|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:15:41 GMT
Justice SHOULD be about fairness and doing the RIGHT thing and NOT about revenge. I can certainly understand revenge; there are lots of times I've felt like going in for it. But if you make revenge rather than justice and fairness the basis for law you might as well give up and admit that you can't have any kind of law that's based on morality! retribution IS justice No it isn't; it's cowardice. Punishment is NOT the same as retribution and it's just dishonest to try and pretend it is. Law based on retribution is always going to be immoral and unjust.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:31:09 GMT
Gibby, I don't disagree with you about emotional maturity but then plenty of adults never seem to achieve that either. And it's difficult to decide how to make a law - let's say you said that you couldn't have an age difference more than, say, five years between a couple having sex. What about a woman of 20 marrying a man of 40? Is he a paedophile? Or a man of nineteen having sex with a girl of 17? Or a girl of 16 (the age of consent in Britain) having sex with a boy of 15? It's hard to see where to draw the line; I worry about the way that people are trying to use the totally GENUINE problem of real paedophiles to launch a neo-Victorian attack on what they see as sexual promiscuity to try and enforce a right-wing sexual agenda on people. If you're going to make emotional maturity a necessity for sex how many of us would fail that particular test? I'm anything BUT pro-paedophile but I do worry about the way that a genuine problem is being deliberately lied about and distorted as part of a wider attack on sexual freedom. And freedom generally. it's not about the difference in age or an age gap it's about the age a person can legally have sex.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:32:34 GMT
no, but, an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old is Why? How do you make that out? How big an age gap does there have to be? age gap is not the issue here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:34:52 GMT
No it isn't; it's cowardice. Punishment is NOT the same as retribution and it's just dishonest to try and pretend it is. Law based on retribution is always going to be immoral and unjust. No , retribution is a form of justice, one that considers that the punishment should fit the crime , sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:08:46 GMT
Gibby, I don't disagree with you about emotional maturity but then plenty of adults never seem to achieve that either. And it's difficult to decide how to make a law - let's say you said that you couldn't have an age difference more than, say, five years between a couple having sex. What about a woman of 20 marrying a man of 40? Is he a paedophile? Or a man of nineteen having sex with a girl of 17? Or a girl of 16 (the age of consent in Britain) having sex with a boy of 15? It's hard to see where to draw the line; I worry about the way that people are trying to use the totally GENUINE problem of real paedophiles to launch a neo-Victorian attack on what they see as sexual promiscuity to try and enforce a right-wing sexual agenda on people. If you're going to make emotional maturity a necessity for sex how many of us would fail that particular test? I'm anything BUT pro-paedophile but I do worry about the way that a genuine problem is being deliberately lied about and distorted as part of a wider attack on sexual freedom. And freedom generally. it's not about the difference in age or an age gap it's about the age a person can legally have sex. Let's assume you're right about that; it still creates bad law. You can be found guilty of being a paedophile if by a single DAY you are over the legal limit. No matter how consensual the sex is and how small the age gap the law regards you as being on the same level as Savile which is not just stupid but IMO immoral as well. Just because something IS a law doesn't mean it's rational or even morally defensible. The law on paedophilia is using a slegehammer to crack a nut. It lumps everyone togetehrr regardless of the facts which is just plain wrong on every level.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:11:16 GMT
Why? How do you make that out? How big an age gap does there have to be? age gap is not the issue here. I'ts the SOLE issue. Without the age gap you can't (even in law) be a paedophile.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:13:20 GMT
No it isn't; it's cowardice. Punishment is NOT the same as retribution and it's just dishonest to try and pretend it is. Law based on retribution is always going to be immoral and unjust. No , retribution is a form of justice, one that considers that the punishment should fit the crime , sounds fair to me. No, retribution is a form of vengeance, one that considers that HURTING the criminal is all that matters and NOT the interests of justice. It's unfair by very definition!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:42:56 GMT
It depends on how you define retribution, donna.
To criminologists it means punishment for punishment's sake but that doesn't necessarily mean vengeance; merely a way to make the offender pay for his wrong. Some say it is the only reason to punish, because it treats the offender as a rational person. Retribution is also useful for limitation purposes; ie a retributionist would not sentence someone to a long time in prison to reform him, if the crime only merited a short one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:54:25 GMT
age gap is not the issue here. I'ts the SOLE issue. Without the age gap you can't (even in law) be a paedophile. it's the age of the victim Not the age gap .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:55:20 GMT
No , retribution is a form of justice, one that considers that the punishment should fit the crime , sounds fair to me. No, retribution is a form of vengeance, one that considers that HURTING the criminal is all that matters and NOT the interests of justice. It's unfair by very definition! No it absolutely is not. you've got a strange definition of retribution in your head.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 18:59:48 GMT
it's not about the difference in age or an age gap it's about the age a person can legally have sex. Let's assume you're right about that; it still creates bad law. You can be found guilty of being a paedophile if by a single DAY you are over the legal limit. No matter how consensual the sex is and how small the age gap the law regards you as being on the same level as Savile which is not just stupid but IMO immoral as well. Just because something IS a law doesn't mean it's rational or even morally defensible. The law on paedophilia is using a slegehammer to crack a nut. It lumps everyone togetehrr regardless of the facts which is just plain wrong on every level. it's the law for a very good reason to protect children . a sex offender is just that a sex offender and should be punished accordingly , and be on the sex register. if they don't want to be treated in that way then it's simple don't have underage sex , they can't then complain poor me when they are caught.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 20:08:25 GMT
So if they are both under age, both are guilty of an offence; he of rape and she (probably) of sexual assault on him. That really doesn't do the job of protecting children from abuse, in my opinion.
