21st Century Hester Prynne

[despondent]

There was a story (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050227/NEWS01/502270389) in the Enquirer today about Ohio's "Scarlet Letter", the yellow plates for DUI offenders. What is everyone's thoughts on this? I personally don't like the idea of shaming anyone for anything. Shaming doesn't correct or solve anything and can actually do more to encourage the offending acts. I also feel the same way about about sex offender mail notifications. Even if you are one to think it's ok, then why arbitrarily tag some offenses as worthy of public ridicule and not others? If it's a matter of public safety, then I would also like to know about those that have committed violent acts that might be living near me. Why not make teens (or anyone else) that drive wrecklessly get special plates too? I get frustrated at the lack of consistency in our laws because someone or some group has a strong lobby.

[purple_octopus]

I'd say that DUIs are one of those crimes that goes underpunished. If they did this for, say, a period of time akin to probation or parole for other crimes, I would be okay with that. After that period, they would have "served their time". I'd be all for something similar with convicted child molesters and rapists, too.

Everyone knows that operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol can cause accidents and death. Therefore, I feel that willingly driving drunk is attempted murder, because you know when you get behind that wheel that killing an innocent person is a very real possibility. Likewise, I feel that DUIs should be prosecuted and punished as attempted murder. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll get the majority of society to agree with me on that one.

[ZLoveSarah]

The majority of the population might not, but I certainly agree. 100%.

[postfeminist]

word up, purple_octopus... i agree entirely.

i fucking HATE drunk drivers....

mad props to all the people who choose to take a cab! :)

[classicgrrl]

Can't stand idiots who drink and drive but despo is right. the license plates wont do a damned thing. nobody is gonna notice them including me...and then I probably wouldn't care...

what are you gonna do? point at the dude/duddette and go "ha ha" ala the Simpsons?

[Jumpman]

How's this for a modern day scarlet letter?

[Seattle93]

They also don't seem to work when the bling-bling thugs pimp their rides the same color as their licence plates.

This is true.

I've seen a yellow Lincoln Navigator with red trim and red spinna rims. :eek:

I'm just disappointed this thread wasn't about Hesta Prynn of Northern State

http://www.northernstate.net/Photos/b-day/45.jpg

[classicgrrl]

How's this for a modern day scarlet letter?

this kinda of stuff scares me. very slippery slope.

[purple_octopus]

this kinda of stuff scares me. very slippery slope.
How so?

(ten motherfucking characters :) )

[classicgrrl]

How so?

(ten motherfucking characters :) )


perhaps the Christian right decides to post large signs in yards of all the girls who've had abortions. or the docs who performed them.

or maybe all potential employers are now sent a list containing all the names of all the persons who have ever been convicted of a marjiana charge, whether they drug test or not, in order to prevent people from smoking marijiana because it's a well known gateway drug.

Or, what if back in the late 80's/early 90's, everyone involved in the daycare molester incident were required to place signs in their yard (hint: it was blown open as a witchhunt several years later)....

...thats how so.

[jd1]

CG, I agree with you to a point... BUUUUT... What your saying boils down to the fact that these "scarlet letter" punishments can be abused. Yet that criticism could be leveled about ANY punishment at all. If certain elements get their way, the state could imprison or fine people who get/perform abortions. They could clamp down tougher sentences on marijuana users (more jail time, etc). In addition to the yard signs, those childcare defendants you spoke of spent a long time in jail (didn't one of them get locked up for contempt for like 5+ years, without trial?).

Any criminal penalty could be abused. That's why we have all the checks & balances--it's the best way we've found to safeguard against this. Jail & fines & probation are all just as potentially abusive as license plates or yard signs. Is there something inherently different about these "shaming" punishments that makes the MORE likely to be abused than other types of criminal penalties?

The only thing I can think of is that they might not seem so "bad" as a long jail term, so society might be more willing to clamp them down on people than might be good... But again... The same could be said of fines or probation.

--JD (who was also hoping for a Hesta Prynn thread)

[purple_octopus]

perhaps the Christian right decides to post large signs in yards of all the girls who've had abortions. or the docs who performed them.

That's not a crime. You can't legally punish someone for something that's not against the law.

or maybe all potential employers are now sent a list containing all the names of all the persons who have ever been convicted of a marjiana charge, whether they drug test or not, in order to prevent people from smoking marijiana because it's a well known gateway drug.
You can't even compare smoking pot (which only harms yourself) with drinking and driving (which could potentially kill innocent people). Arguably, smoking pot shouldn't even be a crime.

Or, what if back in the late 80's/early 90's, everyone involved in the daycare molester incident were required to place signs in their yard (hint: it was blown open as a witchhunt several years later)....

So are these people convicted child predators? If not, then they aren't criminals, and shouldn't be punished as such. If they are convicted, then they should be branded as such. Personally, I think child molesters should be locked up forever, but it's a lot cheaper to send a branded criminal out on the streets, where everyone knows who and what they are, then to house them in prison for years.

