[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40566863]I love how you're telling me it's ridiculous that people don't make up their own reasons to do things
okay pal
[editline]7th May 2013[/editline][/QUOTE]
I'm saying they don't have to have a justification that makes an action acceptable. Not everyone needs to believe they're doing the right or just thing. Some people just don't care.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40566901]I'm saying they don't have to have a justification that makes an action acceptable. Not everyone needs to believe they're doing the right or just thing. Some people just don't care.[/QUOTE]
well my point about moral relativism has been lost i guess
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40566901]I'm saying they don't have to have a justification that makes an action acceptable. Not everyone needs to believe they're doing the right or just thing. Some people just don't care.[/QUOTE]
Then they have been bred not to care by being around shit surroundings/have bad genetic structure or whatever. The point is that people don't up and decide that they are just evil and start doing evil shit.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;40565681]I once met a sex offender.
he was sentenced for indecent assault (which is like assault of a sexual nature.)
His crime was for manipulating and molesting his daughter for YEARS.
and you know what?
he was one of the [I]nicest[/I] people i have ever met... ever had the pleasure, of meeting.
some of the things he said changed my life for the better.
so yeah, totally agree, not ALL of them are monsters.
while the crime they did commit IS serious and should not be downplayed they shouldn't all have to carry that mark of being monsters
that's my personal veiw[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40565697]The idea no one can grow or change or become better is holding down a lot of people
it's really dumb and unwarranted. Harsher treatment of criminals doesn't make less criminals. It causes the criminals that will exist anyways statistically to become worse criminals as they have less chance to redeem themselves in any meaningful way.[/QUOTE]
THIS TWO OH SO FUCKING MUCH
We're all taught to believe that criminals are beyond redemption, that everyone inside a cell is an animal who exists only to harm society. But is a wrong mentality. The prison system is supposed to [B]REFORM[/B] criminals, not tell them that society believes they're the lowest pieces of shit in civilization and that there is no place for them in the world.
Hell, many turn into a life of crime because society is completely fucked up. By the same people that is supposed to be the very paragons of civilization and progress.
EDIT
[QUOTE=wari65;40566219]and having that label of a sex-offfender is for the safety of the public at that point.[/QUOTE]
No shit, Sherlock. And is all good and dandy until you begin to pile genuinely innocent people, or people charged with minor offences among the spoiled apples.
Oh, but society isn't supposed to listen to anyone in those lists.
Because they aren't people. They are monsters.
life isn't a goddamn comic book
there's no such thing as "evil" people
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40566483]
I never said people are inherently "good"[/quote]
True, I did put a few words in your mouth
[quote]because you cannot define what "good" is[/quote]
True, a lot of people have a lot of definitions of what "good" is
[quote] Is good trying you best to do what you think is right? Because by that logic Hitler was "good".[/quote]
Well that's going by one of the many definitions of "good" you might have. The "good" I should have referred to is the innate (unexplained why it might be) desire for human beings to promote the well being of others, and not to harm others.
[quote]Is "good" obeying a generic set of social norms and morals? If so, you must realize that many people cannot follow these morals because of the circumstances they are born into.[/quote]
Despite circumstances, the choice to end another human being's life or to cause pain to another human being is largely immoral, referring to "immoral" as an action that goes against the "desire for human beings to promote the well being of others, and not to harm others."
[quote]You think this guy was just an evil kid for no reason? Like, he just one day grew horns and though "I will molest my sister because ima bad guy" or that he came out of the womb with evil intentions? Do you think serial killers just kill people because "they're evil"? No, nobody acts of their own accord.[/quote]
Yes and no. A select few with mental disorders legitimately do live their life with either no good intentions (Antisocial personality disorder), or only evil intentions (Sadistic personality disorder), though the reasons for why could be attributed to genetics or upbringing.
[quote]People are only victims of their circumstance.[/quote]
However far you want to define a person's circumstances determines how accurate or inaccurate my above statement is (whether you consider genetics and upbringing two similar cards in the shitty hand someone was dealt). That's not really up for debate, as you probably do consider genetics part of that, which I would have to agree with (Contradicting myself a bit I guess, but you'd be right). So yes, these conditions would be out of the person's control, and I'm really rambling on right here to point out how you're right on this topic.
