What Are You Doing Right Now? (265 Viewers)
- Thread starter ßöмßäяðîëя
- Start date
- Tags gay space iliveforfinasteride iliveforjuve is not white loldevil size queens sweet matt is sweet errwhere virgin devil
That's true, but now that I know the list exists I can't help but look.
That I definitely disagree with. I don't think someone who has been caught pissing in public, or even those losers who flash their junk at people but are otherwise harmless should be put to public shaming the same as a rapist or a child molester.
Yeah, I get what you mean, and I both agree & disagree. The list is far from a perfect solution, as already stated it's way too easy to get on it. It shames people for doing minor things as well as major in the same way, that should be changed. I also think that if someone goes to rehabilitation and/or a long enough time has passed since someone's last offense, they could appeal to be removed or something. But I still think the public deserves to know in terms of rapists, or anything involving children. Especially multiple offenders.
That I definitely disagree with. I don't think someone who has been caught pissing in public, or even those losers who flash their junk at people but are otherwise harmless should be put to public shaming the same as a rapist or a child molester.
Yeah, I get what you mean, and I both agree & disagree. The list is far from a perfect solution, as already stated it's way too easy to get on it. It shames people for doing minor things as well as major in the same way, that should be changed. I also think that if someone goes to rehabilitation and/or a long enough time has passed since someone's last offense, they could appeal to be removed or something. But I still think the public deserves to know in terms of rapists, or anything involving children. Especially multiple offenders.
Well, it's a typical american stance, isn't it? Just as they tried to justify "torture light" (waterboarding, playing loud music for hours and hours, forced sleep deprivation etc.) despite of the UN Committee's recommendations urging the US to change it's stance and it's ways. Some principles are just too important, in my opinion, to make exceptions from and to derogate from. To take another example from the torture-discussion, there are many who are in favor of allowing such "torture light" in the case of so called 'ticking bomb-scenarios', where it's absolutely urgent to get hold of information. But I'm proud of the european tradition in that sense, that even in such circumstances it would still constitute a breach of the law to use such methods. There was a famous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on this issue, where Germany was found in breach of the prohibition against torture. In this case, the information they retrieved wasn't even reliable. Information retrieved through torture-methods in most cases cannot be trusted, as people say whatever you wanna hear in such cases.
To draw a parallel to what we're talking about here, allowing for some to be publicly shamed but others not, just because "the general public deserves to know", doesn't sit well with me at all. All human beings should be entitled to a minimum level of right to privacy, as is stated in multiple international human rights documents (UDHR, ICCPR, ECHR etc.). The reason for it being that only then can the individual thrive and grow (better him or herself etc.). Which in turn benefits society. A society ought to include, not exclude.
The general public does need protection, but that is the task of law enforcement to ensure. Every John and Jane Doe out there doesn't need to peep in and create mass hysteria over something they cannot control. It's not like they're entitled to take the laws into their own hands anyway. At the end of the day, it's law enforcement that are forced to deal with criminals, so it ought to be that way altogether. They should keep the lists to themselves, monitor certain people and open up investigations as prescribed by law whenever there is a reason to.
I like the last sentence in this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/15/sex-offenders-and-the-human-rights-act/
But I'm gonna rewrite it just a little bit. Everyone gets human rights, not just the ones you approve of.
To draw a parallel to what we're talking about here, allowing for some to be publicly shamed but others not, just because "the general public deserves to know", doesn't sit well with me at all. All human beings should be entitled to a minimum level of right to privacy, as is stated in multiple international human rights documents (UDHR, ICCPR, ECHR etc.). The reason for it being that only then can the individual thrive and grow (better him or herself etc.). Which in turn benefits society. A society ought to include, not exclude.
The general public does need protection, but that is the task of law enforcement to ensure. Every John and Jane Doe out there doesn't need to peep in and create mass hysteria over something they cannot control. It's not like they're entitled to take the laws into their own hands anyway. At the end of the day, it's law enforcement that are forced to deal with criminals, so it ought to be that way altogether. They should keep the lists to themselves, monitor certain people and open up investigations as prescribed by law whenever there is a reason to.
