[US] Post the Sex Criminal nearest YOU!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's because sexually abused kids are often ****ed up later in life because of it

Yes, but not so much in the numbers people tend to believe. The vast majority of people who suffer from non-consensual sex-crimes go on to lead normal, healthy lives.

and it is just inhuman

JM

Here in Ft. Lauderdale, much to our shame, three teens went on a homeless bashing spree. With baseball bats on a number of successive nights, they went out and beat sleeping homeless people with bats, killing one man.

That is inhuman.

Their names will not go up on any lists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I would say it's probably because sex offenders prey upon the most vulnerable among us - women and children.

As do theives and murderers.

As for the humiliation, that actually occurs with most crimes, regardless of sexual content. When I was attacked, I felt humiliated and ashamed and stupid. The victims of con-artists frequently feel even worse than that. Being beaten or having your life-savings stolen can destroy just as much as being raped or molested can.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Their names will not go up on any lists.

I wouldn't complain if they did. I'm not the one making these sites, but if I were I would put any publicly available criminal information up there.

[chequita guevara]

See, the point is, Cali, in this country, once you've served your sentence, you're done, that's it. You cannot be punished anymore. That's the problem with these lists. They continue punishing people after their sentence is over. It's unamerican.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


As do theives and murderers.

As for the humiliation, that actually occurs with most crimes, regardless of sexual content. When I was attacked, I felt humiliated and ashamed and stupid. The victims of con-artists frequently feel even worse than that. Being beaten or having your life-savings stolen can destroy just as much as being raped or molested can.

True. So I'll lean more heavily on the first reason I gave: sex offenses usually happen to the most vulnerable among us - women and children - those who we innately want to protect.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
See, the point is, Cali, in this country, once you've served your sentence, you're done, that's it. You cannot be punished anymore. That's the problem with these lists. They continue punishing people after their sentence is over. It's unamerican.

IMO there are certain crimes that are so heinous that they should never be forgotten. There is no "paying for" them. If it was merely a matter of "paying for" your crime then you could theoretically serve your time in advance and then commit your crime without further punishment.

[chequita guevara]

If we innately wish to protect them, why, then, are they the most victimized? Your logic is flawed.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If we innately wish to protect them, why, then, are they the most victimized? Your logic is flawed.

Did I say they were the most victimized? No. I said they were the most vulnerable - i.e. women and children are generally less able to protect themselves than men.

The desire to protect your women and children has a rather obvious evolutionary advantage, which is probably one of the reasons why sex offenses are singled out.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Did I say they were the most victimized? No.

Does something have to be explicitly stated by you before it can be true?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Caligastia


IMO there are certain crimes that are so heinous that they should never be forgotten. There is no "paying for" them. If it was merely a matter of "paying for" your crime then you could theoretically serve your time in advance and then commit your crime without further punishment.

...I always figured that the concept of punishment these days was more for rehabilitation. Y'know, hoping that they wouldn't, like... have a recidivist event?

As far as "certain crimes" that "should never be forgotten", I figure that's kinda silly. Every crime ought to be remembered by the victim--and they should also learn to cope and deal with the issues entailed.

But with the logic of "no 'paying for' [the crimes]", wouldn't then it be more logical to apply capital punishment quite liberally, and exterminate anybody who steps out of line with these "unforgivable offenses"?

There are cultures that do that, y'know. Stoning works, and provides a very effective example, since it's public, too.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Q Cubed


...I always figured that the concept of punishment these days was more for rehabilitation. Y'know, hoping that they wouldn't, like... have a recidivist event?

Punishment these days usually just includes whatever it takes to stop the siutation. That is what removes liability Rehabilitation is seen as the hard way to stop it because people don't typically trust it and it's expensive. Furthmore, many people just kinda want to castrate these people so anything more than that is pretty much dismissed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia
So you really do think we are all automatons with no free will...that is what you are saying here, but your next sentence contradicts this. Please try to form a consistent opinion - it's less confusing for all involved.

There is no inconsistency between acknowledging an agent as the author of an action while denying it the property of having free will. You could very well say 'my robot cleaned my room' without thinking that your robot has free will.

Acknowledging that one is the author of an action (and thus, in moral terms, that he shall be deemed responsible for it) bears nothing in the form of an actual solution to a problem.

Criminals should never be expected to admit that they made a wrong decision?

Cuckoo!

Who said that? I simply said that recognizing an individual as the author of a crime, per se, is not a solution to the problem of criminality. That's the difference between deterrence and retributive punishment. The reason why it's useful to find out who commited a crime is that deterrence, which is a macro approach to criminality, requires us to track the author of a crime, and certainly not because 'morality' asks that we inflict pain on a criminal that is function of the offense done.

While we're at it, I'll grace you with a bit of grammar 101, that should avoid you embarassing paralogisms in the future. 'Acknowledging' had no defined subject, and was used in an impersonal meaning. How you came to suppose that 'criminals' had to be the subject puzzles me. That's 2/2 for you on putting words in my mouth that weren't mine.

Give me an example of when authorities have used the idea of personal responsibility to hide structural problems.

There is plenty of that, it's a persisting slogan of the conservative idea marketers. The persecution against drug users is a prime example. Claim that some people are teh ev1l drug addicts, paint them as a menace, and put them in jail, instead of adressing the social factors behind drug addictions. Or claim that poor people are lazy leechers, bash them on popular talk radio, ignoring the oligarchic nature of wealth.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia
If it was merely a matter of "paying for" your crime then you could theoretically serve your time in advance and then commit your crime without further punishment.

It's one of the best argument against retributivism I've ever heard, and it's from someone who probably is one.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It's one of the best argument against retributivism I've ever heard, and it's from someone who probably is one.

. The sole purpose of the criminal justice system should be preventing crime. This includes both deterrence and rehabilitation, but not retribution.

[badams52]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Can you give me some examples of instances in which the information on sites such as these was abused?

Might be an isolated case, but, Michael Mullen...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261767/

Doesn't mean that I'm for or against the list, just wanted to make this case known.