[quote]As with the Ted Bundy case posted before, he had a very fucked up childhood. Lots of other people considered "evil" suffered similar experiences. Lots of these people just get labeled as bad guys because of shit that is out of their control?[/quote]
Refer to above
[quote]You're naive.[/QUOTE]
(While this was directed at not-me) it's also a bit naive to assume the opposite: that people can be born evil, and commit "monstrous" acts WITH good intentions (I'd personally love further studies into this area and the opposite)
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40566930]Then they have been bred not to care by being around shit surroundings/have bad genetic structure or whatever. The point is that people don't up and decide that they are just evil and start doing evil shit.[/QUOTE]
Well if you're going to be like that, nobody really ups and decides anything because we're all just puppets of causality, so you need to redefine what it means to be at fault for something. Also, did you get bitten by a radioactive Sainus and get super box dispensing powers?
[editline]8th May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;40567019]life isn't a goddamn comic book
there's no such thing as "evil" people[/QUOTE]
Neither do comic books by that definition, so what's the point of that comparison?
[QUOTE=wari65;40567040]True, I did put a few words in your mouth
True, a lot of people have a lot of definitions of what "good" is
Well that's going by one of the many definitions of "good" you might have. The "good" I should have referred to is the innate (unexplained why it might be) desire for human beings to promote the well being of others, and not to harm others.
Despite circumstances, the choice to end another human being's life or to cause pain to another human being is largely immoral, referring to "immoral" as an action that goes against the "desire for human beings to promote the well being of others, and not to harm others."
Yes and no. A select few with mental disorders legitimately do live their life with either no good intentions (Antisocial personality disorder), or only evil intentions (Sadistic personality disorder), though the reasons for why could be attributed to genetics or upbringing.
However far you want to define a person's circumstances determines how accurate or inaccurate my above statement is (whether you consider genetics and upbringing two similar cards in the shitty hand someone was dealt). That's not really up for debate, as you probably do consider genetics part of that, which I would have to agree with (Contradicting myself a bit I guess, but you'd be right). So yes, these conditions would be out of the person's control, and I'm really rambling on right here to point out how you're right on this topic.
Refer to above
(While this was directed at not-me) it's also a bit naive to assume the opposite: that people can be born evil, and commit "monstrous" acts WITH good intentions (I'd personally love further studies into this area and the opposite)[/QUOTE]
one problem
your whole argument requires moral objectivity
I'm not sure I understand people looking at an action they're about to commit and knowing full well, every bit of the action they are about to commit conforms to their own view of evil
i don't pretend to know what people are thinking but I'm going to trust people have their own innate, whether known or not, reasons for doing things
While I agree that "criminals cannot change" is an incorrect statement, there are still some that truly cannot be changed. At least, not with the resources we have available to them.
The Sex Offender's Registry started as a great idea, a way to catalog people who have committed terrible sexual crimes and have thus been deemed hazardous to the public. However, its terrible execution fueled by incredibly broad and plentiful ways to get on said registry have left it to be far more bad than good.
I saw a story of a 6 year old boy (note, SIX year old boy) playing doctor with a 5 year old girl. Parents of the girl found out, he's been slammed with first degree sexual assault and when he turns 18 he'll be put on the sex offenders registry. For playing doctor. when he was 6. Parents of the boy have been gag ordered and were also suing the district last I heard.
Just my two cents, but I too think sex registries are absurd. Sure, there are a few people out there who might be dangerous and might warrant being on such a list where I could understand where that line of thinking came from but I can't imagine they make up any significant portion of the registry and the real question is if that percentage of people are still deemed so dangerous to society where they have to be watched, why are they even free in the first place?
When you consider all the people who are on the registry for bullshit reasons or otherwise possibly innocent, it's really sickening and scary. All the list accomplishes is making naive people feel "safe" and condemning people who have made mistakes who don't deserve to be on there or the people who have committed terrible crimes, served their time, but will continue to do so even after regaining their "freedom".
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40567058] Neither do comic books by that definition, so what's the point of that comparison?[/QUOTE]
i can't figure out how to respond to this
grammar is a really useful tool, bub
Strange, this reminds me of something my friend admitted to me. His 11 year old brother(at the time), fucked his 8 year old sister in the swimming pool. Such is life in Missouri, there's lots of that here.
