Should we protect sex offenders??

Originally posted by pieman
what exactly makes you so wise and blemish free that you can judge a persons soul and worth? seriously, i want to know, what makes you qualified to make that judgment?

The irony is that you are also making judgments on what this person does not deserve. You are judging this persons soul and worth and deciding that they deserve the very protection that the average law abiding citizen was not afforded from such heinous monsters.

As greeneyedleo says; these monsters clearly put themselves in a different category... kind of like an apex predator. They deem themselves above humanity and beyond the reproach of the law.

Humanity has NOTHING to gain by keeping them alive. NOTHING!

IRM

[edit on 15/4/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by greeneyedleoI can judge anyone I want.

peh, wordplay, rubbish. judge anyone you like so long as your opinion holds the weight it deserves. if you want to convict someone in the manner you're advocating in this thread then i suggest some further qualification should be required.

But accident or negligence is NOT the same as purposely and choosing to inflict harm upon an innocent life.

what's the difference to the dead person, what's the difference to the bereaved family?

the only difference i can see in it is that you see the chance that you might be negligent but you think you are above being evil. you feel it's different because you can allow yourself to empathize with the careless driver but not the murderer.

the difference is in your mind, not in the consequence, not in the outcome.

Ah. Well, guess that is what all my schooling and this mountain of loans are for, so I can be in the position legally to "judge" and put these screwed up people away

And where did I say that I empathise with a careless driver? I said negligence should suffer consequences too.

But I see that you are unable to separate: willful and chosen offense against innocent lives vs. accidental and negligence offense against innocent lives. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

BOTH are guilty of harming innocent lives and should be "judged" and held accountable. But there is a huge difference between willful choice and accidental/negligence.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by pieman
what exactly makes you so wise and blemish free that you can judge a persons soul and worth? seriously, i want to know, what makes you qualified to make that judgment?

The irony is that you are also making judgments on what this person does not deserve. You are judging this persons soul and worth and deciding that they deserve the very protection that the average law abiding citizen was not afforded from such heinous monsters.

As greeneyedleo says; these monsters clearly put themselves in a different category... kind of like an apex predator. They deem themselves above humanity and beyond the reproach of the law.

Humanity has NOTHING to gain by keeping them alive. NOTHING!

IRM

[edit on 15/4/09 by InfaRedMan]

Ok. You made the point I was trying to make.

It seems that *some* feel that only POSITIVE judgment should be made. As soon as its negative - it is wrong and we should no longer judge.

How is judging the person and letting them off easy, any better or any different, then judging the person and making them suffer?

BOTH are judgements.

So in the world of *some* NOBODY should be held accountable for anything they do to others. Afterall who the hell are we to judge ANYONE for ANYTHING they do. (Well, thats not my opinion)

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
The irony is that you are also making judgments on what this person does not deserve. You age judging this persons soul and worth and deciding that they deserve the very protection that the average law abiding citizen was not afforded from such heinous monsters.

nice try, false logic.
i believe that as long as a person can be reasonably believed to be a danger to society they should be segregated from it but i don't think that we can take the moral high ground and say they are wrong for robbing a person of their humanity while taking their humanity.

if we do that, in what way are we better than them?

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
The irony is that you are also making judgments on what this person does not deserve. You age judging this persons soul and worth and deciding that they deserve the very protection that the average law abiding citizen was not afforded from such heinous monsters.

nice try, false logic.
i believe that as long as a person can be reasonably believed to be a danger to society they should be segregated from it but i don't think that we can take the moral high ground and say they are wrong for robbing a person of their humanity while taking their humanity.

if we do that, in what way are we better than them?

Yes, nice try, but false logic.

So why can we judge a person - but only up to a certain point? Either we judge them or we dont. And who gets to decide where that certain point is? Obviously everyone has a different idea on where that line is. And you feel your judgement is far better than mine - yet they are both judgmeents and punishments.

So I guess the only solution is to just not judge them and punish them.

This makes absolutely no sense to me.


[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Ah. Well, guess that is what all my schooling and this mountain of loans are for, so I can be in the position legally to "judge" and put these screwed up people away

if you have a load of loans for an education that didn't cover basic concepts like the responsibility of the system to protect it's charges then you've wasted a lot of cash i fear.

And where did I say that I empathise with a careless driver? I said negligence should suffer consequences too.

you said "if my carelessness caused harm to another person - then yes, I should suffer consequences for it." you are putting yourself in the place of the careless driver, empathy.

But I see that you are unable to separate: willful and chosen offense against innocent lives vs. accidental and negligence offense against innocent lives. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

BOTH are guilty of harming innocent lives and should be "judged" and held accountable. But there is a huge difference between willful choice and accidental/negligence.

as i said, the difference is in your head, the dead girl is still dead through your choices. neglect or intent is an opinion in the mind of the observer, not the victim.

Originally posted by pieman
i don't think that we can take the moral high ground and say they are wrong for robbing a person of their humanity while taking their humanity.

Did I just enter the Twilight Zone?

Yes they are wrong for robbing a person of their humanity and in so doing, forfeiting their own. If you want to live as a monster, you should expect to be treated as such. It's they who called the shots and set the precedent - not us!

IRM

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

So why can we judge a person - but only up to a certain point?

i am saying that it is acceptable to assess the danger a person poses to society and act in the interest of society, i am not judging the worth of their soul or life.

to take anothers life suggests their life is worth less than yours, what qualifies you to make that judgement?

