RoR: Forum

Adam:

You opined: >>To write that "Adam has a bug up his ass about Christians" is a public confession of mental impotence.<<

Oh. I thought I was being funny.

Seriously though, your concerns about prosecutorial arbitrariness are legitimate. However, you cite the wrong cause. Christians are not the problem. It is grandstanding politicians who give grandstanding prosecutors bad laws to abuse. Christian morality has nothing to do with it. Hunger for re-election and higher office have everything to do with it.

Regards,
Bill

Post 21

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 6:14am

Orion:

You wrote: >>But my point is you don't see me holding up this dishonest banner of "unconditional forgiveness" like Christians do, when all they really are is cloak-and-dagger sadists.<<

It is true that many Christians indulge in "unconditional forgiveness", as you put it, and they are not true to their religion when they do so. Christian forgiveness means wishing less of the evil that poisons a malefactor's soul. It doesn't mean ignoring that evil and irrationally pretending that the malefactor is a nice guy after all.

Punishment of the malefactor for his evil is consistent with forgiving him in order to make him aware of the possibility of redemption. Indeed, punishment may be necessary for that possibility to occur -- e.g., nothing concentrates a man's mind like the prospect of his hanging. At the very least, punishment is necessary for justice, which all Christians are bound to pursue. Christian forgiveness is essentially the hope that a malefactor will recognize the depth of his depravity and so reduce the evil he is prone to. In other words, it is the desire for less rather than more evil in this world.

But I despair that this proper understanding of forgiveness is lost upon a "PC" society obsessed with faux niceness. So the dishonesty you see in "unconditional forgiveness" isn't a mask for sadism; it's masking a lack of backbone and a refusal to make necessary judgments.

Regards,
Bill

Post 22

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 7:23am

If we support the idea that jail is to punish and rehabilitate, it is a tacit admission that we are not doing our job in the correctional system if we are releasing people with a high probability of recividism. Frankly, prison is such a vile, evil, unsupervised place that drug and sex trafficing is a way of life, prison violence, murdeer and rape have become accepted. What are we paying billions of dollars for again? To let the inmates run the asylum? We need a profounf reform in the correctional system before we should feel able to even look ourselves in the mirror.

Once we have stomached the idea of witch hunts for "sex offenders"--whatever the fuck the government wants that to mean today--the cat is out of the bag. We have accepted the idea of witch hunts. Then, we will move on the those with a theft conviction, because, by God, we do not want to live next door to a thief. Then, on to the people with a battery conviction, because we do not want to expose ourselves, our kids, to violent criminals. And bad drivers, because no way in hell I am letting my kid ride his bike down the street where he can he run over by some careless driver. Once the cat is out of the bag, and you have compromised your principles, all else follows.

Finally, what about the idea of having paid your debt to society? If we are going to attach a scarlet letter around the neck of everyone convicted, there is no paying off a debt to society--it is eternal damnation and government categorization. This acts to ~encourage~ anti-social and criminal behavior, because if you are damned by one mistake, or are damned because of a wrongful conviction, that's it, cash in your chips--you are never going to be anything but a pariah. And anyone can be wrongfully convicted, dont kid yourself. Just look at the number of death row inmates who were found to be wrongfully convicted--some after they were already put to death. Of course, it helps if you are non-white and poor. But all it takes is a lazy, overzealous cop and a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself or for a political career. Wrong place, wrong time, congratualtion, you are the new scumbag whose name goes on that list, assuming you make it out of prison alive.

Post 23

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:45pm

Only because I don't really see anyone defending their reasons for voting yes, I'll give mine! I guess first the question wasn't exactly specific. I wouldn't advocate releasing the names of any and all sex offenders. I'd say child molesters and violent rapists yes, the couple caught making out in their car, not exactly. Or I was also thinking their crimes would be listed. So you wouldn't really care if John Doe down the street was caught skinny dipping when he was 18, which is 20 years ago. And lastly, I wasn't thinking of releasing the entire street address of a person. Though I suppose if you release his town it's not hard to find the rest.