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;40567142]i can't figure out how to respond to this
grammar is a really useful tool, bub[/QUOTE]
There's nothing wrong with that post. Reading is a really useful tool, bub.
There's not really anything wrong about this, it's just something that happens, it's just kids experimenting, and it happens all the time, I'm pretty sure a lot of people have done this before while they were curious kids. This kid just got caught in the wrong.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40567224]There's nothing wrong with that post. Reading is a really useful tool, bub.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/41MwMI6.png[/img]
these two posts don't go together and you need to re-learn the english language if you think they do
It's all well and good to talk about bullshit reasons people are on the sex offender list, but remember that to a large part of the public sex offenses are not bullshit.
Also explain exactly how you draw the line. If this male commits X activity on this underage female, is that a sex crime? Where do you get your list of crimes that you consider nonbullshit sex crimes?
What about the male, what mitigates his behavior and how did you decide that element mitigates his behavior? For instance, is it because he was 11 when he did it? If so, how old does he have to be in order to be considered a 'real' sex offender?
Personally, I don't think there should be a registry. I think when you're convicted or plead guilty, you do your sentence and that's it. You then move on with your life. But that's for ALL sex offenders, not just young ones. Either all are off that registry or all are on it. No playing favorites.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;40567399]It's all well and good to talk about bullshit reasons people are on the sex offender list, but remember that to a large part of the public sex offenses are not bullshit.
Also explain exactly how you draw the line. If this male commits X activity on this underage female, is that a sex crime? Where do you get your list of crimes that you consider nonbullshit sex crimes?
What about the male, what mitigates his behavior and how did you decide that element mitigates his behavior? For instance, is it because he was 11 when he did it? If so, how old does he have to be in order to be considered a 'real' sex offender?
Personally, I don't think there should be a registry. I think when you're convicted or plead guilty, you do your sentence and that's it. You then move on with your life. But that's for ALL sex offenders, not just young ones. Either all are off that registry or all are on it. No playing favorites.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you have a clue how much this affects a persons life, and how easily it can be slapped on someone. You're asking me how you define it, but you're willing to slap it on everyone who toes over the line? There are levels of offence and there is a nuance to things like this that you're clearly missing.
There is a problem with doing such things like this to a young person because it punishes one action for their whole life. The way sex registries work now makes it nearly impossible for these people to lead normal lives far after their offence, whether it was serious, minor, illegitimate, or what have you.
To simply say that an eleven year old has committed a crime as horredous as a 32 year old who committed sexual assault or rape is ludicrious. You don't "draw lines". That's stupid and childish. You deal with these things on case by case basis because otherwise, people slip through the cracks, less serious crimies become more serious crimes
All or none doesn't work either because it misses out on the serious repeat offenders who do exist, who need to be made aware of. It does not however need to do this for everyone. The idea of "not playing favourites" is lost on this issue because it has nothing to do with favour but with circumstance and case. We can't judge all crimes as equal when they are not.
I think "sex offenders" need more specific categories. Something's wrong when someone pissing in public is lumped in with rapists and the like
[QUOTE=General J;40567575]I think "sex offenders" need more specific categories. Something's wrong when someone pissing in public is lumped in with rapists and the like[/QUOTE]
People love to generalize. All soldiers are killers, all religious people are dumb idiots, all Germans were nazis, yadda yadda yadda...
[QUOTE=Beetle179;40564756]This is the problem with the sex offenders registry. There's little differentiating between active child molesters and little things like this -- no, you're just labeled a "sex offender" either way and you're fucked if you want to return to society.[/QUOTE]
I know a guy here in Canada who is on the registry for "sexual interference". He was 20 and his 15 year old neighbour was asking him questions about guys (my friend is bi and his neighbour is gay). When the 15 year old's extreme religious and homophobic parents found out their son was gay, they pressured him so much to reveal "who made him gay". He pointed out my friend. They went after him claiming he had raped the kid, touched him, made him suck him off, etc... even when the kid later admitted all of those charges were false, the judge still sentenced him to 18 months for "sexual interference" and put him on the offenders list. For comparison's sake, people who regularly abuse little kids (sexually or otherwise) get about 2 years here. This guy, who told a kid who knew nothing about sex what to do, went to jail nearly as long as people who ruin kid's lives with abuse and rape. That and he's on the same list as these fuckers. Unbelievably retarded.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
