Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

Once again, you misunderstand me. I am beginning to think it deliberate at this point. Let me restate



I did not think it was necessary to spell this out because i figured that the above statement highlighted my sentiments pretty clearly, but i was mistaken. For that i apologize.

I want very much for society to reform. I want to take the steps toward social reform. I want to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again because i do not want any child to ever experience such horrible and scarring abuse.

In other words, to restate my point once more to hopefully circumvent any possible confusion, I think social reform is important and necessary and that prevention is better than correction and that we need to do it. I also know that such a massive undertaking will by nature be imperfect, expensive, longterm and take a huge amount of manpower. In the meantime there are children being abused and abusers who, whatever you may feel about my emotions on the matter need to be punished. Do you suggest we forgo the punishment of all criminals solely because thier punishments do not stop other criminals for doing the same thing? If we do not punish insurance fraud, you can bet your sweet butt that joe schmoe who wants to scew over the corporations would come out of the woodwork by the millions to claim money that is not thiers. If we do not punish those who rape children, you can bet your ass that what we will get is a whole bunch of raped children. Absolutely harsh punishments are a deterrant. As far as death penalty and deterring, we could each probably find five different sources for each side, because, really, how do you measure deterrance? Surveys? "Did you keep from commiting a murder in the past one (1) year because you were afraid of getting the death penalty?" a if yes, b if no.? Statistics? Ever hear of correlation does not mean causation? I'm not saying that such statistics are WRONG, I am simply stating that at the end of the day, no one really knows.

And I am not "bitching" at anyone. I am stating a radical opinion in a vehement way and am disagreeing with those who think that a harsh punishment is not warranted here. If you feel that i am "bitching" at you, perhaps when one phrases their argument in a way that is not personally inflammatory against the person they are arguing against, they will receive a reply that is both well thought out and devoid of the "bitchiness" that one may exude when being attacked.

Just a thought, of course. I could be wrong.

Kid...I like you B)
you're alright

@Philomel: The insanity plea is actually used in over fifty percent of court cases, it works in less than one percent however.

@YumikoYoshihana: I agree we need to punish those who commit crimes, but it is not working to deter crime really. I think we need to put a lot of efforts, money, and time in punishing, but we also need to put an equal amount in trying to figure out why it's happening..and how to fix it. I'm not saying it would work instantly, that's why we would still be punishing those that commit acts, but we have to do more than what we are doing obviously, cuz what we are doing isn't working. There are deeper causes of high crime in our society and we need to find those causes, many of which involve racism, sexism, the media, difference between rich and poor, ect. I think we need abunch of researches to figure out what the crap is going on in our society D: but yeh punishment is also important..


This debate thread got intense xD

It would be nice to try and think up ways of preventing this situation from ever happening again (some would even argue that it is a mental thing which can be fixed), but I firmly believe that a child molester, such as this person, will never change despite how much therapy and treatment he may get. Sure, execution doesn't deter crime, but it brings closure to those effected by the offense. Life in prison is just expensive. I don't know why it should be so expensive to execute someone and why it must be made such a complicated matter. That's just my view on the matter, though.

NOT that this is an execution thread, but i feel like i must note that the costs of the lengthy appeal process and keeping a person in prison on death row is actually, i believe, MORE expensive than keeping them in prison for life, what with the lawyers fees, ect.

I've also heard that, while the death sentance may not necessarily be a deterrant, it is often used as a barganing tool (re: Hey buddy if you rat out your friend, i'll take the Death Penalty off the table). While this may be a sticky issue morally for some, I am of the opinion that a tool that gets one closer to the truth, especially in instances of murder or rape, is a-ok in my book.

and thank you, demoscout. It's nice to be appreciated :)

Honestly though, i dislike being so personal during debates like these, when emotions run high. I believe in maintaining a level of maturity, since it;s so easy to needlessly offend. When i something gets my back up though, i unfortunately tend to regress :(

Ahh yes I forgot about the whole death row thing. I never liked the concept of that either.

It's hard not to get personal in this section of the forums seeing as though 98% of what is debated in here is total rage-fuel. However, I like a good debate now and again.

i thrive on it, to be honest. I often purposefully make brash and controversial statements just to see what blows up (i feel very strongly about them of course, but it is often possible to use more conciliatory language. But then what is the point of a debate?). Usually quite a bit does, which makes for lively debate and lengthy posts and lots of money earned. My idea of a good time :3

----------

Oh, and interesting sidenote; I just looked at the post at the topic of this page, the one that sparked this lively little controversy we have here. I posted it before i started REALLY thinking about what i was saying, like in the following posts, but you know something?

There is not a single bit to what i said that is in any way contradicted or refuted by what i say later. In fact, all of my following posts say the same thing, yet broken down into lengthier more detailed explanations, but the overall principle is still the same.

Reform needed. punishment needed, I don't stand for child abuse.

Wich really makes that one comment all the more ridiculous.