Do I think this would open up the possibility of listing every convicted person? I doubt it. I think there is a big line between sex offenders and even armed robbers. You can insure your belongings, you can't quite insure your child's mental health should they get abused. I also don't hear about as many people being hurt in a mugging as being abused, so I would be a lot less afraid of that.

I guess I also don't worry too much about lynchings. After all if they find out in jail you're a child molester, I hear it's quite bad there as well. And if it makes it more difficult for a convicted violent offender to find a job or house, I'm not feeling to bad for them. Should have thought of that before laying a hand on the child or girl. If they all end up on an island together, boo hoo.

I do agree with Scott's point that if they really were rehabilitated while incarcerated, that there wouldn't be a need for any of this. I guess in my mind I maybe don't see it possible for a pedofile or rapist to ever be entirely rehabilitated.

With all that said, I'm by no means entirely sure I'd vote "yes" again. "Don't know" is more accurate in that I'd think about it a great deal more, but my gut instinct still leans towards "yes".

-Elizabeth

Post 24

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:18pm

Bill,

Once the offenders have served their sentence, should they not have a chance to reintegrate into civil society and lead reasonably productive lives? Certain career avenues will of course be closed to them and rightly so. But how are they to have any chance of leading an even remotely normal life if there is a publicly accessible register identifying them?

Liz,

I'm frankly shocked that you have no problem with mob justice, but there we are.

MH

Post 25

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:39pm

Citizen Rat:

The statement that "Christians are not the problem. It is grandstanding politicians who give grandstanding prosecutors bad laws to abuse. Christian morality has nothing to do with it. Hunger for re-election and higher office have everything to do with it." This is evasion of reality on a scale comparable only to claims that Stalin was not a real Communist. The problem is a culture in which the average voter is blind to the actual crime - which is that the Christian voter finds nothing wrong in legal criminalization of whatever the Christian, arbitrarily (that is, on faith,) believes to be sinful. Christian morality legitimizes the crimes that the state commits, in the name of "morality and the law," against men of independent mind - and that is, in itself, objectively criminal. And the foundation of those crimes is faith. Faith is the vilest form of intellectual dishonesty - the sabotage of the mind's bond with reality through the evidence of the senses. That it results in actual crimes of the state against Man, when laws that are based on faith instead of evidence are imposed by force, is an unavoidable consequence of basing morality on faith. And of course this disregard, for the necessity of objective evidence to ground moral judgement, pervades the whole process and precludes any possibility of actual, objective justice in the resulting "justice system". That laws are based on arbitrary assertions instead of evidence - whether those arbitrary assertions are socialist, gender-feminist, Islamic, Christian or post-modern - is the result of the social acceptance of FAITH as a supposed means to knowledge. Without faith none of the absurdities of our current regime would be accepted by anyone, much less a majority of voters.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 5/26, 7:07pm)

Post 26

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 1:56pm

Hi, Matthew.

You ask: >>Once the offenders have served their sentence, should they not have a chance to reintegrate into civil society and lead reasonably productive lives?<<

Yes. I do my part by hiring ex-cons after they have gone through a local program that teaches the basics of how to hold down a real job. Over the years, most have washed out because they haven't chosen self-respect over self-destruction. So, I have seen firsthand how generous we can be to a man who has "paid his debt to society" and yet so many refuse the opportunity for success to return the brutality of the American prison system.

And I have tell you, Matthew, the few who succeed have done so because religion has transformed them. They own up to the wrong they've done. They don't want pity. They are ready to stand scrutiny. They are willing to measure up. What more can you ask of a man?

That's my report from the trenches.

Regards,
Bill

Post 27

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 2:14pm

Adam:

With a mighty finger of justice pointed squarely at me, you roar "J'accuse ...":

>>The statement that "Christians are not the problem. It is grandstanding politicians who give grandstanding prosecutors bad laws to abuse. Christian morality has nothing to do with it. Hunger for re-election and higher office have everything to do with it." This is evasion of reality on a scale comparable only to claims that Stalin was not a real Communist.<<

However, I do not evade my taxes. (See Logan's thread hailing a tax cheat below.)

