|
|
| can they be reformed and let back in society? |
| yes |
|
36% |
[ 8 ] |
| no |
|
63% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:58 pm
can psychology find a cure for them
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:09 am
Hell no. They all need to be shot or fried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:10 pm
Define Child Molester. I have heard of some cases where an 18 year old was accussed of being a "Child Molester" because they were dating a 17 year old. That is pure bs. Also, one has to tke into account whether the person was on drugs or drunk at the time. The government, I noticed, doesn't really explain what they did to earn the ranking of child molester. Isuppose some of them do need to be shot and fried, but others were accussed on a technicality. I guess you have to look at each case individually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:29 pm
i think there's a decently safe program going on now. the convict is forced to inform any neighbors and its often to some extent publicized in the immediate area by word of mouth when one moves in. maybe add a few years of some kind of semi-parole program and i think itd be safe to set him out in the wild. criminal records exist for a reason, and judges rarely give third chances when someone does something shady again. its this kind of thing that justifies the complicated judicial system we now have. if the judge is doing his job, he'll give as much trust to a convict that they deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:18 pm
High_Assassin Define Child Molester. I have heard of some cases where an 18 year old was accussed of being a "Child Molester" because they were dating a 17 year old. That is pure bs. Also, one has to tke into account whether the person was on drugs or drunk at the time. The government, I noticed, doesn't really explain what they did to earn the ranking of child molester. Isuppose some of them do need to be shot and fried, but others were accussed on a technicality. I guess you have to look at each case individually. rape invloving someone under 18 and at least 4 years younger than you make you a child molestor even if you are drunk and/or high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:44 pm
I really think they should change to like a two year time period. Like if you 18 the youngest you can go is 16, or if you 19 the youngest is 17. At least a year kind of thing. This isn't really a problem for me because I'm 19 and my girlfriend is 18, but it wasn't to long ago that was 18 and 17.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:50 pm
Did you even read the articles?
The lawsuit alleges that NAMBLA's speech induced those two to commit those crimes, despite the fact that NAMBLA - while certainly an objectionable and "morally" bereft organization - does not advocate forcible rape or acts intended to cause harm.
If NAMBLA loses, then, for example, gun manufacturers would be civilly liable for inducing people to shoot each other. Heck, then it's even worse because they furnished materials for the act!
The scope of the precedent would be disasterous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 10:23 am
It is my personal stance that child molesters, like serial killers, cannot be rehabilitated. While there are some medications that have resulted in curbing the child molester's urges, these are taken by the child molesters who, frankly, aren't in a proper state to be self-medicating. I think the only solution for criminals who cannot be rehabilitated is the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:32 pm
DINOSAURS! It is my personal stance that child molesters, like serial killers, cannot be rehabilitated. ... I think the only solution for criminals who cannot be rehabilitated is the death penalty. Your personal stance is meaningless as law is not based on personal morals and beliefs, it's based on logic, reason, and fact. We can emperically test your claim that they cannot be rehabilitated, thus denying you a grey area where your statements can be defended by a lack of opposing evidence in the court of public opinion - despite argument from ignorance being a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:13 pm
Tanasha as law is not based on personal morals and beliefs, it's based on logic, reason, and fact. it'll be a bright day when we've completely achieved that. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:10 pm
Sinew Tanasha as law is not based on personal morals and beliefs, it's based on logic, reason, and fact. it'll be a bright day when we've completely achieved that. biggrin Can we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:27 pm
5ubliminalM355ag35 Sinew Tanasha as law is not based on personal morals and beliefs, it's based on logic, reason, and fact. it'll be a bright day when we've completely achieved that. biggrin Can we? After millenia of despotism, then centuries of aristocracy, and then decades of republic, at this exponential rate we're only years away, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:37 pm
Tanasha DINOSAURS! It is my personal stance that child molesters, like serial killers, cannot be rehabilitated. ... I think the only solution for criminals who cannot be rehabilitated is the death penalty. Your personal stance is meaningless as law is not based on personal morals and beliefs, it's based on logic, reason, and fact. We can emperically test your claim that they cannot be rehabilitated, thus denying you a grey area where your statements can be defended by a lack of opposing evidence in the court of public opinion - despite argument from ignorance being a logical fallacy. Laws are based upon the morals of society, and if you are within a society that stresses individual thought then yes, Law is based on personal morals. Jim Crow laws anyone? What about the Nuremberg laws? Morals fall into the logic reason and fact, for facts are only facts during certain time. Do we still have witch trials? Even though in the 1700s we believed that witches were real and of fact. Laws are based upon morals of a society and when you have a society that stress individual thought then personal stances DO become laws if supported by a majority with the same personal stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:13 pm
SoViEtTaNkT34 Laws are based upon the morals of society, and if you are within a society that stresses individual thought then yes, Law is based on personal morals. Jim Crow laws anyone? What about the Nuremberg laws? Morals fall into the logic reason and fact, for facts are only facts during certain time. Do we still have witch trials? Even though in the 1700s we believed that witches were real and of fact. Laws are based upon morals of a society and when you have a society that stress individual thought then personal stances DO become laws if supported by a majority with the same personal stance. My point was that any law that is NOT based on fact, logic, and reason is flawed in nature, regardless of other factors. Law - as is the case with most things - is goal-based, rather than absolute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