[Duemellon]

That's not a crime. You can't legally punish someone for something that's not against the law.it is. It's harrassment, defamation, invasion of privacy, littering, tresspassing, vandalism, and generally a shitty thing to do.You can't even compare smoking pot (which only harms yourself)as long as u'r doing it well before operating heavy equipment...

like a car.So are these people convicted child predators?they were convicted sex offenders, but it was eventually overturned after the kids were reinterviewed with better methods of finding out what happened.

[purple_octopus]

it is. It's harrassment, defamation, invasion of privacy, littering, tresspassing, vandalism, and generally a shitty thing to do.as long as u'r doing it well before operating heavy equipment...
I meant abortion wasn't a crime, not harrassing the people who have/perform them.

like a car.they were convicted sex offenders, but it was eventually overturned after the kids were reinterviewed with better methods of finding out what happened.
Sucks to be them, but nobody said our justice system was perfect. Should we do away with all punishments altogether?

[Fernie]

The article said Minnesota has these type of plates. I have never heard that nor have I ever seen any.

I think it is a good idea. If you are going ot be so stupid as to drive under the influence, then everyone else should be warned about you.

Almost every state has a website with the pictures and names of sex offenders. I think it is more of a "FYI - look who's in your neighborhood" type of deal.

[classicgrrl]

Sucks to be them, but nobody said our justice system was perfect. Should we do away with all punishments altogether?


no, but you better damn well be sure the folks are guilty before the punishment begins. we are awfully quick to blame in our society before we begin to question.

Obviously you have never been legally accused of something you didn't do. I hope you never have to go through it. And the means that we have of assessing who is "guilty" and who is "innocent" can be easily manipulated and fabricated.

and shaming as a deterrant doesn't work. So you wanna put child molesters on a list and let everybody know? fine. do it. and the person will continue to molest because we live in a society that permits it. wanna put special license plates on DUI's. Fine go ahead. And that person will continue to drink and drive.

And don't be surprised if one day you end up on shame list yourself. because when one person can be put on a shame list we all can. and it doesn't matter one hoot if a legal crime has been committed.

Don't understand? Go read The Scarlet Letter and Lolita back and back and write a paper from the perspective that Hester Prynne's child is Lolita.

And thus, our "American Way Of Life" is born.

[purple_octopus]

no, but you better damn well be sure the folks are guilty before the punishment begins. we are awfully quick to blame in our society before we begin to question.

Obviously you have never been legally accused of something you didn't do. I hope you never have to go through it. And the means that we have of assessing who is "guilty" and who is "innocent" can be easily manipulated and fabricated.
I would agree with you that if one innocent person is convicted and punished, that is too many. But do you suggest that we therefore punish no one because our justice system is flawed? From what I understood, this thread is about the method of punishment, not the validity of the conviction.

and shaming as a deterrant doesn't work. So you wanna put child molesters on a list and let everybody know? fine. do it. and the person will continue to molest because we live in a society that permits it. wanna put special license plates on DUI's. Fine go ahead. And that person will continue to drink and drive.
So we "permit it" as a society, and yet punishment is not appropriate? I don't think I follow you here.

And don't be surprised if one day you end up on shame list yourself. because when one person can be put on a shame list we all can. and it doesn't matter one hoot if a legal crime has been committed.
If I'm wrongfully convicted of a crime, that would certainly be a shame. But if I'm not convicted of anything, then I shouldn't be put on a "shame" list.

Don't understand? Go read The Scarlet Letter and Lolita back and back and write a paper from the perspective that Hester Prynne's child is Lolita.

And thus, our "American Way Of Life" is born.
I've read the Scarlet Letter. It's irrelevent. You can't compare adultury (where you aren't hurting anyone, save possibly yourself), and a DUI - where you can irreparably hurt or kill someone other than yourself. It's too much of a sweeping generalization to treat the two equally.

[classicgrrl]

purple, you are using words in a concrete manner and I am using words in an abstract manner.

and we not communicating.
see you later.

[jd1]

no, but you better damn well be sure the folks are guilty before the punishment begins. we are awfully quick to blame in our society before we begin to question.

Again... As PO says... This is true whether it's a scarlet letter, a jail term, a stiff fine, a period of probation, a hand cut off, or a firing squad.

ANY punishment at all can be abused. Let's get to the heart of what makes "scarlet letters" so bad--setting aside for the moment the question of the wrongfully accused/punished (which is a TOTALLY separate issue).

--JD

[purple_octopus]

purple, you are using words in a concrete manner and I am using words in an abstract manner.

and we not communicating.
see you later.
I'm using words in an attempt for others to understand me as easily as possible. And I am trying to communicate with you, or I wouldn't bother responding to your posts or ask you questions. I hope you're not upset by that, as I wasn't trying to offend.

[purple_octopus]

Again... As PO says... This is true whether it's a scarlet letter, a jail term, a stiff fine, a period of probation, a hand cut off, or a firing squad.