>>Faith is the vilest form of intellectual dishonesty - the sabotage of the mind's bond with reality through the evidence of the senses.<<

Yes, yes, yes. I'm well aware of the requisite nonsense some Objectivists feel compelled to spew on this score. However, experience has clearly taught me otherwise. (See my post to Matthew above.)

Regards,
Bill

P.S. Adam, to become flummoxed over the typical American expressing his morality in Christian terms is like fuming over the French for being French. Judeo-Christian morality is the bedrock of American culture, so if you look you'll find its manifestations everywhere. So you are not going to stop politicians and prosecutors largely informed by a Christian culture from bringing Christian principles to their labors. Your real enemy is that they are allowed to legislate and enforce laws over too much of our lives -- like I said to you in my last post. I really don't care if a law is Christian-inspired or -- should it ever come to pass -- Objectivist-inspired. If it regulates a part of my life that is no business of the state's, then that's where the abuse lies.

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 5/26, 2:35pm)

Post 28

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 2:21pm

Scott:

You said: >>If we support the idea that jail is to punish and rehabilitate, it is a tacit admission that we are not doing our job in the correctional system if we are releasing people with a high probability of recividism.<<

I don't think rehabilitation should be a primary goal of incarceration. It should be punishment. There is nothing you and I can do, especially through the mechanism of the state, to make a man decide to change his life. Only he can do that, and the more he despairs of ever returning to prison, the more likely that outcome.

However, such despair will not be inculcated by the shameful brutality that exists in many of our prisons today -- as you noted. That only serves to twist a man's mind and hardly puts him on a path that'll keep him out of trouble.

Regards,
Bill

Post 29

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:14pm

"Citizen Rat:"

You write: "Your real enemy is that they are allowed to legislate and enforce laws over too much of our lives -- like I said to you in my last post."

The problem is that the question of when, exactly, the state claims control over "too much of our lives" is too important to be left to subjective, arbitrary assertions. Because if you regard faith as a source of moral knowledge, then you will decide this question too on the basis of faith rather than fact. And it is likely that most people will then put the subjective, arbitrary line of where "too much of our lives" begins very far from the fact, that anything, beyond criminalizing actions that deprive another person of the conditions of existence appropriate to a rational being, is "too much."

You write: "I really don't care if a law is Christian-inspired or -- should it ever come to pass -- Objectivist-inspired. If it regulates a part of my life that is no business of the state's, then that's where the abuse lies."

I have no idea what could possibly be meant by "Objectivist-inspired." Either your action deprived another person of conditions necessary for life proper to a rational being, in which case it was objectively criminal, or it did not and wasn't. There is no room in reality for an "Objectivist-inspired" non-objective law. You slander Objectivism by writing as though there were some kind of moral equivalence between existence and faith. Objectivism is not amenable to the kind of arbitrary extension that faith-based systems thrive on. It is only the substitution of faith for knowledge that ever makes legislation "over too much of our lives" possible.

Post 30

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 4:31pm

Elizabeth,

You write, "I was also thinking their crimes would be listed." But under the current system, the labels that are put on prosecuted actions reflect arbitrary legislation, rather than actual fact. For example, in Washington State, any sexual activity with a minor - even by another minor - is legally "defined" as "child rape." The idea is that if you have a neighbor who was convicted of "child rape," you will think that this "sex criminal" raped a child, when in fact he may have been one of a pair of 17-year-olds caught having a normal, consensual romantic relationship with each other. As long as we live under a non-objective legal system, with fictive category labels that conflate real crimes with objectively non-criminal actions, arbitrarily prohibited by legislative fiat, listing those arbitrary non-objective labels can only interfere with justice, not help it.