Interesting, isn't it?

Um. How exactly can you say you weren't attacking reform when you say things like "We can bemoan the state of society later" (when IS "later", exactly? When people stop killing? When is the proper time to start working on it?) or "Naive idealism gets jack shit done so think about what you say before you poke the angry bear"? You keep saying you didn't mean what I thought you did, but I don't see how you could possibly have meant anything different by what you said. And then you say that you intentionally make controversial statements that you know are going to start something, yet act shocked when they do.

Plus, have you actually read the rest of the replies in this thread? Nothing you said was particularly "edgy", just slightly offensive.

As for the insanity defense, I was wrong; it's even less than what I said.

The insanity plea is used in less than 1% of all US Criminal Justice System criminal cases; 35% of those are murder cases. One fourth of these cases are successful. Approximately 70% of the successful insanity acquittals were the results of agreements between the prosecution and defense. A jury trial is waived If evidence is presented to a judge for determination with the prosecution and defense both in agreement regarding the defendant's mental state. If they disagree expert witnesses will to testify at a jury trial. Journal of Psychiatric Practice.

Source: Criminal Insanity

I don't really know where on earth you (I don't remember who it was I was arguing with at this point) got 50% from.

Originally Posted by Kris

I think that he should be isolated in a high-security prison. Like, isolated. Alone. In a cell. With no one to talk to, not let out; his food is given to him through a door, he has a restroom in his cell, and he never talks to another soul again in his life.

That is the most severe punishment imaginable, don't you think?

Nope. Bamboo under the fingernails really really really sucks. >.<

To add on to Philomel's statement and Insanity Plea stuff I saw: Sociopaths and Psychopaths are not guaranteed killers. They are just society manipulators, and people void of emotion. Psychopaths and Sociopaths are two different branches under the diagnosis of Anti-Social Personality disorder. A psychopath are what they are because of genetics, a sociopath becomes what they are through environmental factors. I am a borderline Sociopath, with very little emotion and even less to see any reason to have emotion. However, I am intelligent, and logical, and I realize what is wrong and what is right. I am not a criminal, nor do I engage in criminal activities. So, just because someone with Anti-Social Personality Disorder does not make them insane according to society, unless the definition of insane is to not have emotion, whether or not you do specific anti-societal actions or not. Every action is done because of something else. The blame game can be applied to whatever you want. If its not the very brain "defects" you have, its the environment, or your peers, or the institutions. Etc. People need to quit blaming everything on everything else and just own up to what they've done. Plain and Simple >.<

On the Topic:
Long term isolation would probably be best. This would keep the criminal away from others that might hurt him for his deeds as well as away from the public and possible vigilantes. I am not against vigilantism, however, in this society it is unwise to tempt people to become them since it is detrimental to the vigilante when they go to prison for their actions as well as the vigilante's family. Long term isolation will also keep the pediatrician away from other potential targets that could become victims as well.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Um. How exactly can you say you weren't attacking reform when you say things like "We can bemoan the state of society later" (when IS "later", exactly? When people stop killing? When is the proper time to start working on it?) or "Naive idealism gets jack shit done so think about what you say before you poke the angry bear"? You keep saying you didn't mean what I thought you did, but I don't see how you could possibly have meant anything different by what you said. And then you say that you intentionally make controversial statements that you know are going to start something, yet act shocked when they do.

Plus, have you actually read the rest of the replies in this thread? Nothing you said was particularly "edgy", just slightly offensive.

By "We can bemoan the state of society later" I mean later we can complain after we get shit done. Bemoan is a word that is closely related to the word "whining" not "go and get something done". What I saw was bemoaning. What I saw was "OMG there are root issues we need to do something about the root issues. Not PUNISH people that doesn't do ANYTHING you stupid revenge fantasizers" I didn't not see anyone discussing HOW to do that thing, or or the problems that would come or the hurdles that would need to be climbed. Only "We should do something, stop bitching about us not wanting to deal with the short term issues"

And naive idealism really does not get jack shit done. That's not attacking reform, that's attacking naivete and unrealisticness, which i think i explained quite well here

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

I am not in the least bit against social reform. I Like social reform. It's a very good and necessary thing. I am, however, a realist, and as a realist i understand that social reform is difficult, arduous, expensive and takes a LOT of time. And in that time, we still have children being abused.

and here

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

Prevention is better than correction.

and here

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

I want very much for society to reform. I want to take the steps toward social reform. I want to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again because i do not want any child to ever experience such horrible and scarring abuse.

and here

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

I think social reform is important and necessary and that prevention is better than correction and that we need to do it. I also know that such a massive undertaking will by nature be imperfect, expensive, longterm and take a huge amount of manpower.

At no point did i say anything that was offensive, and i DEFINITELY did not say anything that was meant to offend someone personally or attack them. Perhaps I got a little aggressive or bitchy at you, but that was merely responding to the tone in which i was addressed.