ANY punishment at all can be abused. Let's get to the heart of what makes "scarlet letters" so bad--setting aside for the moment the question of the wrongfully accused/punished (which is a TOTALLY separate issue).

--JD


Exactly. .

[classicgrrl]

I'm using words in an attempt for others to understand me as easily as possible. And I am trying to communicate with you, or I wouldn't bother responding to your posts or ask you questions. I hope you're not upset by that, as I wasn't trying to offend.

oh god no I'm not upset. seriously. we're just missing each other. it happens.

[Dirk]

My problem with these types of punishments is that it ensures the person will never be able to have a normal life, no matter what they do. There is a reason punishments have time limits. If someone is labeled as a sex offender (and this can happen for somply having sex with someone underage) that person will never have a normal decent life again. They will always be labeled as a "sexual predator" because they made 1 mistake. They have no chance to turn their life around (which is what prison is supposed to be about, rehabilitation, not punishment).

I agree completely that people should be punished for their wrongdoing, but eventually that punishment must end. Making sure everyone shuns a person for the rest of their lives simply means that person will never even have a chance to become a productive member of society.

[AmericanScience]

I disagree with the plates, disagree STRONGLY with the people with the signs in their front yard. I hope the guy named on the sign dug up some superb dirt on the family with the sign and posted it in front of his place. "Hypocrite Christian Right family at 423 Whatever Lane, 3 abortions in 4 years - doesn't it make you think?". Even if it's a lie. It'd be superb.

[purple_octopus]

My problem with these types of punishments is that it ensures the person will never be able to have a normal life, no matter what they do. There is a reason punishments have time limits. If someone is labeled as a sex offender (and this can happen for somply having sex with someone underage) that person will never have a normal decent life again. They will always be labeled as a "sexual predator" because they made 1 mistake. They have no chance to turn their life around (which is what prison is supposed to be about, rehabilitation, not punishment).

I agree completely that people should be punished for their wrongdoing, but eventually that punishment must end. Making sure everyone shuns a person for the rest of their lives simply means that person will never even have a chance to become a productive member of society.
Especially with sex offenders, the victims' lives are changed forever. Molesting a child is not simply "1 mistake". It's an atrocity. I agree with you that this stigma of "child molester" will probably never go away, but then again it probably shouldn't.

With DUIs, the offender has the choice to not drive a car, and no one will be able to tell their crime by looking at them. Driving a car is not a right, it is a privelege. Drunk drivers are lucky they are ever allowed to drive again.

[Duemellon]

Especially with sex offenders, the victims' lives are changed forever. Molesting a child is not simply "1 mistake". It's an atrocity. I agree with you that this stigma of "child molester" will probably never go away, but then again it probably shouldn't.wow.

that's great. So the victim is scarred forever & you want to continue to pick the scab? Or, the 19yr old who fucked a willing 16yr old who "flaked out" & told his/her parents should be marked as a "child molestor" for the rest of their life?

What about the reformed pedophile?

oh, that's right, it's such a heinous crime that it's unforgivable, therefore, to justify the "unforgivableness" we must label it as a permanent, recurring, state of depravity.

Child molestation is not the worst thing in the world.

Murder is.

[purple_octopus]

wow.

that's great. So the victim is scarred forever & you want to continue to pick the scab? Or, the 19yr old who fucked a willing 16yr old who "flaked out" & told his/her parents should be marked as a "child molestor" for the rest of their life?
I'm not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure that statutory rape doesn't carry the same punishment as child molestation. I'm also pretty sure that scenario would be perfectly legal in Ohio, as it is in Tennessee (where I am).

What about the reformed pedophile?
They should have changed their ways before they personally scarred someone for life.

oh, that's right, it's such a heinous crime that it's unforgivable, therefore, to justify the "unforgivableness" we must label it as a permanent, recurring, state of depravity.

Yep. I think life in prison would be appropriate, but until that time... It is shocking to me that we'll send someone to prison for 20 years for having a kilo of marijuana, but if someone hurts a woman or child... well, the punishment is just not as severe. Remember what classicgrrl was saying about our society "permitting" this crap? Her words come to mind right.... now.

Child molestation is not the worst thing in the world.

Murder is.
That's why we have life in prison or the death penalty for murder. Just as the victim's life is changed permanantly, so should the predator's. Child molesters are lucky to ever see the outside of a cell again.

[Duemellon]

I'm not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure that statutory rape doesn't carry the same punishment as child molestation. I'm also pretty sure that scenario would be perfectly legal in Ohio, as it is in Tennessee (where I am).they have to be w/i 2 yrs of each other, thus the 16 vs. 19. What's the diff between statutory & molestation? The name you call it? B/c on the books they both go down as sexual predators.They should have changed their ways before they personally scarred someone for life.same as someone who mugs someone, or beats someone, or robs someone, or whatever.That's why we have life in prison or the death penalty for murder.but we forgive murderers. We can reform them. We let them back into the world & allow them to have "paid their debt".Child molesters are lucky to ever see the outside of a cell again.B/c our sexual identity & personality being "pure" & homogenous is more important than anything?

