#2 2010-05-17 11:49:10
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-09/b … upervision
This all poses a serious problem - what do we do with individuals who have proven they are unfit to participate in the larger society and are a danger to those around them?
Offline
#3 2010-05-17 11:53:41
No doubt, there are people who should be removed...my biggest concern I guess is if they are worth keeping behind bars indefinitely then raise the amount of time that a convict can be sentenced to a definitive number. And if they feel that they are ok to get out, that's why we have parole.
Offline
#4 2010-05-17 12:01:33
I've always wondered about the sex offender restrictions after people get out. If they're such a threat that they have to notify everyone in the neighborhood and be actively tracked by law enforcement, then why were they let out? Either we're harassing people that have served their time, or we're releasing people we know to be still dangerous--there isn't any other option.
Lordy, lordy, look who agreed with forty.
Offline
#5 2010-05-17 12:15:19
If they were that bad, and were clearly unfit to rejoin society from the start, perhaps the assigned punishment wasn't appropriate in the first place. Personally, I think sexual predators - the ones who are truly seriously dangerous - should simply be taken out of the pool. Permanently.
Offline
#6 2010-05-17 23:29:06
I'd have to agree with Sailor. Once someone's wiring gets that fucked up, there's no recovery, no second chance without a real and active and ongoing effort on the part of the individual to reform. The crimes are too secretive, the victims too vulnerable to allow them out. Castrating them won't necessarily stop them, either--not all predators are bound to the use of the penis. Liquidation or medical experiments or both.
Offline
#7 2010-05-18 00:00:18
I honestly don't know where the hell I stand on this. As everyone's pointed out already, if they were truly that dangerous they shouldn't have been let out to begin with but I can't help but wonder about the idiots who were merely letting their dicks do their thinking for them and ended up inflicting real damage upon someone else. Continuing to punish them hardly serves anyone's interest except for small time politicos looking for brownie points from voters.
Fortie's discomfort with the issue reflects my own discomfort with the death penalty. Yes, there are people who commit truly heinous crimes and who simply can not be allowed back into society but I am not at all comfortable with giving the state the right to determine who should live and who should die. Well, except in those cases determined by the Obamacare death panels, of course.
Offline
#8 2010-05-18 01:36:20
I'd feel much better about this if it were "dangerous" instead of "sexually dangerous".
But either way it's bad. Double jeopardy? You serve your sentence then panel of "experts"(?) sentences you again?
Offline
#9 2010-05-18 01:58:55
My logical side (and the part of me that developed a huge distrust of the government during the 60s & 70s) is upset with the idea of giving the government the power to declare somebody "sexually dangerous" and then detain them indefinitely. The Soviet Union routinely declared dissidents to be "mentally ill" as an excuse to hold them in institutions, and psychiatric abuse has been known to happen in this country. And then there is the reality that child molesters and violent sexual predators don't change; that keeping them away from the public saves lives, prevents rapes, and keeps children safe. What to do, what to do.
Offline
#10 2010-05-18 05:51:16
Was the British documentary about this posted here on the Street some time ago? I don't remember where I saw it . . . if not, I can try to dig it up and post the link. It was fascinating.
Offline
#11 2010-05-18 07:26:33
John Gardner III wrote:
“I was aware of what I was doing, and I could not stop myself. I was in a major rage and pissed off at my whole life and everyone who had hurt me and blew up and hurt the wrong people,”
“If I was able to stop myself in the middle of it, I would have, and I could not. I was out of control,”
The most recent case makes a very clear point: Normal humans do not need to exert control over urges to rape and kill young children.
Offline
#12 2010-05-18 10:11:06
Isn't there a medium sized island that could be used for providing a wholesome, fulfilling life outside of societies temptations?
Offline
#13 2010-05-18 13:56:52
GooberMcNutly wrote:
Isn't there a medium sized island that could be used for providing a wholesome, fulfilling life outside of societies temptations?
No, no. Too big a tourist draw providing too much income for San Francisco. Give them Manhattan, instead.
Offline
#14 2010-05-18 14:09:35
whiskytangofoxtrot wrote:
Liquidation or medical experiments or both.
Three words. . . reality television show. Think Death Race 2000 for sex offenders instead of violent offenders, with the most horrific orgies imaginable.
Offline