I like the last sentence in this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/15/sex-offenders-and-the-human-rights-act/
But I'm gonna rewrite it just a little bit. Everyone gets human rights, not just the ones you approve of.
To be honest I'm probably not the best person to debate this with, as a victim of rape myself who still gets occasional flashbacks & anxiety attacks ever since. I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for those people in this situation. I know it's probably wrong & I'm normally all over human rights issues, but meh.
, Jem. I remember an experiment the BBC made once about these things and even isolation puts an enormous pressure on a human being.
I'm very sorry that such a thing happened to you, but yeah, this is not about "feeling sorry for", definitely not. Just pointing out that allowing such lists is a clear human rights issue, and I'm sure it would constitute a breach of the right to privacy in both the UN Committees and in the European Court.
That's all I wanted to point out.
But yeah, we don't have to pursue this any further. I've made my point.
- - - Updated - - -
That's brilliant.At the risk of sounding like "Up With Sex Offenders", always ALWAYS be suspicious when something with the law pits an "us" vs. "them" mentality. Three strikes laws in the US being a perfect example.
i'm with ragazza on this. it's not about us vs them. it's about committing crimes that you can't just wash away. it's not like they stole a tv, they ruined someone's life forever and they'll do it again if nothing happens. how many sex offenders only do it once? not many. and even once is one time too many.
Ouch. Well that completely sucks and is totally understandable. A victim of a murder in the family is rarely going to take lightly releasing murders. That's just normal.
The challenge comes when it's your brother or nephew who is the convicted sex offender. IMO, no law makes fair sense unless you are willing to impose it on yourself and your own loved ones under the circumstances.
Too many people are ready to criminalize drugs and lock them all up, only to discover that their own kids are smoking dope in their own basement. Then suddenly they realize "them" is "us" and it's not just theoretical anymore.
The challenge comes when it's your brother or nephew who is the convicted sex offender. IMO, no law makes fair sense unless you are willing to impose it on yourself and your own loved ones under the circumstances.
Too many people are ready to criminalize drugs and lock them all up, only to discover that their own kids are smoking dope in their own basement. Then suddenly they realize "them" is "us" and it's not just theoretical anymore.
To be honest, I had to go into the thinking booth myself, regarding all of this, and whether or not I wanted to pursue my career dream of being a defense lawyer. As I had a family member die at Utøya in the mass killings. But my ideals prevailed and I'm ready to fight for them no matter what. I like what you wrote, swag, when you said that "no law makes fair sense unless you are willing to impose it on yourself". That's some John Rawls veil of ignorance shit right there, and I couldn't agree more.
I'm with Jem on this one. Which isn't to say that the punishment is harsh enough as it's enforced in a lot of cases. But it's a double-standard to have punishment and then post-punishment punishment that's supposed to walk around with you the rest of your life where, say, a murderer who does his time doesn't have the same restrictions. (Talk about ruining multiple lives.)
I don't mind discussing it, just wanted to point out an admitted bias on my part. I would honestly probably agree with you if it didn't hit too close to home for me. There are a lot of issues in this country regarding privacy & human rights, and not just that. I'm not a fan of the three strikes law either, there are so many flaws in it.
Not to mention the amount of victims who don't report such crimes when they happen, someone could have raped half a dozen people but only get "caught" once. I was too scared to report it when it happened to me, plus it was in the context of a relationship, so it didn't even dawn on me right away that it was rape. Those are always the hardest to prove as well.
Not to mention the amount of victims who don't report such crimes when they happen, someone could have raped half a dozen people but only get "caught" once. I was too scared to report it when it happened to me, plus it was in the context of a relationship, so it didn't even dawn on me right away that it was rape. Those are always the hardest to prove as well.
But murder comes in various degrees -- some that a D.A. can find convictable based on the evidence and any mitigating circumstances, but others not. A 2nd degree murder conviction in California can get you just 15 years in California with the possibility of early release/parole.
I'm not even talking manslaughter here.
IMO, no matter what the laws, the system clearly doesn't do enough to support victims.
I'm not even talking manslaughter here.
IMO, no matter what the laws, the system clearly doesn't do enough to support victims.