And you misunderstand. I do not make such statement's to "start something" as you put it, but to spark lively debate in a mature yet vehment manner i.e. no personal attacks, ect. Lively debates are more fun, and in a forum like this, more lucrative. I make sure to never insult someone outright if they have not done so to me, because I don't believe insults have any place in a mature debate.

And I find it surprising how you neatly sidestepped my whole paragraph about punishments and deterrants.... I know you have strong opinions on that, because you called my suggestions on harsh punishment revenge fantasies..

Again, you're saying I'm not understanding you, but what you're saying you meant is EXACTLY what I said you meant. You responded to my comments with that naive idealism comment, so what exactly were you calling naive idealism? Some unrelated idea that no one was even talking about? If so, that's on you for not being more specific. If not, I'm not sure what you could be addressing besides what I was talking about. Maybe you're trying to say that you didn't mean it in a negative way. And as for the "bemoaning" comment, I know what "bemoaning" means. That doesn't change the fact that you were accusing us of whining about problems instead of taking action, which is apparently what you're doing. You can repeat what you've said however many times you want and say that I've misunderstood you, but the more you explain your remarks, the closer they come to my original interpretation.

And I accuse you of intentionally starting something because you said you do. "I often purposefully make brash and controversial statements just to see what blows up". Now, you wanna tell me how I misunderstood that? And yeah, what you said was offensive, though with you thinking dismissing reform as "naive idealism" isn't at all inflammatory, I'm not sure I could explain to you why that is.

As for me "sidestepping" your paragraph on punishments, there's nothing to discuss. You think punishments work, I do not. I know I cannot convince you that they don't, and as I've already addressed why they do not and you ignored it, I do not feel like typing it again, or going into more detail. And it's something I've argued at least a couple hundred times, a fair few of them in this very forum. At some point, it always switches to, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS/FAMILIES, and the assumption that their personal idea of "justice" is the objective truth, and I just honestly don't have the patience for it anymore.

By naive idealism: Your ideas are sound and good, but you're ideas of HOW to implement them are not realistic. I'm pretty sure i said that. You have been saying that i am knocking social reform. I am NOT as i have said many times. But YOU are saying we should just reform society, as if it can be done by the snap of the fingers or a few people with good intentions trying real hard.

Do you know what social reform is? Changing people's thoughts about a certain matter. In order to prevent the pedophiles from raping children you want to reform them, which is, in essence, changing their thoughts about what is okay or acceptable.

I'm sure you realize how difficult it is to even influence a person's thoughts, let alone change them, by this debate if nothing else. And this is just one person. We're talking thousands. Millions. Social reform is a fantastic long-term goal and should be implemented. But we also need short term solutions. And yes they're imperfect that's why they're short term. But to do nothing is unnacceptable.

I'm confused by your sudden unwillingness to debate a certain subject with me, as this is indeed a debate thread on a debate forum, and you have been doing nothing but "discussing" things with me. And I've never once used the Victems/families argument, for exactly the same reason you hate that argument: I do not speak for them. If you do not believe that punishment is a deterrant, then what is your counterargument to my statement that it may very well be (not even that it IS come on it should be easy).

I never personally insulted anyone, and in a debate expect people to not take offense if there was not personal insult given. You did not misunderstand the blow up comment. You misunderstood the fact that i never want things to devolve into a shit slinging contest, only a heated debate focused on tearing down another person's ARGUMENTS, not them personally. The naive idealism was dismissing an argument, not an individual person. If you take exception to someone disagreeing with you, perhaps you shouldn't frequent debate forums.

A previous poster has a signature that reflects my views on the matter quite well.

intense debate in here still o.o.

In order to help fix high crime rates in our broken society, we need to understand why they exist.

I've been thinking about crime rates a lot and I think one of the primary causes for our high crime rates is our mental health system.
There was a man who visited the mental hospital three days in a row asking for help, and they would not help him. Afterward he shot quite a few people, including a cop or two. The hospital ignored him when he was in need, just like they ignore people who are hallucinating.


I'm thinking about making a debate thread about why we think crime rates are so high, or perhaps a thread on which is more important : punishment or determent.

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

By naive idealism: Your ideas are sound and good, but you're ideas of HOW to implement them are not realistic. I'm pretty sure i said that. You have been saying that i am knocking social reform. I am NOT as i have said many times. But YOU are saying we should just reform society, as if it can be done by the snap of the fingers or a few people with good intentions trying real hard.

See, that doesn't quite fly, as I have never even mentioned what I think should be done to implement my ideas. I don't say everything that pops into my head, and I doubt you do, either, so I'm really hoping you haven't assumed I have no ideas just because I haven't presented them.

Do you know what social reform is? Changing people's thoughts about a certain matter. In order to prevent the pedophiles from raping children you want to reform them, which is, in essence, changing their thoughts about what is okay or acceptable.