[Dirk]

The 19-16 year old relationship would be legal, but sex with anyone who is 15 is not legal (in Ohio). And you can be labeled as a sexual predator for it. So a 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old (even if the 15 year old lies and says they are 16) could be labeled as a sexual predator (or whatever term Ohio uses).

I agree our sentencing guidelines are WAY screwed up, but that is a completely different arguement. The idea behind punishment for a crime is to make that person a productive part of society again. This is exactly what you avoid when you label someone for life. If I rob someone, I can realize the error of my ways and get on with my life. If I cause the death of someone (either through murder, or negligence such as manslaughter) I can see the error of my ways and get on with my life. If I do drugs or sell drugs, I can see the error of my ways and get on with my life. Why would the same not apply for sexual crimes?

The best way to make sure someone continues to act like a criminal is to continue to treat them like one. These people have done their crime, and done their time (you may not agree with how much time, but that is a different arguement). The punishment should stop there. If you continue to berate them with their crime and tell them they will always be labeled as something, with no hope of every getting away from that stigma, no matter what they do, why should they act like reasonable human beings? You cannot treat every person who commits a crime as if they are the wrost type of person on earth. Many people rob others serially, but we do not throw anyone who commits robbery away for life. Many people hurt others (either fighting or purposely injuring other people for other reasons) serially, yet we do not lock up everyone who commits assault for life and make them register with the state. Why should we assume people who commit other crimes should all be treated as the worst possible offender on earth?

[Duemellon]

The 19-16 year old relationship would be legal, but sex with anyone who is 15 is not legal (in Ohio). And you can be labeled as a sexual predator for it. So a 18 year old who has sex with a 15 year old (even if the 15 year old lies and says they are 16) could be labeled as a sexual predator (or whatever term Ohio uses).thank you for that clarification.

[munkie_boy]

What about the reformed pedophile?


There is no such thing.

There is only one fitting punishment for this slime of our Earth.

[Duemellon]

There is no such thing.

There is only one fitting punishment for this slime of our Earth.great attitude.

So, murderers, drug addicts, nymphomaniacs, and ppl who beat their kids, can be reformed, but pedophilia is so unforgiveable that if someone did it they must be unrecoverable? right?

The reasons why there is no such thing as a reformed pedophile:

1) We won't let them reform.

If we put them through therapy, watch them, & change their behavior regarding control & sex, then release them back into the "wilds" they still have the label of "pedophile" so, even if they would behave differently we'll never know.

2) Who'd come forth & say they're reformed?

Let's say that one person who was a pedophile sought help & were never convicted of the crimes b/c they sought help (obviously, this would not involve any legal actions otherwise #1 would be in effect). They get their head on "right" & come back into the world & never do wrong again. Who do they brag to? Who can tell their story? What if it wasn't in the annuls of psychology b/c this person went to their priest, their family, or themselves? Do you think they'd ever tell anyone?

3) How are you going to test that theory that they are reformed?

Leave them in a room alone/w a kid? It's easier for us to say they're unreformable then it is for us to let them back into the world. The label of them being unrecoverable is more due to our opinion that it's so loathesome than it actually being some form of inescapable behavior cycle.

[despondent]

They should have changed their ways before they personally scarred someone for life.
There is only one fitting punishment for this slime of our Earth
No one is born a molester. They became a molester because they were either abused or molested themselves. Where was society at to look after their well being? I guess that's too bad about their luck too :rolleyes:

[munkie_boy]

There is no reformation for sexual predators as a group which includes pedophiles...counseling, overexposure theraphy, chemical castration, whatever the treatment, has not been shown to work--they continue to prey.

And I would lump murderers in this catagory...

Drug addicts? no.

Just a matter of personal perspective...

[akip]

even though drunk drivers terrify me, i would never support such a public branding of them. my dad was an alcoholic and he struggled with his disease for 30 years before he got a grip. in the meantime, we all had to eat.

the pedophile database on computer is flawed (a lot of them move around, assume aliases and never register to begin with) but at least it's more discreet. they don't have to drive around with a little billboard on their vehicle. there are descriptions as to the specifics (whether there was violent coercion, as opposed to statutory rape).

the branding business worries me all around, though. i hate the current trend toward self-congratulatory piety.

[purple_octopus]

There is no reformation for sexual predators as a group which includes pedophiles...counseling, overexposure theraphy, chemical castration, whatever the treatment, has not been shown to work--they continue to prey.

And I would lump murderers in this catagory...

Drug addicts? no.

Just a matter of personal perspective...
Agreed. And I think some of them are born predators. Just as some people are born schitzophrenic, and others are born with crippling mental diseases that prevent them living a normal life. Some mentally ill can function in society, while others cannot.

