News Human Rights For Sex Offenders

[Pietro]

Also, I think it's really unfair that this discussion is generally conflating the terms "sex offender" and "pedophile."

"Sex offender", in a legal context, usually covers a lot of ground, depending upon the jurisdiction. I can include everything from rapists to a guy who flashes himself at little old ladies. It also often includes "statutory rape", which, in some jurisdictions, is very messed-up in how it's structured. And, of course, it includes offending pedophiles.

There are definitely different degrees of offence.

there are non-offending pedophiles in the world. Lots of them.

In which case, their desires remain in the world of thought and fantasy -- which are not punishable by law, nor do they pose a threat to society. People fantasize all kinds of nastiness -- take horror/slasher movies, for example. ;) As long as it stays in the realm of the conceptual, there's no crime.

Just to be clear, collecting and/or purchasing photos involving child pornography is a crime, because it enables and supports an industry that exists based on sex crimes against children. Artwork, which is not based on real children, is not a crime, however. Otherwise a lot of dudes in Japan would be in big trouble. :)

 

[Anarchy]

In western-based cultures, this is why justice is handled by detached third-parties. It discourages acts of revenge and vigilantism, which can perpetuate a long and bloody cycle of violence -- not very civil or Christian, nor does it promote security of the general public. :meh:

actually, in all cultures. The first link is to an excerpt from Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" and gives an introduction to customary legal systems and their courts in several widely seperated cultures, ranging from Indigenous North American, to the Highlands of New Guinea.
Link Removed
This is excellent too, as an account of a present day customary law system in action. It is far from libertarian, but is arguably far more efficient in terms of speed and in obtaining recompense and far more just than western positivist systems. http://www.bookdepository.com/Law-Somalis-Michael-Van-Notten/9781569022504

The current western system suffers from all of the predictable problems of monopoly provision:
It provides fewer, and lower quality goods, at higher price than a competitive system.

Effectively the western system is run for the benefit of those inside it, and for the power elite. As a monopoly, it is not subject to competition and so hasd no incentive to better serve its customers - as it (forcibly) denies them any alternative.

Hence, long waiting times, pompous arcane ritual, massively expensive and likely to extract money for itself, rather than compensate the victim.

 

[Ronin]

Interesting discussion, here.

and that's a necessary point to make, on your part, as well. how do we protect the human rights of victims, while simultaneously protecting the human rights of abusers? and is it denying the human rights of victims, to allow abusers to continue to hold their own humanity? (this is where, i think, i differ from most people. because i tend to think of it like a loss. a loss to me, to think that way, a loss to myself.)

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there needs to be a kind of a 'balance' with protecting perpetrators like that. They have human rights by default, but arguing their rights need to precede the rights of other people to live their lives, and live them in safety, or be put on the same level? That's a very tricky statement, and too used in the reasoning everywhere to only apologize the actions they do.

They still have humanity in the legal sense. Enough to baww about it on every corner. Enough to claim who's abusive is (insert whomever, society, justice system, any conspiracy out there, medicine for not recognizing their suffering, blah blah). Enough to claim they were just provoked into acting. That they have a right to 'retaliate'.

That's not someones who needs 'protecting' in my eyes. Spare maybe protecting from further spreading that bullshit and giving others like them ideas in case they didn't figure how to bullshit people on their own yet.

When they're someone who's hurting at the time? It may not be satisfaction. It may not be 'right'. But it sure as hell doesn't erase the history. It sure as hell doesn't make them suddenly ooh poor victims who do need helping. It makes them people who consciously made the wrong move multiple times over and wouldn't stop, despite the fact they well could have.

I basically think 'feel sorry for who hurt you' is socially conditioned bullshit that doesn't help with both getting solutions to social problems, prevention, or recovery of those of us who lived.

Kind of a 'Nah, bro. YOU should feel sorry.'

 

[joeylittle]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure there needs to be a kind of a 'balance' with protecting perpetrators like that.

But where does a society draw the line? Which kinds of harms, crimes, assaults - which ones are 100% unpardonable? Even if you divest a perpetrator of any aspect of humanity because of their crimes - there is still a body to deal with. What do you do with their body? Right now, it's put in a building with the bodies of other people who have committed crimes, they do a court-ordered number of years in that building, and then they come out again.

Should they be executed? If so - and I know there are people on this thread who believe that, absolutely - where does the line go? Is it all rape, all sexual assault, all molestation? Do we include murder? How about the person who got behind the wheel, drunk, and killed another driver in an accident?

Is the taking of a life less criminal than the irrevocable damaging of a life? Is murder not as bad as rape?

Personally, I abhor the US penal system - I can't really speak to it for other countries, but I really hate ours. It's makeshift, stopgap, and I believe it destroys more lives than it protects.

But: just pretending for a second that I could wave a wand and re-invent society - I have to say, in my mind, it is very hard to sort out where to draw the lines, when it comes to crime and punishment. The only thing that has ever made sense to me is exile - I'm talking theoretically. Except that people will create society, wherever you put a group of them together. Go Australia! Penal colonies aren't really the answer.