Not exclusively it isn't. It's also changing how they are dealt with. Making children unafraid to report abuse is a step in the right direction. His superiors, who repeatedly ignored warning signs and complaints and allowed this to go on for so long, aren't innocent, and changing this view many have of inaction being non-criminal would hopefully prevent something of this scale from happening again. There are a number of things that could be done to help safeguard against this sort of thing. It's only hopeless if you choose to view it as such.

Also, the problem is mostly non-pedophiles. Most pedophiles (read, people who are sexually attracted to children; child molestor is not synonymous with pedophile and vice versa) are well aware that acting on their impulses is not a proper thing to do, and most child molestors are not pedophiles, but rather opportunists. They are simply labeled "pedophiles" because people are lazy and details are hard. Focusing on people with an actual attraction to children and ignoring the ones who are just as likely to abuse the elderly or disabled as they are a child wouldn't even put a dent in the problem.

I'm sure you realize how difficult it is to even influence a person's thoughts, let alone change them, by this debate if nothing else. And this is just one person. We're talking thousands. Millions. Social reform is a fantastic long-term goal and should be implemented. But we also need short term solutions. And yes they're imperfect that's why they're short term. But to do nothing is unnacceptable.

And who, exactly, has suggested we do nothing? Unless you view keeping someone imprisoned for the rest of his natural life as "nothing".

I'm confused by your sudden unwillingness to debate a certain subject with me, as this is indeed a debate thread on a debate forum, and you have been doing nothing but "discussing" things with me. And I've never once used the Victems/families argument, for exactly the same reason you hate that argument: I do not speak for them. If you do not believe that punishment is a deterrant, then what is your counterargument to my statement that it may very well be (not even that it IS come on it should be easy).

That it...isn't? That murder rates tend to be higher, rather than lower, in areas with the death penalty? That juveniles who are severely punished for relatively minor offenses more often than not grow up to despise authority figures and care even less about breaking the law than someone who's never even been arrested? As long as there's a chance that a person might not get caught, punishment won't work because everyone believes they are smart enough to not get caught. It doesn't really matter whether they're wrong or right, because by the time they find out, they've already committed the act. And even if you did completely eliminate the possibility of someone getting away with something, you'd still have a fairly high number of people who, at least in the moment they commit the act, view committing the act as worth the possible punishment. Not to mention, what happens when you punish the wrong person? That person, at the very least, begins to view the entire system as unjust, because if they could be unjustly punished, how many others have been? It certainly doesn't make them want to behave better. If others find out that they were innocent, they too begin to see the system as being unjust. They lose faith in it. Sometimes, they even begin to wonder if anyone who has been punished by this unjust system was really guilty, or at least, deserved the punishment they received. They begin to hate and fear the system, in the way a beaten dog fears its abuser -- not submissive, merely waiting until it can escape or fight back.

I never personally insulted anyone, and in a debate expect people to not take offense if there was not personal insult given. You did not misunderstand the blow up comment. You misunderstood the fact that i never want things to devolve into a shit slinging contest, only a heated debate focused on tearing down another person's ARGUMENTS, not them personally. The naive idealism was dismissing an argument, not an individual person. If you take exception to someone disagreeing with you, perhaps you shouldn't frequent debate forums.

First off, brushing something that many have devoted their lives to off as something that should be seen as an afterthought that can be dealt with when everyone else gets around to it is personally insulting, and that is what you've done, intentionally or not.

I also love how typical the last little jab was. Yes, if I disagree with you with any amount of passion and treat you with the same amount of respect I've received from you, I obviously am just upset that you disagree with me, nevermind that there are people I talk to on this site who I first encountered on the opposing position in a debate, who I agree very rarely with, and yet get on with magnificently. (Just ask Tutela :P) I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with dismissal of ideas. It's completely condescending and presents your opinion as the only one with any merit. You shouldn't be surprised when people do not respond well to this tactic.

Originally Posted by Philomel

See, that doesn't quite fly, as I have never even mentioned what I think should be done to implement my ideas. I don't say everything that pops into my head, and I doubt you do, either, so I'm really hoping you haven't assumed I have no ideas just because I haven't presented them.

You said i should stop "bitching at people for discussing how they might prevent things like this from happening in the future "

I feel that implementation is an integeral part of discussing how something may be presented. You are correct that you did not mention the hows. Somhoe i got the impression you did. I apologize

Originally Posted by Philomel

Not exclusively it isn't. It's also changing how they are dealt with. Making children unafraid to report abuse is a step in the right direction. His superiors, who repeatedly ignored warning signs and complaints and allowed this to go on for so long, aren't innocent, and changing this view many have of inaction being non-criminal would hopefully prevent something of this scale from happening again. There are a number of things that could be done to help safeguard against this sort of thing. It's only hopeless if you choose to view it as such.