Post 31

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 9:08pm

While I certainly share Adam's concern about the monstrous absurd classifications of some consensual sex "crimes", I think that is an entirely separate issue from publishing information on sex offenders. The criminalization of non-crimes is an egregious abrogation of rights, and must be fought, regardless of the existence of a sex-offender registry. The logic behind registering rapists or other violent felons lies in the recognition that there are some actions for which the costs can never fully be paid. If you rape someone, beat someone to death, molest a pre-pubescent child, etc., you have to accept that you will have to pay for the act for the rest for your life. Innocent lives should not be risked for the benefit/privacy of known predator. If the ex-con does not accept this, then I believe it is indicative that they have not fully accepted responsibility for their actions, and have thus not earned their freedom in the first place.
(Edited by Gordon Ellis on 5/27, 5:18am)

Post 32

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 4:41am

Hi, Adam.

You stated: >>You slander Objectivism by writing as though there were some kind of moral equivalence between existence and faith.<<

Oh, please. How I am supposed to take your indignity seriously when you persistently mischaracterize other beliefs, in particular Christianity? In any event, I spoke of Objectivists, not Objectivism.

The silly thing about your complaint is that you and I probably agree upon the extent to which government must be limited. The difference is that I would no more trust a legislature full of Objectivists than one of Christians. Human nature will prevail in the end, and given time the parasites will prevail over the producers. History proves this: Ancient Israel under the rule of judges becomes a monarchy and is eventually destroyed; city-state Greece becomes the Macedonian empire; republican medieval Italy submits to Renaissance princes; and then there is the same arc of history our own country is following. No matter what the founding ideas are of any new political order, the parasites eventually pervert the institutions founded to advance those ideas into centers of powers to oppress the producers.

I have no confidence that Objectivists would be any different if they obtained political power. Hence, my remark "Objectivist-inspired".

Regards,
Bill

Post 33

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:45am

Adam wrote:

As long as we live under a non-objective legal system, with fictive category labels that conflate real crimes with objectively non-criminal actions, arbitrarily prohibited by legislative fiat, listing those arbitrary non-objective labels can only interfere with justice, not help it.

These are the areas I would need more info. So yes, if I thought that incorrect labels would hurt people who are actually not offenders, I wouldn't have anyone listed.

Matthew:

Liz, I'm frankly shocked that you have no problem with mob justice, but there we are.

I don't advocate mob justice, or anything of the sort. Just because I possibly don't give the rapist my pity doesn't mean I'd be getting mobs together myself. I'd have anyone arrested that broke the law, no matter who it was against. But I also don't think that we should sacrifice the safety of innocents to protect the safety of a convicted, violent rapist. And as I mentioned also, many of these guys get their asses kicked in jail, because even there no one likes a guy who touches kids. Would you like separate jails built for sex offenders? Should we give them private rooms, lunches and court time just so we give them extra safety? I don't think so.

But the reason we're talking about this possibility is that most sex offenders repeat. If we were convinced that everyone that came out of jail was truley rehabilitated, I wouldn't be concerned having my child next door to someone like that. So maybe we shouldn't be trying to stop the bleeding once their out, and courts should impose more strict sentences and not give so many people the benefit of the doubt by letting them out in the first place. I'm not sure. Or if I thought that we had enough police around to really keep an eye on these folks, again I wouldn't be concerned.

-E

Post 34

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 9:20am

Gordon :

You wrote: >>The logic behind registering rapists or other violent felons lies in the recognition that there are some actions for which the costs can never fully be paid. If you rape someone, beat someone to death, molest a pre-pubescent child, etc., you have to accept that you will have to pay for the act for the rest for your life. Innocent lives should not be risked for the benefit/privacy of known predator.<<

You have concisely expressed an excellent point. The person who carries the burden of registering with law enforcement is not innocent at the end of his sentence; a term in prison does not purge him. Serving his time is not payment for his crime in the sense that the books are balanced between him, his victim, and society upon release. His guilt is permanent.

Regards,
Bill

Post 35

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:27am

Gordon,

You write, "While I certainly share Adam's concern about the monstrous absurd classifications of some consensual sex "crimes", I think that is an entirely separate issue from publishing information on sex offenders."