That's fine if the law decides that is so (it was changed 10 years ago in England and Wales). But don't expect a civilised country to extradite someone to a country where all sex offenders are locked up for life regardless of what they have done.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 15, 2013 20:51:32 GMT
Retribution is a word that covers more than one set of meanings. I will paste the Wiki article links to illustrate the confusion:
Retribution may refer to:
Punishment Retributive justice, a theory of justice that considers proportionate punishment an acceptable response to crime Revenge, a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance
Now punishment as we all know takes many forms and it is pretty universally recognised that some punishments may be unjust.
Retributive justice claims to seek 'proportionate punishment' but that is IMO simply a specious and dishonest piece of window dressing.
What is the 'proportionate punishment' for rape? Raping the perpetrator?
For theft? Stealing from the thief?
Almost the only two crimes where a retributive theory of justice works are with murder - where the death penalty could be seen as proportionate punishment, or with crimes of violence - where judicial flogging could be seen as a proportionate response.
In every other area of law the whole notion of retribution is defective and inapplicable.
Should we punish a paedophile by abusing their children?
Rape a rapist?
To me the whole concept of retributive justice is not simply archaic, barbaric and fundamentally immoral but also means that punishment has to be a substitute for the desired proportionality so that for instance longer or shorter prison sentences are imposed but there is simply no meaningful sense of the word in which any kind of incarceration could be regarded as proportionate punishment.
Since it is NOT proportionate, it CANNOT be retributive and in fact retributive justice does not exist (except in the special case of execution for murder).
What takes its place is simply revenge and to that extent I agree with Donna.
I do not however share her views on almost every other aspect of this particular subject!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 21:17:52 GMT
You didn't post those links, Mike, but this is the crucial bit from the Wki site : Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be scaled relative to the severity of the offending behaviour. However, this does not mean that the punishment has to be equivalent to the crime. A retributive system must punish severe crime more harshly than minor crime, but retributivists differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall. Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has been committed and carried out to atone for the damage already done.
So a retributionist won't sentence a man to jail for unlawfully downloading an album sinply because he was the only one they 've been able to catch and want to make an example of him. A retributionist won't send a woman to five years in prison for possessing a tiny amount of cannabis because she can get clean and learn a trade. And a retributionist won't remove a 14 year old boy from society for the whole of his life because he had sex with his willing girlfriend.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 23:14:49 GMT
Which means the public is being protected, and the man is not free to prowl and stalk children . What more do the vigilantes propose to do? it has nothing to do with vigilantes. it has to do with the people's right to know that they have a pedophile for a neighbor. here, where it is done right, you can go on any one of several sites, and see the pic, and name and address of every sex offender. I have an iphone app for sex offenders,great app
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 7:16:55 GMT
What does that do? Tell you the names and addresses of children left alone all day, or what? And why would you want one? Oh OK, so you mean an app OF sex offenders. That sounds little better, for all the reasons stated above.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 16, 2013 10:29:11 GMT
I don't want to get into the specifics of individual cases but even paedophiles are human beings and have human rights. The law isn't about deciding whether or not the 'rights' of the victim or perpetrator are paramount; it's about trying to decide on proportionate punishment. If (as the judges clearly believe) certain types of punishment DO violate the accused's human rights it doesn't matter if it's over a parking ticket, a paedophile offence or murder. If it's a human rights violation then it's a human rights violation. I've had furious arguments on two other forums with conservatives who refuse to believe that criminals HAVE human rights and many of them don't even believe NON-CRIMINALS have human rights. I remember vividly about half a dozen conservatives claiming that we do NOT have a human right NOT to be murdered, raped, stolen from or whatever. When I asked them on what basis they thought those crimes should be punished they came back with the same tired old nonsense about trying to intimidate other criminals into NOT doing those crimes. So, unpopular though my view probably is, and much as I despise nonces, I have to say the judges are right. And any nation that has totally immoral laws like the Three Strikes law and the Law of Parties is still about one notch on the ladder above Somalia and Saudi Arabia. I don't think the US at the moment IS a country we should consider extraditing people to because its judicial system is utterly barbaric in many respects. I'm sure I'll get a lot of flak flying my way for what I've said but I've always stood by the words of Luther 'here I stand; I can do no other.' Dearest Lin, Pedophiles and violent sex offenders have shown that they are virtually impossible to rehabilitate! They are a constant danger when they are at large! Putting them in expensive mental institutions after they serve there prison terms has nothing to do with retribution as Mike suggests, but is just a common sense approach to keep these predators off the streets and protect innocent citizens.