I never said it was hopeless, i said it was difficult. All of these examples you are giving require changing how people view the world, which is a difficult, if noble and essential task. I keep saying that i think that these things need to be done. I say only that it will take a long time, and as we are doing these things, measures must be taken for correction

Originally Posted by Philomel

Also, the problem is mostly non-pedophiles. Most pedophiles (read, people who are sexually attracted to children; child molestor is not synonymous with pedophile and vice versa) are well aware that acting on their impulses is not a proper thing to do, and most child molestors are not pedophiles, but rather opportunists. They are simply labeled "pedophiles" because people are lazy and details are hard. Focusing on people with an actual attraction to children and ignoring the ones who are just as likely to abuse the elderly or disabled as they are a child wouldn't even put a dent in the problem.

Point well taken and duly noted.

Originally Posted by Philomel

And who, exactly, has suggested we do nothing? Unless you view keeping someone imprisoned for the rest of his natural life as "nothing".

That would be you. All the arguing against punishment has implied that we as a society should NOT punish those who do wrong. If I have misunderstood i aplogise, but all I have heard is "don't punish, attack the root of the problem." I only take issue with half of that statement.

Originally Posted by Philomel

That it...isn't? That murder rates tend to be higher, rather than lower, in areas with the death penalty? That juveniles who are severely punished for relatively minor offenses more often than not grow up to despise authority figures and care even less about breaking the law than someone who's never even been arrested? As long as there's a chance that a person might not get caught, punishment won't work because everyone believes they are smart enough to not get caught. It doesn't really matter whether they're wrong or right, because by the time they find out, they've already committed the act. And even if you did completely eliminate the possibility of someone getting away with something, you'd still have a fairly high number of people who, at least in the moment they commit the act, view committing the act as worth the possible punishment. Not to mention, what happens when you punish the wrong person? That person, at the very least, begins to view the entire system as unjust, because if they could be unjustly punished, how many others have been? It certainly doesn't make them want to behave better. If others find out that they were innocent, they too begin to see the system as being unjust. They lose faith in it. Sometimes, they even begin to wonder if anyone who has been punished by this unjust system was really guilty, or at least, deserved the punishment they received. They begin to hate and fear the system, in the way a beaten dog fears its abuser -- not submissive, merely waiting until it can escape or fight back.

It really is important to keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation. It's not just a pretty phrase used by people like me who argue for the death penalty.

And now we are getting to broader examples that I had not kept in mind when making my previous statements. What I had in mind were heavy crimes, such as rape and murder and the incident that sparked this lovely little discussion we have going here. Now that we are broadening things I will agree with you that i think kids are overly persecuted nowadays, and that the juvenile detention system is worse than useless. I agree that people must have faith in the fairness and justice of our government in order for deterrence to work and i can see how the falsely convicted could severely fuck with that. However, to not punish at all, to not hold people accountable for their actions, or to give them a simple slap on the wrist, would be disastrous. And to imply that deterrence never works, or hardly ever works, is a fallacy to say the least.

Originally Posted by Philomel

First off, brushing something that many have devoted their lives to off as something that should be seen as an afterthought that can be dealt with when everyone else gets around to it is personally insulting, and that is what you've done, intentionally or not.

I also love how typical the last little jab was. Yes, if I disagree with you with any amount of passion and treat you with the same amount of respect I've received from you, I obviously am just upset that you disagree with me, nevermind that there are people I talk to on this site who I first encountered on the opposing position in a debate, who I agree very rarely with, and yet get on with magnificently. (Just ask Tutela :P) I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with dismissal of ideas. It's completely condescending and presents your opinion as the only one with any merit. You shouldn't be surprised when people do not respond well to this tactic.

Part of me saying that reform is longterm means i think it should start now. If we don't start something longterm, then it will never be fixed. I did not dismiss reform. I dismissed the idea that that is all that is needed.

And let's get something straight: i NEVER disrespected you until YOU disrespected me. Granted i should perhaps not have retaliated but you should not have started with the personal jabs. The statement about me not caring about raped children was particularly infuriating and unnecessary. That last little typical jab was made because the first impression i got from you is one of taking exception to disagreement and retaliating with personal attacks instead of mature, if heated rebuttal. If you don't like the typical jab, don't act in a way that statement eis warrented.

Now, i understand that we have got off on a bad start, but I am PERFECTLY willing to continue debating with you (in this debate and later ones) in a mature fashion and not taking exception to argument. I make it personal policy to not take remarks made during debate personally, because debates by nature get heated. If you feel that you cannot do this, that is fine, but let it not be said that i cannot lay personal issues aside.

Originally Posted by YumikoYoshihana

You said i should stop "bitching at people for discussing how they might prevent things like this from happening in the future "

I feel that implementation is an integeral part of discussing how something may be presented. You are correct that you did not mention the hows. Somhoe i got the impression you did. I apologize

I was not speaking strictly about myself but rather everyone else who had posted in this thread up to that point. I would hope your first post in this thread was not directed solely at me.