It's why I end up circling back to wondering what would happen if significantly more energy went into preventing sex crimes - if people could really accept that they happen, they happen to children, to adults, yes it's so hard to talk about but it needs to be talked about, freely. If we could only eradicate 50% of the shame response that is built-in for survivors of sexual assault (all ages) - perpetrators would lose 50% of their ability to get away with it. Right?

 

[Friday]

But: just pretending for a second that I could wave a wand and re-invent society - I have to say, in my mind, it is very hard to sort out where to draw the lines, when it comes to crime and punishment. The only thing that has ever made sense to me is exile - I'm talking theoretically. Except that people will create society, wherever you put a group of them together. Go Australia! Penal colonies aren't really the answer.

I tend to favor penal colonies, actually. India has a rather interesting system of that in place, as a matter of fact, where instead of going to jail whole families have the option of moving to penal colonies/villages... Or just the prisoner can go. They can't leave the village & surrounding farms, but instead of becoming institutionalized? They're working for their living, and rebuilding their lives.

But back to penal colonies... Criminals have their own rather harsh justice systems in place... Worldwide. And they are remarkably similar to each other. ((Partly why "our" justice systems are given so little credence amongst criminals, is that their own justice systems are so much harsher, direct, & immediate.)) Sex crimes in the DarkSide? Statutory rape is ignored. No harm, no foul. Rapists are given some tolerance, until they reoffend. Baby-rapers, otoh, are killed out of hand as too disgusting to live. Someone has to be exceptionally powerful to get away with any form of diddling children on the dark side, and even then, their days are numbered. Everyone knows that they're going to catch a knife for it -or worse- someday. The only question is how long it will take before someone views giving up their own life as worth it to take theirs.

 

[StarChild]

quick relatively clean deaths, instead of death by bunga bunga...

@FridayJones, what on earth is "death by bunga bunga"?:wideeyed::watching: - Would you please share your wisdom to an absolute ignoramus? Thanks in advance.:tup:

 

[Friday]

@TreeHugger Death by anal rape.

 

[Ronin]

Friday's again polishing the talk up and leaving out the multiple-parties angle.

 

[Weemie]

I basically think 'feel sorry for who hurt you' is socially conditioned bullshit that doesn't help with both getting solutions to social problems, prevention, or recovery of those of us who lived.

yeah, i get that. that's not what it's about, for me. it's not about how sorry you feel and woe-is-them, boo-hoo. i tend to think of the long game, the end goal. what can we achieve with our justice system? because what we have just doesn't work. and, i think we're on relatively the same page. because, like i said, i believe in human rights- for everyone. that's a given, because we're all acting out of the scope of human experience.

and i think, on a government, institutional level, we should have some basic rights. and at the end of the day, the entire process of human rights comes from the fact that every single human is entitled to basic decent treatment. no torture, no rape, no murder, no starvation, you know. because that's the least we can do, as humans, for another human, on an institutional level- and in my view, on a moral level. (but tbh morals are less relevant in this discussion, i feel.)

and that is entirely based on the idea that even offenders qualify under the human designation. you can't forfeit your humanity, you can only act within its scope. and some of us are really f*cked up. that's really all i was attempting to say.

 

[Neverthesame]

@FridayJones Death by Bunga Bunga. I just fell off my chair laughing, holy shiite. :hilarious: :roflmao: I haven't heard that expression in years. Ha, ha.

 

[Pietro]

They have human rights by default, but arguing their rights need to precede the rights of other people to live their lives, and live them in safety, or be put on the same level? That's a very tricky statement, and too used in the reasoning everywhere to only apologize the actions they do.

It's important not to turn an offender into a victim, because this simply perpetuates a behavioral Ponzi Scheme where those at the "top" are both safe from abuse and free from accountability. It also perpetuates the cycle of offense into the future.

The only way to deal with this issue is with a wholistic, top-down derived plan that deals with all societal attributes that contribute to creating sex offenders. Unfortunately, there is rarely the political will to approach problems in this way.

I basically think 'feel sorry for who hurt you' is socially conditioned bullshit that doesn't help with both getting solutions to social problems, prevention, or recovery of those of us who lived.

Extremes at either end are unhelpful. Minimizing the plight of a victim while championing the rights of an offender is sheer lunacy. However, doing the opposite simply perpetuates the cycle and keeps our society well-stocked with participants in that cycle. Victims need to be properly cared for in order that they can persue healing. Offenders need to be handled in such as way as to minimize further threat to the community; the method(s) by which this is done is what is largely in question. Many ways to approach this.

Personally, I abhor the US penal system

Yup, the wealthiest nation in the world has a penal system which is often over 100 years out of date. Standards for criminal handling differ greatly across the country, from places that are heavily geared towards rehabilitation to those that are little better than what occurred in the 18th century. Unfortunately, the former is rarely seen, due to lack of political interest in providing appropriate funds, so most of the penal system sits on a continuum from bad to worse for the latter.

 

[intothelight]

"Human" rights apply to humans and I think there is a point at which a person can become so twisted, sick, violent, mean, etc. that any humanity they may have exhibited at some point in life is extinguished. I've looked them in the eye and there is no soul there. The demon I confronted is serving a life sentence and I admit, I find some pleasure in the thought that he may experience some of the same treatment he put my family through. I also know that when the jury was deliberating, had they found him not guilty, I was going to drop him dead in the street.