BTW The expensive civil commitments are bankrupting Minnesota. A labor camp for these predators would be my choice! Work is the best thing possible for these uncorrigibles!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 10:58:18 GMT
Look, you keep trying to make out that the extreme scenario is the norm when it just ain't so. Like I asked earlier, how big an age gap is too big? And how do you justify the fact that a California boy aged 18 having consensual sex with a Louisiana girl aged 17 (which is legal in her state but not his) could be punished for it? And how do you make out that two 14-year olds having sex is anywhere near the same as, say, a 12-year old having sex with a 40 year old? The whole idea of paeodphiles being a blanket situation is just wrong. what part of not legal in his state do you not understand? if they were in louisiana, he would not get punished for it. they were in california. it is YOUR responsibility to know the law in a state, or country, that you go to, or are in, and obey that law getting back to this fool: california penal code section 261.5 261.6 to be continued
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:26:55 GMT
california penal code 261.7
In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute consent.
263
The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.
264.1
The provisions of Section 264 notwithstanding, in any case in which the defendant, voluntarily acting in concert with another person, by force or violence and against the will of the victim, committed an act described in Section 261, 262, or 289, either personally or by aiding and abetting the other person, that fact shall be charged in the indictment or information and if found to be true by the jury, upon a jury trial, or if found to be true by the court, upon a court trial, or if admitted by the defendant, the defendant shall suffer confinement in the state prison for five, seven, or nine years.
269
(a)Any person who commits any of the following acts upon a child who is under 14 years of age and seven or more years younger than the person is guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child:
(1)Rape, in violation of paragraph (2) or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261.
(2)Rape or sexual penetration, in concert, in violation of Section 264.1.
(3)Sodomy, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d), of Section 286.
(4)Oral copulation, in violation of paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (c), or subdivision (d), of Section 288a.
(5)Sexual penetration, in violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289.
(b)Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 15 years to life.
(c)The court shall impose a consecutive sentence for each offense that results in a conviction under this section if the crimes involve separate victims or involve the same victim on separate occasions as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 667.6.
from findlaw
No Requirement of Force
Statutory rape differs from other types of rape, and from child molestation, in that the act would not be a crime if all participants were above the age of consent. Unlike "forcible rape," statutory rape can involve underage participants who willingly engage in sexual relations. However, because those under the age of consent cannot give legal consent to sex, the act is a crime whether or not force is involved. If the act involves force or coercion, many states prosecute the offender under the separate statutes punishing child molestation or aggravated rape.
Age of Consent
The age of consent varies from state to state. Many states set the age of consent at 16 years old, while others set it at 17 or 18.
Historically, statutory rape has been a "strict liability" offense, meaning that it does not matter whether what the perpetrator believed the victim was old enough to consent to sex. Some states now allow the defense that the perpetrator had reason to believe, and did believe, that the minor was above the age of consent. However, in many states this defense is not allowed, meaning that the act was a crime regardless of what the perpetrator believed the victims age to be. In states that do allow such a defense, it often cannot be used if the victim was particularly young, commonly under the age of 14.
"Romeo and Juliet Laws"
To address sexual relations in which all participants are below the age of consent, or which involve an offender close in age to the minor, some states have enacted what have been called "Romeo and Juliet laws." These laws carve out different treatment of statutory rape offenses involving individuals close in age.
Not all states have adopted "Romeo and Juliet" laws, and such laws operate differently in many of the states which have adopted them. In some states, they allow a defense against criminal charges for statutory rape. In other states, they shift the offense to a lower level, such as a misdemeanor. In some places, Romeo and Juliet laws reduce the level of punishment for the offense - imposing only probation or a fine, or eliminating the requirement to register as a sex offender, for example.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:35:25 GMT
it has nothing to do with vigilantes. it has to do with the people's right to know that they have a pedophile for a neighbor. here, where it is done right, you can go on any one of several sites, and see the pic, and name and address of every sex offender. Which of course would include the 18-year old Californian boy who had consensual sex with the 17-year old girl from Louisiana. And if you advertise where people are you are going to invite vigilante action and it's just dishonest to pretend you won't. It's no different from stalking except that it's sanctioned by the so-called government. What a barbaric idea of justice you have, Jumbo? Maybe you should move to Somalia? nope. as a rule, sex offenders can live wherever they want, provided it is not within a thousand yards of a school, park, or such. you are saying that you would be perfectly happy that a child molester living next door to you and your five year old daughter, and not knowing anything about it. that is stupid on its face at any rate, when you go into the database, it tells what that individual did.
|
|