I never said it was hopeless, i said it was difficult. All of these examples you are giving require changing how people view the world, which is a difficult, if noble and essential task. I keep saying that i think that these things need to be done. I say only that it will take a long time, and as we are doing these things, measures must be taken for correction

Measures that actually correct. Which is what we're debating. I don't agree with the logic that something is better than nothing, when that something is as likely to cause more harm as it is to help.

That would be you. All the arguing against punishment has implied that we as a society should NOT punish those who do wrong. If I have misunderstood i aplogise, but all I have heard is "don't punish, attack the root of the problem." I only take issue with half of that statement.

No, it would not be me. When you muzzle a vicious dog, are you doing it to punish her? No, you doing it to keep her from posing a threat to others. Prison should be a controlled environment to attempt and aid reform or, at the very least, a way of separating those who cause harm from the people they might cause harm to. Notice that in my very first post in this thread, in the very first sentence of that post, I said he should get a life sentence.

It really is important to keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation. It's not just a pretty phrase used by people like me who argue for the death penalty.

It also proves nothing. We can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something really does or doesn't work. We can, however, look at example after example, and with enough examples, we can get an idea of what the truth is. I'm sorry, but I don't see why, if punishment works so well, this would be the case. At the very least, it's not working as a deterrant.

And now we are getting to broader examples that I had not kept in mind when making my previous statements. What I had in mind were heavy crimes, such as rape and murder and the incident that sparked this lovely little discussion we have going here. Now that we are broadening things I will agree with you that i think kids are overly persecuted nowadays, and that the juvenile detention system is worse than useless. I agree that people must have faith in the fairness and justice of our government in order for deterrence to work and i can see how the falsely convicted could severely fuck with that. However, to not punish at all, to not hold people accountable for their actions, or to give them a simple slap on the wrist, would be disastrous. And to imply that deterrence never works, or hardly ever works, is a fallacy to say the least.

I don't see why. We've been trying the "deterrence" method since we first developed a system of rules and punishments. People still kill each other. People still hurt each other. People still steal from one another. If anything, I'd venture to say that the overall crime rate (for simplicity's sake, let's only include crimes with victims) has decreased as the severity of the possible punishments has decreased. Deterrence, at best, makes people afraid, angry, and hateful. That's the recipe for a revolt, not a lower crime rate.

Part of me saying that reform is longterm means i think it should start now. If we don't start something longterm, then it will never be fixed. I did not dismiss reform. I dismissed the idea that that is all that is needed.

An idea that was never presented. Again, when you assume things that you have no reason to assume and then argue based on those assumptions, do not be surprised when misunderstandings arise.

And let's get something straight: i NEVER disrespected you until YOU disrespected me. Granted i should perhaps not have retaliated but you should not have started with the personal jabs.

I wasn't personally jabbing you, anymore than you were by your automatic dismissal of my opinion, an opinion which you didn't even fully understand.

The statement about me not caring about raped children was particularly infuriating and unnecessary.

Again, not a statement. Granted, it could have been explained better, but I said it because often, people who are all about swift, direct punishment forget that the problem isn't the possibility of the guilty getting away scott free, but rather that more is not done to protect the innocent. Indeed, it's often not even seen as a problem, so long as the guilty are eventually punished.

That last little typical jab was made because the first impression i got from you is one of taking exception to disagreement and retaliating with personal attacks instead of mature, if heated rebuttal. If you don't like the typical jab, don't act in a way that statement eis warrented.

Then you obviously got the wrong impression. Not my fault you keep shrugging off my explanations of why your original statement was upsetting and missing the issue entirely and instead going for, well obviously she's just mad I'm disagreeing with her.

Now, i understand that we have got off on a bad start, but I am PERFECTLY willing to continue debating with you (in this debate and later ones) in a mature fashion and not taking exception to argument. I make it personal policy to not take remarks made during debate personally, because debates by nature get heated. If you feel that you cannot do this, that is fine, but let it not be said that i cannot lay personal issues aside.

I have no personal issues with you. Like I said, your statements, while upsetting, are typical. I've read and heard them (and things infinitely worse) too many times before to let it affect my personal views of you.

Originally Posted by Philomel

nevermind that there are people I talk to on this site who I first encountered on the opposing position in a debate, who I agree very rarely with, and yet get on with magnificently. (Just ask Tutela :P) I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me.

What fun is it exactly if everyone conforms to the same idea? Hell, if no one takes the devil's advocate side, then I do to ignite sparks of passionate writing. It is quite entertaining to read as long as it is intelligent and well thought out replies and not just repeated copouts. >.< Copouts are one of my pet peeves >.<

I enjoyed reading both stances you and Yumiko took, it was quite a good read of conversation, and I am happy we have a new intelligent debater in our lonely residence. As I really test the limits of debate, I hope that I am able to get in a nice debate with Yumiko sometime, it seems like it would be much fun. :)

Originally Posted by Philomel

I was not speaking strictly about myself but rather everyone else who had posted in this thread up to that point. I would hope your first post in this thread was not directed solely at me.