I feel as though once you violate the rights of another human being, your rights end there. Crimes such as drug abuse don't violate anyones rights. Child molestation and murder do. More relating to the topic of this thread, DUI attempts to violate the rights of another (because you can't convince me that someone who gets behind the wheel of a car under the influence of alcohol has never been told what the ramifications of their chioce could be).

[Duemellon]

There is no reformation for sexual predators as a group which includes pedophiles...counseling, overexposure theraphy, chemical castration, whatever the treatment, has not been shown to work--they continue to prey.

And I would lump murderers in this catagory...

Drug addicts? no.

Just a matter of personal perspective...The amount of effort that has been done to reform pedophiles is quite limited in comparison to the amount of effort done to reform physically/emotionally abusive parents, even though the root of the problem is the same.

[Handy Smurf]

Agreed. And I think some of them are born predators. Just as some people are born schitzophrenic, and others are born with crippling mental diseases that prevent them living a normal life. Some mentally ill can function in society, while others cannot.

I feel as though once you violate the rights of another human being, your rights end there. Crimes such as drug abuse don't violate anyones rights. Child molestation and murder do. More relating to the topic of this thread, DUI attempts to violate the rights of another (because you can't convince me that someone who gets behind the wheel of a car under the influence of alcohol has never been told what the ramifications of their chioce could be).
sorry, but nobody is born a child molestor

[purple_octopus]

sorry, but nobody is born a child molestor
Nobody??? It's not even remotely possible that someone could be born mentally ill, and the mental illness causes the desire to harm children? I understand that often it is a cycle of abuse, but if someone abuses a child without ever having been abused (and is not a part of the cycle), they'd almost have to be "wired wrong" to do something like that. It's not something that occurs to normal people to do.

[despondent]

sorry, but nobody is born a child molestorI agree. It's learned behavior, if even learned subconsciously.

[Duemellon]

I understand that often it is a cycle of abuse,...That concept is too easily fallen back upon.

Someone, at some point, started the cycle. Sometimes the cycle restarts. To constantly blame others in our childhood for our actions as adults is just a deflection of blame. At someone point you take ownership of your character flaws and do something with that.

However, for the concept that someone is hardwired to "harm children" seems like a particular stretch. Repetitive, ritualized, persistant, abuse is about control, regardless of how it manifests itself (sexually, physically, emotionally, etc.). This means that if someone is seeking some relief to their control issues they may discover a means to act upon them or create one, thus the "cycle" is started.

How natural is it?

I don't believe there have been enough studies into the development of a control-issue abuser's psyche to determine how they picked that particular mode to express their control issues, although there is some evidence of them following a previous example in their life (parentage, society, religion, etc.).

I feel the need to make a very important distinction between those abusers who were repetitive, deliberate, and ritualistic, versus those who were sporadic, spread among others, or isolated in their actions. If someone only abused 1 child, once, and stopped, are they the "unreformable abominations"?

[jd1]

If someone only abused 1 child, once, and stopped, are they the "unreformable abominations"?

It's not just the question of are they reformable or not. Someone who delibrately hurts a child has to pay somehow. Punishment is as much a part of criminal justice as reformation.

"What's a pederast, Walter?"

"Shut up, Donnie."


--JD

[Handy Smurf]

I agree. It's learned behavior, if even learned subconsciously.
Agreed
Being born mentally ill is not the same as nor does it make anyone a child molestor

Someone, at some point, started the cycle. Sometimes the cycle restarts. To constantly blame others in our childhood for our actions as adults is just a deflection of blame. At someone point you take ownership of your character flaws and do something with that.I don't think I have ever agreed with something anyone has posted so wholeheartedly. You hit the nail on the head.

[Duemellon]

It's not just the question of are they reformable or not. Someone who delibrately hurts a child has to pay somehow. Punishment is as much a part of criminal justice as reformation.In your mind you believe punishment is part of reformation & I believe their connection is tenuous.

Punishment is an artificial burden, discomfort, or something, put on someone in an attempt to do what? When compared to justice, inclusion, & reformation? If punishment is a component of justice, (in most situations) the sum is negative (person A loses a dog, so we make person B lose a dog. That's a balance, but it's a loss for both). If punishment is for compensation there are too many incidents where they victim(s) could not be compensated with "like items". If it's to incurr additional mental anguish through shame or repentance, that approach has proven to be hit-or-miss at best.

[purple_octopus]

BIOLOGICAL THEORY Concerned with organic explanations of human behavior; physiological factors (e.g., hormone levels, chromosomal makeup) have an effect of sexual behavior; androgens promote sexual arousal, orgasm, and ejaculation, as well as regulate sexuality, aggression, cognition, emotion and personality; abnormal levels of androgens lead to aggressive sexual behavior.

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY Sexual deviance is an expression of the unresolved
problems experienced during the stages of development; the human psyche is composed of three primary elements: the id, the ego and the superego; sexual deviancy occurs when the id (pleasure principle) is overactive.