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
If you want to live as a monster, you should expect to be treated as such. It's they who called the shots and set the precedent - not us!

oh ffs, a monster in your judgement, what gives you the right to make the freaking judgement? this is a simple question i've repeatedly asked but neither of you want to address.

[edit on 15/4/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


You don't deem this person a monster? I gather you'd happily have this person stay over in your guest room?

It's not me that has judged this person to be a monster. It's their actions that have deemed them as such. I'm just simply observing an image they have created for themselves.

Regardless, If I or greeneyedleo cannot make a judgment, then no one can. Perhaps we should just set them free into society. Heck... lets just close the courts once and for all because none of us have the right to judge.

IRM

[edit on 15/4/09 by InfaRedMan]

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
If you want to live as a monster, you should expect to be treated as such. It's they who called the shots and set the precedent - not us!

oh ffs, a monster in your judgement, what gives you the right to make the freaking judgement? this is a simple question i've repeatedly asked but neither of you want to address.

[edit on 15/4/09 by pieman]

But what gives you the right to deam them not a monster? A judgement is a judgement regardless of what that judgement is.

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

So why can we judge a person - but only up to a certain point?

i am saying that it is acceptable to assess the danger a person poses to society and act in the interest of society, i am not judging the worth of their soul or life.

to take anothers life suggests their life is worth less than yours, what qualifies you to make that judgement?

What you are saying is that it is acceptable to judge and punish a person up to a certain point - a line in the sand - one that you, another human, has chosen. You ARE judging the worth of their soul and life - you are judging that they are no worse than you or the next person and do not deserve to be treated a certain way. That is a judgement.

You are saying YOUR judgement of the person is OK - but my judgement is not. You are judging their soul, yet I can not.

I have not suggested taking their life as in the death penalty. I have suggested they be harshly punished. I mean, we all eventually die. I think taking their life (the death penalty) is too easy and not punishment. Well, I suppose if they have to meet God face to face, that might be punishment. lol

And really my life is better than a murderer of innocent life or some sex offender - I have already explained why. There I said it: I am better than them.

Protecting a sex offender is like protecting a mass murderer. Sex offenders should be thrown into prison, a long with every one else. Hopefully, they'll get what they deserve.

When we hear about people being stoned to death in a middle eastern country we gasp and respond how barbaric they are, when we hear about a westerner being faced with caning because they offended there god we gasp at how primitive they are, when we hear about China executing people because of corruption we gasp and accuse them of not caring about civil rights.

Then when we hear about our country showing humanity towards the most sick people in our society we gasp and we wish to be barbaric, primitive and not care about human rights.

reply to post by DrumsRfun


Sex offenders should be banished to a remote island with all species of monkeys in order that they learn mutual respect.

reply to post by LDragonFire


They don't deserve to be treated humanely,they gave those rights up by treating someone else inhumanely.
I am not into being politically correct on this issue at all.
I would prefer to just throw them to the dogs or in this case the other inmates...they obviously need to learn a lesson and without the protection they will be taught that lesson alot quicker then a few years will teach them.
Let them get raped and see how it feels.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

They don't deserve to be treated humanely,they gave those rights up by treating someone else inhumanely.
I am not into being politically correct on this issue at all.
I would prefer to just throw them to the dogs or in this case the other inmates...they obviously need to learn a lesson and without the protection they will be taught that lesson alot quicker then a few years will teach them.
Let them get raped and see how it feels.

You don't care whether they learn a lesson, you just wish to see them butchered for there crime.

But really what of the corrupt CEO that lead to ruining the lives of millions of people?

What about abortion doctors? They kill babies.

A crime is a crime, and are we any better than the rest of the world we like to judge so much.

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

You don't care whether they learn a lesson, you just wish to see them butchered for there crime.

But really what of the corrupt CEO that lead to ruining the lives of millions of people?

What about abortion doctors? They kill babies.

A crime is a crime, and are we any better than the rest of the world we like to judge so much.

How do you know what I care about??
Ceos are another story altogether and has nothing to do with this thread.
Doctors don't rape babies,again nothing to do with this thread.
When it comes to judging,read the thread and Infraredmans posts and green eyed leos posts.

It comes down to what is considered punishment. If incarceration is the punishment, then yes they need to be protected. Because otherwise, the punishment will probably become daily beatings, or death.

I know people will disagree with me, but this is just my opinion. If someone murders people, why not punish them? Death may not be a correct punishment. Why not let them live the pain, suffering, and torment that the victims, and the victims families go through?

If someone rapes someone; let them be raped. Until they realize what horror they did to someone else THEN put them in prison. But to be put in prison, protected from harm, fed and sheltered?

But, if they were put in jail with their peers, wouldn't they be in prison with fellow sex offenders?

This alleged criminal is innocent until proven guilty. What if ever you were falsely accussed? What if you were falsely accussed of molesting or raping a child and YOU were sentanced to prision? She may very well be guilty but she has not had her day in court.

If I knew for a fact a person had harmed a child I would have NO problem killing them myself if I were given the legal right to do so.

I do believe that she killed the child however my intuition and nothing else says that it was accidental and that she paniced and did the other to make it look as if a pedophile murdered the child. Hopever its just a feeling. She may well be the monster some of you think her to be?