Of course it wasn't. My first thread was directed at the man in question. I maintain that I never bitched at anyone. I simply did not agree with a sentiment.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Measures that actually correct. Which is what we're debating. I don't agree with the logic that something is better than nothing, when that something is as likely to cause more harm as it is to help.

No, it would not be me. When you muzzle a vicious dog, are you doing it to punish her? No, you doing it to keep her from posing a threat to others. Prison should be a controlled environment to attempt and aid reform or, at the very least, a way of separating those who cause harm from the people they might cause harm to. Notice that in my very first post in this thread, in the very first sentence of that post, I said he should get a life sentence.

What about those who commit lesser crimes? They're not such a huge danger to humanity that they need to be locked up forever. And I cannot IMAGINE how not punishing for petty crime would bring about anything good. It's like Academic integrity: if there were not consequences for cheating, everyone and their dog would do it (an exaggeration, of course, but my point is still valid). The same can be said for petty crimes.

I agree that violent crimes can be a little trickier, in the whole debate of does harsh punishment work, but I still maintain that people must beheld responsible for thier actions. You may think locking him up like a vicious dog may be enough punishment. I do not. Keep in mind that dogs only get two strikes before they get put down. This man took 100.

Originally Posted by Philomel

It also proves nothing. We can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something really does or doesn't work. We can, however, look at example after example, and with enough examples, we can get an idea of what the truth is. I'm sorry, but I don't see why, if punishment works so well, this would be the case. At the very least, it's not working as a deterrant.

That's what i said, statistics prove nothing. And in order to know how much punishment is a deterrent, we would first have to see a would without punishment to compare. And that would never happen. Just because holding people responsible is not perfect and does not stop all crime, there is no basis for staying it stops no crime, or very little crime.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I don't see why. We've been trying the "deterrence" method since we first developed a system of rules and punishments. People still kill each other. People still hurt each other. People still steal from one another. If anything, I'd venture to say that the overall crime rate (for simplicity's sake, let's only include crimes with victims) has decreased as the severity of the possible punishments has decreased. Deterrence, at best, makes people afraid, angry, and hateful. That's the recipe for a revolt, not a lower crime rate.

People always will kill hurt and steal from one another. It is a sad, depressing truth. However, I WOULD like to see some statistics from that last claim, and i would also like to restate that statistics are not hard and fast evidence with things like this. Confounds exist, especially with social issues where you can't set up experiments to minimize confounding factors.

Originally Posted by Philomel

An idea that was never presented. Again, when you assume things that you have no reason to assume and then argue based on those assumptions, do not be surprised when misunderstandings arise.

When all one does is go on about how punishment never works and how reform is the only way to go, one gets the impression that that is what one is presenting. Perhaps i made assumptions, perhaps those arguing for reform were not clear, perhaps both. Bear in mind that i cannot read your thoughts, however, and must interpret the statements as I see them.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I wasn't personally jabbing you, anymore than you were by your automatic dismissal of my opinion, an opinion which you didn't even fully understand.

Again, not a statement. Granted, it could have been explained better, but I said it because often, people who are all about swift, direct punishment forget that the problem isn't the possibility of the guilty getting away scott free, but rather that more is not done to protect the innocent. Indeed, it's often not even seen as a problem, so long as the guilty are eventually punished.

Then you obviously got the wrong impression. Not my fault you keep shrugging off my explanations of why your original statement was upsetting and missing the issue entirely and instead going for, well obviously she's just mad I'm disagreeing with her.

I am resistant to explanations when they are presented in the aggressive way in which you presented them to me. When someone jumps down my throat, I very rarely stop to think if they have the right idea, even if the mode of presentation is less than sound. That is what happened here. IF you had calmly explained to me why offense was took, i would have been much more receptive.

And yes, the "not a statement" could have been explained better. Much better. Especially since i never even hinted that children were not my main concern in my statements.

Originally Posted by Philomel

I have no personal issues with you. Like I said, your statements, while upsetting, are typical. I've read and heard them (and things infinitely worse) too many times before to let it affect my personal views of you.

Cool, and duly noted. Now that we can set that aside... let us continue ^_^

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

What fun is it exactly if everyone conforms to the same idea? Hell, if no one takes the devil's advocate side, then I do to ignite sparks of passionate writing. It is quite entertaining to read as long as it is intelligent and well thought out replies and not just repeated copouts. >.< Copouts are one of my pet peeves >.<

I enjoyed reading both stances you and Yumiko took, it was quite a good read of conversation, and I am happy we have a new intelligent debater in our lonely residence. As I really test the limits of debate, I hope that I am able to get in a nice debate with Yumiko sometime, it seems like it would be much fun. :)

Hell yea, I know exactly how you feel. Debating is more fun when someone plays devil's advocate. And thank you! I hope to debate with you sometime as well! It should be much fun :D

Forget it. I'm not going to argue with you when you dismiss the only evidence there is in this debate supporting either side as "proving nothing". You are intent on believing what you want to believe, and I am not changing my opinion. So forget it. People, feel free to return to talking about how you hope he gets raped/killed/mutilated in prison.