BEHAVIORAL THEORY Deviant sexual behavior is a learned condition, acquired
through the same mechanisms by which conventional sexuality is learned; it is acquired and maintained through basic conditioning principles.

ATTACHMENT THEORY Humans have a propensity to establish strong emotional bonds with others, and when individuals have some loss or
emotional distress, they act out as a result of their loneliness and isolation.

COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THEORY Addresses the way in which offenders’ thoughts affect their behavior; focuses on the way in which sex offenders
diminish their feelings of guilt and shame by rationalizing it through excuses and justifications

INTERATED THEORY There are preconditions to child sexual abuse, which
integrate the various theories about why individuals begin to participate in sexually deviant behavior; addresses the motivation to offend and the rationalization of the behavior; focus is on the inhibitions of the offenders
(internal barriers) and how when these barriers are diminished, distorted thoughts can lead to deviant actions

THEORIES ON ABUSE BY CLERGY No clear consensus as to why some priests molest children and others do not, though many theories address the stunted psychosexual development of the priest; the psychodynamic model addresses the way in which the experiences of shame interact with unrealistic, moral expectations conveyed through church teachings that have
been internalized, resulting in the creation of a shame cycle that stunts the individual’s psychosexual development and contributes to sexual misconduct; experience of celibacy interacts with past traumas (e.g., childhood sexual abuse) and may stunt the priest’s psychosexual development at a preadolescent/ adolescent stage leading to sexual misconduct

link (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/litreview.pdf)

I found this on a Google search, a very interesting (although long) read. I haven't read the whole document, only the portion on theories of why people abuse children (I think this document deals only with male predators, but I'm not sure). There are experts that believe some people are born with tendancies to sexually abuse. There are also experts that believe otherwise. I just thought some of you might find this information interesting, and thought I'd share.

[jd1]

[QUOTE=Duemellon]In your mind you believe punishment is part of reformation & I believe their connection is tenuous.[QUOTE]

I said no such thing. I think they are separate elements of criminal punishment that maybe occassionally overlap--but when they do it's more coincidence than anything else.

People who break the law must be punished. If all we want to do is reform them then we would have hospitals, not jails. Punishment has a deterrent effect, and also satisfies society's moral sense of justice.

This doesn't mean you don't reform. My point is you have to do both. Right now our system does a bloody poor job of reforming offenders. We clearly need to be doing something about that--and nobody seems interested in doing so. That doesn't mean, however, that those who break the law shouldn't be punished as well.

And before you chime in and say "deterrence never works", let me say this: it doesn't work for CRIMINALS. Well, duh, they broke the law, so of course it didn't work in their case. But what about people who might be tempted to commit a crime and never do? People who make a rational decision that the risk of penalty is not worth whatever benefit the crime would bring? They're the ones that deterrence is meant to influence.

--JD

[Duemellon]

I said no such thing.you are correct. I just thought you were coming from that angle. Thank you for your clarificationPunishment has a deterrent effect, and also satisfies society's moral sense of justice.I wasn't about to say "deterence never works" because it doesn't work for reformation. Deterence works, but I don't like how the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[purple_octopus]

I wasn't about to say "deterence never works" because it doesn't work for reformation. Deterence works, but I don't like how the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Oh that's right, because molesting a child is no big deal. :rolleyes: Due, I hardly ever outright disagree with you and/or not see where you're coming from. But I have no idea why you are defending child molesters here. I just don't get it.

[jd1]

wasn't about to say "deterence never works" because it doesn't work for reformation. Deterence works, but I don't like how the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Well I agree with you there. Right now the criminal justice system is all about punishment. This is a terrible imbalance. We need to do something to return offenders to society, instead of just locking them in a cycle of recitivism and incarceration (until they hit their "three strikes" and spare us the need to think about them any more).

What we don't want to do in fixing this problem is go too far in the other direction. A system based SOLEY on returning people to society is missing the boat just as badly as the one we have now. Also, it is potentially scary too--makes me think of Clockwork Orange or some Orwellian "Ministry of Love."

--JD

[Dirk]

Agreed. And I think some of them are born predators. Just as some people are born schitzophrenic, and others are born with crippling mental diseases that prevent them living a normal life. Some mentally ill can function in society, while others cannot.

I feel as though once you violate the rights of another human being, your rights end there. Crimes such as drug abuse don't violate anyones rights. Child molestation and murder do. More relating to the topic of this thread, DUI attempts to violate the rights of another (because you can't convince me that someone who gets behind the wheel of a car under the influence of alcohol has never been told what the ramifications of their chioce could be).
What about assault? Or theft? Stalking? Those all violate the rights of others. Should they be locked up forever? What about if you attempt to do any of these? If I attempt to rob you, should I be locked up forever? Most crimes violate the rights of others (that is why they are crimes).

[RealNeal]

With DUIs, the offender has the choice to not drive a car, and no one will be able to tell their crime by looking at them. Driving a car is not a right, it is a privelege. Drunk drivers are lucky they are ever allowed to drive again.

