|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:40:10 GMT
Here, by the way, is a blogpost about the mass hysteria about so-called paedophilia which although even I think what he says is over the top and one-dimensional does still make some valid points. robertlindsay.wordpress.com/category/mass-hysterias/pedophile-mass-hysteria/BY ROBERT LINDSAY | AUGUST 15, 2012 · 8:24 PM The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men Here. Virgin Airlines has decided that if you are a male and only if you are a male, you are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children who are not related to you on a flight. Women of course may sit next to children any time. Although this was a policy formulated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines, it obviously has its roots in feminism. Gender feminism states that all men are potential rapists and child molesters. The Pedophile Mass Hysteria sweeping the US right now is being caused by a number of factors, but some of the perpetrators are gender feminists and femiservatives. Femiservatives are basically conservative feminists or conservatives who do the feminists’ bidding for them. For instance, around 1920, a femiservative outfit called the Women’s Temperance Union put into place California’s age of consent laws, putting them at 18, which was very high for the time in an era when many females were marrying at 14 or 15. This same WTU was also responsible for the atrocity of Prohibition. Prohibition is a prime example of how Female Rule always fails. Male Rule produces more or less workable and functional societies, whereas Female Rule always produces dysfunction and chaos. Male Rule versus Female Rule means whose thinking will rule society. Will male thinking or female thinking dominate the public sphere? The Virgin Airlines rule is a prime example of the chaos caused by Female Rule. The idea that men may not sit next to children for fear they might molest them is classic female thinking. all that says is that robert lindsey hates women. obviously, some things have been carried way too far. of course, the majority of the board of directors of virgin airlines are male
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:43:03 GMT
no 16 year old is intelligent enough to give consent. obviously, NO 14 or 15 year old is when it is two 14 year olds, it is NOT treated the same as if one is forty Leaving aside the question of what consent means, of what informed consent means and of what intelligence means, at some point the law makes a purely arbitrary decision about what is or isn't legal. Biologically us girls can get pregnant from about 12 or 13; until Victorian times (and in parts of the Southern States till more recently) they could get married at about that age too. Now if you're going to require intelligence before sexual activitiy takes place a hell of a lot of people would stay virgin all their lives! And I know for a FACT that there HAVE been cases in America where 15-year olds having sex have both been given a LIFE description as paedophiles and sex offenders so the law DOES sometimes do that. An unjust law is never worth keeping; asking humans to be perfect never works either. Fairness, justice and common sense are what's needed but the trouble is that lawyers live by injustice, unfairness and stupidity. quite simply, underage kids have NO right having sex, period, especially 14 and 15 year olds. they know that they have no right, so if they choose to do it anyway, they deserve whatever the law gives them
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:44:59 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? in california, for some things it is three years, for some things it is five. however, the age gap in your scenario is totally irrelevant. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that one of them is under 18
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:47:50 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. i realize that you have these hallucinations, but, your delusions will never be reality. the law is based on punishment for your choosing to do something that you know that you have no right to do. by definition, that is retribution. the notion that legal retribution is immoral or unjust is ridiculous on its face
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:49:07 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. exactly. if one turned 18 yesterday, and one will be 18 tomorrow, it is still illegal. end of story
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:50:16 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. that's because it is. donna is running with all this touchy feely nonsense instead of logic
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:54:06 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. in some cases that's true, but not in all. however, it doesn't matter. everyone knows what the law is, and everyone knows that they have no right to violate it. nonetheless, i posted a bit about the romeo and juliet laws
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:56:37 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. WRONG. the age gap has nothing to do with child molesting. the ONLY criterion for child molesting is that the victim be under 14. if the perpetrator is under 14, it is still child molesting, just as it would be if the perp were 44
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 11:58:17 GMT
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. it's that touchy feely, kum ba ya crap
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 12:00:46 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. all sex offenders are NOT locked up for life. very few are, although i know a fool that got 962 years, and one got 118 years. most are released after, in california, 3, 6, or 8 years.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 16, 2013 12:03:58 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! that's because you think that rehabilitation works. of course, when something only works on thirty percent of them, that's a difficult case to make
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 14:03:15 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. all sex offenders are NOT locked up for life. very few are, although i know a fool that got 962 years, and one got 118 years. most are released after, in california, 3, 6, or 8 years. Yes, but what we are talking about is the law in Minnesota which (if I've read it right) means that every repeat sex offender is somehow kept "off the streets" when his prison sentence or other punishment ends. I don't know how this works in practice I'm not sure what is meant by a repeat offender; someone who re-offends after conviction I imagine, rather than someone who offends twice before he is caught. But if it really does apply to all sex offenders, regardless of the nature of the crime, it is not only disproportionate but does seem a breach of human rights : Here's the link in Anna's original post about this: .http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/14/uk-high-court-blocks-extradition-convicted-sex-offender-over-draconian-us-laws/
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2013 10:55:47 GMT
all sex offenders are NOT locked up for life. very few are, although i know a fool that got 962 years, and one got 118 years. most are released after, in california, 3, 6, or 8 years. Yes, but what we are talking about is the law in Minnesota which (if I've read it right) means that every repeat sex offender is somehow kept "off the streets" when his prison sentence or other punishment ends. I don't know how this works in practice I'm not sure what is meant by a repeat offender; someone who re-offends after conviction I imagine, rather than someone who offends twice before he is caught. But if it really does apply to all sex offenders, regardless of the nature of the crime, it is not only disproportionate but does seem a breach of human rights : Here's the link in Anna's original post about this: .http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/14/uk-high-court-blocks-extradition-convicted-sex-offender-over-draconian-us-laws/ i'll have to check the law, but,i suspect that it is a civil commitment much like most states have. if a pedophile is deemed to be likely to reoffend when released on parole, a judge can put them into a mental institution until they have been "cured" enough to not present a danger to society. i checked the website. i haven't gotten around to reading the statute, but, it appears that they are committing a lot of them, and no one has been released in the fourteen years that they have been doing it. apparently though, they are releasing six of them in the near future
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 11:11:13 GMT
Eeh - so what sort of sex offenders were they? Presumably more than just serial flashers?