It is bad epistemology to drop the context. Law enforcement procedures that might be perfectly appropriate under a system of objective justice would be, under our current system, a major contribution to the destruction of whatever individual human rights we still have. The overwhelming majority of "sex criminals" today have done nothing wrong, apart from living in a society in which anti-sex ideologies drive a completely crazy body of anti-sex legislation, and also drive the empowerment of a non-objective, sociopathic law-enforcement political class.

An objectively innocent person imprisoned under our current system would probably prefer anything to being set up for castration or murder by a lynch mob. There is, after all, the possibility that the current system will be replaced by a system of objective justice within our lifetime, and the prisoner's. In the meantime, we need to acknowledge the fallibility of the existing legal system, treat prisoners in accordance with the fact of reality that some may be objectively innocent, and confine those who are likely to be objectively guilty for as long as they may remain dangerous.

Post 36

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 9:44am

Bill wrote:

"Serving his time is not payment for his crime in the sense that the books are balanced between him, his victim, and society upon release. His guilt is permanent."

So why not just go back to tatooing or branding identifying marks on the perpetrators foreheads? After all, it's not like their guilt goes away once they leave their house...maybe special notations on their identifying documents, a special sticker for their lisence plates. While we're at it, why not decorate billboards and post offices? How about a neon sign in front of their house?

The point is, there's a world of difference between being able to learn 'of' the crime and creating a public registry. People who are not committing a crime have no right to be harassed, even if they have done so in the past (provided, of course, that they've finished their sentences). Their guilt may be permanent...their sentence need not be. A sex offender is capable of changing, just like any other person; there's no need to treat them as if they're about to commit a new crime every single time another potential victim lives nearby.

Post 37

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:38pm

Hi, Joe.

>>The point is, there's a world of difference between being able to learn 'of' the crime and creating a public registry. People who are not committing a crime have no right to be harassed, even if they have done so in the past (provided, of course, that they've finished their sentences).<<

Being consigned to a registry IS part of the sentence, which strikes me as a rather minor burden to impose upon a criminal who remains a threat to public order. (See my next answer.)

>>Their guilt may be permanent...their sentence need not be. A sex offender is capable of changing, just like any other person; there's no need to treat them as if they're about to commit a new crime every single time another potential victim lives nearby.<<

Sure, he is capable of change, Joe, but on what basis do you presume that he has? The transformation of his character from a criminal to a decent human being is a profound change. So the most likely outcome is that he has not changed. Indeed, violent sexual offenders are notorious recidivists, but instead of locking them up forever, we release them back into the community with notice to the public that they are amongst us.

Why shouldn't a public menace be labeled for what he is? If the information is available, thanks to our tax dollars, why shouldn't we have access to it so that we can take prudent precautions? Why shouldn't a convicted rapist or molester be denied a minor amount of privacy in exchange for his irreparably violent denial of the same to his victim?

Your only argument is that this criminal has served his term, but there is nothing intrinsically purgative about completing a prison sentence. Nothing in serving time is inherently transformative of a man's character. It is only his choice to change than can accomplish that, and mere confinement provides no reasonable expectation that he will make such a choice. Because cannot know his heart, we cannot truly know he has changed.

But if he has changed then, I would expect, he'll be the first to admit that the burden of being listed in a public registry bears no comparison to the evil of the crime he has committed.

Regards,
Bill

Post 38

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 5:26pm

Elizabeth,

I apologise if my previous comment to you seemed rather terse - I was reacting mainly to your comment that you "don't worry too much about lynchings". I sympathise with your concern for the safety of children. Though I am not a father myself I do have some contact with a few young children through various relatives, family friends etc, and if I'm honest, were any of those children ever molested I would be seriously tempted to lynch the perpetrators myself, as I think would almost anyone in that situation (though I am reasonably sure I would resist the urge). Having said that, I think there may come a day when threats to children (real or imagined) are going to be the major justification for all manner of infringements on liberty.

However, I do agree with your sentiment that sentences should be longer and parole conditions should be stricter, but while in prison sex offenders must have the same rights and protections as any other offender, no more and no less, and once released they ought to have the same rights as any other released convict - including if neccessary protection from revenge attacks.

MH

Post 39

Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:03am