I think that's a little harsh. I mean, one can have two glasses of wine and get tagged for a DUI. On the other hand, one can drive 60 through a school zone. That's a lot more dangerous in my mind, but no one suggests that person will never drive again. Heck, the morning commuter applying makeup and talking on their cellphone while driving may be more of a danger than someone driving at .08.

I'm glad that society has made DUI an unacceptable behavior... in no way am I suggesting that we be lenient (particularly for people who are seriously impaired or multiple offenders)... but sometimes people make mistakes that do not call for permanent suspension of driving privileges-- or public shaming for everyone in the vehicle associated with the person.

[purple_octopus]

What about assault? Or theft? Stalking? Those all violate the rights of others. Should they be locked up forever? What about if you attempt to do any of these? If I attempt to rob you, should I be locked up forever? Most crimes violate the rights of others (that is why they are crimes).
Should someone be locked up forever for robbing me? Probably not. I can get over the loss of material posessions. For raping me? You bet your ass they should. They illustrate completely different degrees of rights violation.

By the way, there are plenty of crimes that do not directly violate the rights of others. Examples would be drug use/possession and suicide.

[Dirk]

Oh that's right, because molesting a child is no big deal. :rolleyes: Due, I hardly ever outright disagree with you and/or not see where you're coming from. But I have no idea why you are defending child molesters here. I just don't get it.

I don't think anyone is defending child molesters. No one has even come close to saying the molesting a child is okay or that there should be no punishment for molesting a child. What is being said is that stigmatizing someone for the rest of their life with no hope of redemption for one act is not helpful to anyone.

I can kill someone, rape someone, beat someone within an inch of their life, steal their car, kill their dog, threaten their family, stalk their neighbors, sell them illegal substances and illegal guns and bombs, break into their house and write racial slurs on their walls, beat their children and my children, and still have a hope of rejoining society later. But because I had sex with a 15 year old there is nothing I can ever do to rejoin society? There is no way to overcome pedophila, but one can overcome drug addiction and a pattern of abuse and mental illness?

[Duemellon]

But I have no idea why you are defending child molesters here. I just don't get it.I don't have any idea why I'm defending them either.

hint: I'm not defending them, however, I think you're falling into a trap of a binary thought pattern which assumes that I am.

Just like I did with JD1, I assumed that he was going to say "deterrence is part of reformation", I only reacted to a 2-sided argument with a preconceived expectation of his stance based on discussions I've had with others who held the same opinion he previously stated.

Then, he came back with the same thing assuming I was going to say "Deterrence never works".

That kind've thing just happens, but I, in no way, am trying to defend child molesters and where you got that assumption from confuses me. I am, however, saying that there are things much worse than molestation, but our society has their perspectives askew because molestation involves sex.Examples would be drug use/possession and suicide.
[/quote]I disagree. Drug use/possession & suicide do violate the rights of others.

Drug use - 2nd hand smoke, health care, exposure to minors, endangering others, poor job performance...

Possesion - withholding information regarding a crime

Suicide - I could go on for days on this one, but just a few quick hitters: loss of income, loss of insurance, loss of support, tax evasion, mental distress...

[purple_octopus]

Due, all of the quotes below I interpreted as being easy on child molesters:

(These are not put together in any order, and don't mean anything other than one line at a time).
What about the reformed pedophile?

Child molestation is not the worst thing in the world.

Child molesters are lucky to ever see the outside of a cell again.

B/c our sexual identity & personality being "pure" & homogenous is more important than anything?

I wasn't about to say "deterence never works" because it doesn't work for reformation. Deterence works, but I don't like how the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

It just sounds to me like you don't think child molestation is serious. It's not that other crimes aren't serious. Just because molestation involves sex, and you don't think we should have sexual hangups, doesn't make it less serious. (I never meant that you thought it was "okay" though.)

Just for the record, I don't think murderers can be reformed either. I don't think anybody can be reformed. Change comes from within, and cannot be brought about by a justice system. The person has to be ready for the change inside themselves. I see punishment as a completely separate issue. And in this case, the punishment of living with the label of something that you in fact are is not excessive.

[Duemellon]

the punishment of living with the label of something that you in fact are is not excessive.you are a thief.

Seriously, you are. At some point you stole something from someone.

Sure, it was probably something petty, but do you walk around with a tattoo on your forehead sayng:

"When I was 7 I punched my cousin and stole his pack of Lifesavers™ and I'm sorry."

?

Yes, you were a petty thief coupled with aggrevated assault & battery, but you are not anymore. Why? Because you wanted to change, right? or because society let you change by excusing that behavior as "childish, immature, a phase, ill conceived, etc."?

When we get into crimes in adulthood, how can you judge who has reformed and is therefore free to not have a label?

[Handy Smurf]

you are a thief.

Seriously, you are. At some point you stole something from someone.

Sure, it was probably something petty, but do you walk around with a tattoo on your forehead sayng:

"When I was 7 I punched my cousin and stole his pack of Lifesavers™ and I'm sorry."