In any event, and contrary to what others seem to think, it all sounds very non-retributionist. One of the principles of the retribution theory of punishment is that when someone has paid off his debt (by prison or whatever), he returns to society as if the offence had never been committed. Locking someone up because of what they might do has no place in a retribution punishment; that is why , as a theory,it appeals to my sense of justice. .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 17:43:23 GMT
Eeh - so what sort of sex offenders were they? Presumably more than just serial flashers? In any event, and contrary to what others seem to think, it all sounds very non-retributionist. One of the principles of the retribution theory of punishment is that when someone has paid off his debt (by prison or whatever), he returns to society as if the offence had never been committed. Locking someone up because of what they might do has no place in a retribution punishment; that is why , as a theory,it appeals to my sense of justice. . Don't quite get what you mean; are you saying you do or don't believe in retribution? And are you saying you reckon people should be locked up because of what they might do? Or did I get it dead wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2013 19:08:16 GMT
I'm what you might call a "limiting retributionist". What I mean by that is that no-one should be punished for more than what their crime deserves, though it leaves scope for less if circumstances dictate..... something that should be used sparingly IMO.
That absolutely rules out locking up someone for what they might do. And as I said earlier it also rules out locking up someone for longer for other reasons - deterrence of others, rehabilitation or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2013 22:23:30 GMT
Eeh - so what sort of sex offenders were they? Presumably more than just serial flashers? In any event, and contrary to what others seem to think, it all sounds very non-retributionist. One of the principles of the retribution theory of punishment is that when someone has paid off his debt (by prison or whatever), he returns to society as if the offence had never been committed. Locking someone up because of what they might do has no place in a retribution punishment; that is why , as a theory,it appeals to my sense of justice. . it's a FACT that pedophiles can't be cured. since rape has nothing to do with sex, but is about control of a woman, it's not likely that rapists can be cured either. those are the fools that the civil commitment is designed for. along with prison being punishment, it is for the protection of society. after they have been punished, in prison, for the crime that they committed, the civil commitment is for the protection of society
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 17, 2013 23:16:39 GMT
Eeh - so what sort of sex offenders were they? Presumably more than just serial flashers? In any event, and contrary to what others seem to think, it all sounds very non-retributionist. One of the principles of the retribution theory of punishment is that when someone has paid off his debt (by prison or whatever), he returns to society as if the offence had never been committed. Locking someone up because of what they might do has no place in a retribution punishment; that is why , as a theory,it appeals to my sense of justice. . it's a FACT that pedophiles can't be cured. since rape has nothing to do with sex, but is about control of a woman, it's not likely that rapists can be cured either. those are the fools that the civil commitment is designed for. along with prison being punishment, it is for the protection of society. after they have been punished, in prison, for the crime that they committed, the civil commitment is for the protection of society It is probable that no cure for paedophilia exists but not as yet an absolutely 100% certainty. I've always had difficulty in accepting the notion that rape is about power rather than sex since overwhelmingly it is pretty women who are of child-bearing age that are the victims of rape. But if in fact paedophilia IS an incurable illness surely the correct thing to do is to lock all such offenders away in secure mental hospitals for the rest of their life rather than sending them to prison or - an even more dubious procedure both legally and morally - issuing civil commitment orders? If you are physically ill a hospital is the right place; if you are mentall ill then you belong in a mental hospital. In neither case is prison an appropriate place of confinement nor is civil committment an appropriate method of aftercare. And what is your explanation for men raping other men? Do you equate male on male rape - or female on female rape - with male on female rape and believe that all are motivated by the same factors? Or have you started to doubt that tiresome mantra 'it's not about sex, it's about power?' I realised at the age of 15 that it was not true because (and I say this with no vanity intended) I was considered (by girls as well as boys) to be a good looking boy for my age. In any event if paedophilia is a mental illness then the mental health system is the proper place to treat it and not prison. And if a paedophile has NOT been cured then they should not be released into civil society. If they ARE so released then that can only mean that they HAVE been cured and therefore it is as irrational to issue civil commitment orders against them as it would be to do the same against someone who had broken their leg. If one compares (for example) the treatment of someone who is found guilty of a violent assault and sentenced to a term in prison and then released they are not treated in the same manner as a paedophile subject to a civil commitment order. As always the law is NOT about justice or morality but about control, revenge and repression.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 17, 2013 23:24:49 GMT
I'm what you might call a "limiting retributionist". What I mean by that is that no-one should be punished for more than what their crime deserves, though it leaves scope for less if circumstances dictate..... something that should be used sparingly IMO. That absolutely rules out locking up someone for what they might do. And as I said earlier it also rules out locking up someone for longer for other reasons - deterrence of others, rehabilitation or whatever. I believe that locking people up for what they MIGHT do is a sure route towards a totalitarian society. Anyone who has the remotest libertarian sympathy within them can only regard such a course of action as perverse, irrational and unjust.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2013 7:24:12 GMT
Mike, your two posts contain contradictions. You say in your first:
then go on to say
Refusing to release a paedophile who hasn't been "cured" is locking them up because of what they might do!
The theory of retribution appeals to me because it treats offenders as rational human beings who must pay back society for their crime. Having paid it back, they can return to society. As you said, retribution is about proportionality - though some on here think it equates to "an eye for an eye", which it doesn't . It means that you can't treat a serial groper or even a rapist as harshly as you would a murderer, however much you feel society should be protected from him.
|
|