it wouldn't be justice. Sure, blood rage is part of our nature. It doesn't make it right.
If you aren't doing it to protect society then it's for revenge.
In the end...whether it be dog...or man or woman...it IS to protect society. From a reoccurance...because...if it should happen again...it has already happened and can't be taken back. That is my point. I am not talking about beating man or dog to death. Shooting...I am talking about humane injection. One that is a deep and endless sleep perhaps.
tenkani wrote:
[em]"What if that child was your neice for example?"[/em]
I would want to rip that person to shreds myself and would probably demand it.
But that's irrelevant. Even as I cried out to be allowed to murder that person, I would know in my heart that it wouldn't be justice. Sure, blood rage is part of our nature. It doesn't make it right.
[/div] [div style="font-weight: bold;"]Alright then, we are back to figuring out [span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]socially acceptable, humane[/span] ways of both deterring crime and meting out justice.
If you have the option of locking someone up for life as they do in most other 1st world countries then you AREN'T protecting society by murdering the murderer. And doing it with a needle doesn't change the nature of the act. A dog is a dog. A human being is a human being. I don't believe in cruelty to animals but I would not hesitate to sacrifice a dog for the life of a human being if forced to make the choice.
Poeple who like to compare people accused of crimes to lower animals make me nervous. Remember that the nazis compared jews to rats in order to dehumanize them so that the German people would more readily agree to their extermination.
No, you're not Hitler either.
Got any ideas? (//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/buttons/insertsmile.gif)
Oh no. Im not saying execute solely for money. The person will get the required and same number of appeals as everyone else, that is the way our system of law works.
If they have commited a serious crime, and given a life sentence.. why keep them alive clogging up the overcrowded prisons, requiring all this security, food and medical services. We have shortages of everything already in society. And everyone is now crying about wasted resources.. how is this not?
It will have an effect on people, with the chance of getting executed for a crime, it will not stop the crazies but it will stop of the more 'in the middle' people.
Actually, in a way I guess I am, thinking about it now. I havent looked at it that way before. hmm.
But, in a way you almost have to. We are having a shortage of public health and other services due to lack of money already. The average person charged and incarcerated with a crime recieving life imprisonment is between 22 and 37(? cant remember but its around there).. and at 100k a year at TODAYS costs with the average person living to 80 years old is between 4-5 million dollars. thats not including future inflation.
Now look at the average wage in canada being 37,000 a year (2005). That should speak volumes by itself but look as well at the taxes on that, its like 15.5k per year. So by people alone paying their entire income tax towards keeping a person in prison is 6-7 taxpayers.
tenkani wrote:
"People who like to compare people accused of crimes to lower animals make me nervous."
Agreed.
I don't have any ideas on how to prevent crime right now, Angel, because I'm a pittbull and very single-minded ;)
Oh no. Im not saying execute solely for money. The person will get the required and same number of appeals as everyone else, that is the way our system of law works.
If they have commited a serious crime, and given a life sentence.. why keep them alive clogging up the overcrowded prisons, requiring all this security, food and medical services. We have shortages of everything already in society. And everyone is now crying about wasted resources.. how is this not?
The thing is, when the death penatly is concerned, Russ, people get extra appeals because any mistake would obviously have more dire consequences. So you would like the extra appeals to be eliminated?
Um, Im a HUGE fan of civil liberties and I would hate the fact of big brother everywhere. I already dont like the idea of tolling cars by how much they drive tracked by GPS's.
I already say that we are almost a police state by how innocent people are harrased.
I do not think everyone should have the gps units. but I think the people I named should. You do know that people that are on house arrest, have bracelets around thier ankles that do just this.. rihgt? Its there just not completely applied yet, but they use it to keep track of and find out where these people go.
This is just my opinions... which I do change on occasion with different information.
The thing is, when the death penatly is concerned, Russ, people get extra appeals because any mistake would obviously have more dire consequences. So you would like the extra appeals to be eliminated?[/DIV]
Sorry, I missed this, I thought I answered this.
Yes they get the appeals granted to them under the current (or in our case the past laws that were removed from our system in 1974 when the death penalty legislation was removed from our guidelines.. the last execution in Canada was in 1964). If it is granted to the other criminals they get the same, if as you say they get extra appeals to be sure.. then they get it.
There IS a monetary value involved.. but I believe as well that there should be a dire consequence when a heinous crime is commited. If we have to pay more to ensure that someone pays the ultimate price, and ensure they get all the legal avenues they are allowed I accept it.
Ok well that's my point.
Erm, and I have no idea how it is in the Great White North, I'm just talking about here in the states where it's cheaper to incarcerate someone for life than to kill them. So saving money isn't an issue. Protecting society isn't an issue, unless you think it's a deterrent, but I don't believe that's been demonstrated conclusively yet. So it gets to the heart of what "justice" means to people.
To me, human life has an inherent value that makes extinguishing it morally wrong. In the case of self-defense, it can be necessary. I'm no pacifist. But to take human life with no other reason than because it "feels" right is wicked IMO. If we're going to write laws (and claim to be the moral lighthouse of the free world as we do) then our laws should be based on rationionality. When we start basing laws on nebulous feelings we can get into trouble.
P.S. if you begin with the premise that an eye for an eye is a morally justifiable position, then my whole arguement falls apart so...this is just my opinion.
Thanks Tenk.. Ive enjoyed reading what you wrote and having you respond to me..
'bless'
ok, I missed you.. sorry I was reviewing again. Take care and have a good night. See ya tomorrow.
Ditto brother!!
There is no right answer to this stuff!!!
But it's fun to knock it around a bit and see what floats...or something?
"P.S. if you begin with the premise that an eye for an eye is a morally justifiable position, then my whole arguement falls apart so...this is just my opinion."
I'm just throwing it out there too. I'm not a Legislator. (//vny!://www.discovervancouver.com/forum/icon/509.gif)
Send all criminals to Australia?
tenkani wrote:
Send all criminals to Australia? .......
Doesn't work, Lise got away.
lol tenkani
How do you build a jail to hold a girl who can transform into a dragon?
I always try to stay on Lise's good side (//vny!://discoverseattle.net/forums/richedit/smileys/Shocked/1.gif)