?

Yes, you were a petty thief coupled with aggrevated assault & battery, but you are not anymore. Why? Because you wanted to change, right? or because society let you change by excusing that behavior as "childish, immature, a phase, ill conceived, etc."?

When we get into crimes in adulthood, how can you judge who has reformed and is therefore free to not have a label?
Its a good point and its very difficult to make that determination. I think everyone should have the right to be informed when a convicted child molestor moves into their neighborhood-sex offender, though, is that too broad? from what was brought up before about being dubbed a sex offender if youre 19 and sleep with a 16 year old, maybe its too hard to draw a line.--either way, i think people should be informed if a convicted child molestor moves into their neighborhood. However, I hardly think it's necessary to post information publicly about this.

[purple_octopus]

you are a thief.

Seriously, you are. At some point you stole something from someone.

Sure, it was probably something petty, but do you walk around with a tattoo on your forehead sayng:

"When I was 7 I punched my cousin and stole his pack of Lifesavers™ and I'm sorry."

?

Yes, you were a petty thief coupled with aggrevated assault & battery, but you are not anymore. Why? Because you wanted to change, right? or because society let you change by excusing that behavior as "childish, immature, a phase, ill conceived, etc."?

When we get into crimes in adulthood, how can you judge who has reformed and is therefore free to not have a label?
Actually you're wrong. I've never stolen anything, not even a candy bar. You can go ahead and call me a liar, though. I have lied before.

[Duemellon]

Actually you're wrong. I've never stolen anything, not even a candy bar. You can go ahead and call me a liar, though. I have lied before.Stole a kiss?

Stole a glance?

Stole a base?

Stole a heart?

Stole someone in the chest?

[purple_octopus]

When we get into crimes in adulthood, how can you judge who has reformed and is therefore free to not have a label?
Due, I've been an orphan for 25 years because someone got behind the wheel of a car drunk. That label hasn't gone away, and it wasn't even my crime. If my label doesn't go away, why should the offender's?

[Dirk]

They shouldn't be able to deny what they did, but they shouldn't have to start every conversation with "Hi, I'm a drunk driver who killed someone". I think there should be a list of REPEAT offenders of actual pedophiles (ie not someone who just looks at pictures of someone who may be 16 or has sex with someone who isn't of the "determined age" but is of a reasonable age) and possible other violent offenders that people can check if there are questions about someone's behavior. But I don't think every time a person moves somewhere everyone in a 10 mile radius should be told "There is an evil person moving down the street that should be shunned and never trusted so beware!" You should be able to do a background check on someone and see if they have been convicted of a crime, but they shouldn't be forced to tell every person they come into contact with that they have been convicted of a crime.

[purple_octopus]

Stole a kiss?

Stole a glance?

Stole a base?

Stole a heart?

Stole someone in the chest?
I'd steal a kiss from you in a heartbeat. ;)

[Duemellon]

Due, I've been an orphan for 25 years because someone got behind the wheel of a car drunk. That label hasn't gone away, and it wasn't even my crime. If my label doesn't go away, why should the offender's?& there's no amount of action that person could do to bring balance back to 0 or a positive. That simple.

I'm sorry to hear that you had to experience such a thing but it doesn't change the possibility that this person, if they lived through it as well, may have changed their life and become an asset to humanity after such a bad decision.

Granted, there's the possibility they're an asshole who, no matter how much remorse they've utterred still return to bad habits & endangered others, possibly hurting more people,...

But if they had the chance to change and made a change, what good does it do to preceede their life with the biggest mistake of their life? It's not about forgiving & it's not about forgetting, it's about giving them room to change.

[purple_octopus]

But if they had the chance to change and made a change, what good does it do to preceede their life with the biggest mistake of their life? It's not about forgiving & it's not about forgetting, it's about giving them room to change.Ten feet by ten feet sounds like plenty to me.

[markalot]

I gotta go with Dirk on this one. Though I generally agree with what PO is saying the consequences of a mistaken blame seem a little too high.

Besides, if the license plates worked I think they would cause more accidents as people dove to get out of the way.

[purple_octopus]

They shouldn't be able to deny what they did, but they shouldn't have to start every conversation with "Hi, I'm a drunk driver who killed someone". I think there should be a list of REPEAT offenders of actual pedophiles (ie not someone who just looks at pictures of someone who may be 16 or has sex with someone who isn't of the "determined age" but is of a reasonable age) and possible other violent offenders that people can check if there are questions about someone's behavior. But I don't think every time a person moves somewhere everyone in a 10 mile radius should be told "There is an evil person moving down the street that should be shunned and never trusted so beware!" You should be able to do a background check on someone and see if they have been convicted of a crime, but they shouldn't be forced to tell every person they come into contact with that they have been convicted of a crime.

I would agree with you if we actually punished drunk drivers with jail time. I think they need to serve time one way or another, though. Fines and "rehab" aren't enough.