An eye for eye is the only thing reasonable in this case. He should be castrated and should be dealt with to the fullest extent. People that say don't hurt him don't beat don't do this have no true registry of the crime. He raped over 100 children and tapped himself doing it, which might lead to child pornography videos on the world web wide. really someone needs to be a full fledge poster boy for pedohlilia and what happens when you get caught. To bad Rorchach isn't around. The problem would have been dealt with.

I'm afraid castrating the man won't prevent him from doing it again, and it won't prevent others from doing it.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Forget it. I'm not going to argue with you when you dismiss the only evidence there is in this debate supporting either side as "proving nothing". You are intent on believing what you want to believe, and I am not changing my opinion. So forget it. People, feel free to return to talking about how you hope he gets raped/killed/mutilated in prison.

If that is the only evidence, it is not a very good argument then, is it? And of course i am intent on believing what i want to believe; so, indeed, are you. It just so happens that what we believe is different, so we're debating. I never had any intention of changing your mind; i had the intention of debating. I would never expect you to change your opinion, only to defend it.

The argument on statistics is not something i pulled out of my ass, it's common sense, and scientifically valid. If there is a survey done in prison about the inmates favorite colors, and a statistically significant correlation is found between liking the color, say, blue, for arguments sake, and being a sexual predator, would that mean that the color blue causes sexual assault, or that if you like blue it means you will rape someone? No of course not, that would be preposterous. If the correlation is indeed significant, it would be most likely that there is an underlying cause, or a statistical confound that was not discovered or adequately accounted for, that reflected those results.

This

Originally Posted by Philomel

People, feel free to return to talking about how you hope he gets raped/killed/mutilated in prison.

followed by this

Originally Posted by Runes

An eye for eye is the only thing reasonable in this case

makes me weep for humanity.

(I understood your frustration Phil, but the fact that you said that in such a rhetorical manner and got exactly that immediately afterwards is what I'm weeping about, not what you said specifically)

Originally Posted by Keyori

(I understood your frustration Phil, but the fact that you said that in such a rhetorical manner and got exactly that immediately afterwards is what I'm weeping about, not what you said specifically)

Really? I laughed out loud. Not, it must be said, because eye for an eye is a statement i find hilarious, but for the same reason you found it frustrating and sad.

In all reality, there is nothing we can do to stop horrible crimes such as this. Capitol punishment doesn't stop it, psychiatrists can't stop it (Even if someone gets therapy and claims to be "cured", once a rapist always a rapist), crimes, such as this, have happened, is happening, and always will happen. Sad Fact. So what do we do if it can't really be stopped? We enforce capitol punishment anyways because it makes the victims feel better. (Of course, a victim of a sex crime will always be scarred) Some of the offenders don't even get CP. Why do you think some people believe in eye for an eye in this case? Because they F%&$#g deserve it, or at least some of us think so.

I will admit, I am biased when it comes to these offenders, but I have a very personal beef with these monsters. Law & Order SVU doesn't help.. >>;

Originally Posted by demoscout

In all reality, there is nothing we can do to stop horrible crimes such as this. Capitol punishment doesn't stop it, psychiatrists can't stop it (Even if someone gets therapy and claims to be "cured", once a rapist always a rapist), crimes, such as this, have happened, is happening, and always will happen. Sad Fact. So what do we do if it can't really be stopped? We enforce capitol punishment anyways because it makes the victims feel better. (Of course, a victim of a sex crime will always be scarred) Some of the offenders don't even get CP. Why do you think some people believe in eye for an eye in this case? Because they F%&$#g deserve it, or at least some of us think so.

I will admit, I am biased when it comes to these offenders, but I have a very personal beef with these monsters. Law & Order SVU doesn't help.. >>;

What you say is not necessarily true. Containment is the best solution so far since it isolates the problem, however psychological cures and even drugs they have developed can influence a criminal to stop their normal behavior. Having a criminal face their past and accept it can stop their behavior. Lots of times there is a base cause for all their current actions. If you fix the source, you fix them. Doesn't work all the time and isn't practiced all the time, but it does work. As far as your reference to a T.V. Show, SVU is simply an emotionally based program. I personally hate the cops in it since they go around the law most of the time to catch the people in the first place. If you are going to base your opinion on criminals and their action from a T.V. show, I would recommend Criminal Minds as it gets more in the psyche and explains why they criminals do what they do. Many of them actually have legitimate reasons, while not acceptable in society, their actions are still understandable even if they must in the end be punished for them.