Living Near Sex Offenders

Psychologists and sociologists are quacks. Too many of them are useless and actually dangerous to society.

They aren't trustworthy enough to say: "This man is a threat to children!" and cause that man to be locked up forever.

Geneticists can't say someone will molest a kid because their gene's imply they could be a molester. Your genes can imply many things about you. It means nothing.

You're trying to get into the Pre-Crime business.

You'll be in jail then.......

That's the point. Protection IS pre-crime business. And any rule such as "if you did it once, you'll do it again" is just psychology without a degree.

Then call it vengeance. Treat it like our jurisprudence treats any wish for vengeance. Don't pretend it's about protection.

That is no contradiction.

Ignoring for a moment that the recidivism rate is not what you seem to think it is, both those measures are typical methods of psychology. You have statistics that you use to predict future behaviour from past behaviour; and experiences from psychological treatment.

You're engaging in psychology. The maximum degree of certainty you can claim for your position is that of the best possible psychology. Everything else is the superstition of essentialism, which denies the difference between the past and future by means of "=".

So you are trying to argue that someone who has raped a child is not a pedophile.

Or just that they have not demonstrated a predisposition to rape children, the willingness to rape children and the ability to rape children. You DON'T think someone who has raped a child has demonstrated those things?


You're just arguing to argue now aren't you?

Of course it's psychology....it's all we've got to work with right now.

Protection is the goal...the protection of people from a person we know has the ability to victimize a child. Until he does it, it's only a potential.

Right now society apparently believes freedom is more valuable than protecting children at any cost, so potential is not seen as a good enough reason to violate a person's rights to protect a child who hasn't been touched yet.

Someone who has actually committed the crime? They lost the benefit of the doubt and most of society will never blindly trust them to do the right thing again. The price is too high to risk it once you know the capability is there. Yet, our freedom is so important and ingrained in us, we hesitate to deny them theirs forever. Thus, we end up with lists and hope the knowledge they can't hide their pasts will be enough of a deterrent to keep people safe.

Others may disagree. Some folks probably would see no problem locking up someone they believe might hurt a kid to keep it from ever happening. What is the proper societal price to pay for ruining a life forever?

No, I'm really not. I think you're making one of the central mistakes right now that have people fuck up their politics. It's called existentialism, naturalism, and is at the heart of what the term 'ideology' meant when it first entered modern political philosophy: The assumption that a definable quality corresponds to a persistent material nature of some being.

Pedophilia means a desire to have sex with kids. You have chosen to change that definition for the sake of this discussion to say that you have to actually have had sex with kids to be a pedophile. No need to quibble about labels; just call the former pedophilia-1 and the second pedophilia-2.

When a person rapes a child, this constitutes pedophilia-2 by definition. However, it only demonstrates a high likelihood for pedophilia-1 at a certain point in time. Pedophilia-2, by definition, does not involve predictions about future behaviour; it is all about what has happened or has not happened. Pedophilia-1, by definition, only gives a likelihood (that a person might act on their desire), compounded by another likelihood (that the desire persists). You're trying to conclude pedophilia-1 from pedophilia-2, compounding your prediction with a third appeal to probability.

Any prediction about the future from either of those concepts means you're dealing inprobabilities and engaging in psychology. You can't logically assume greater confidence for your prediction than the maximum confidence you have in psychology.

But deep down, you know that essentialism is wrong. When a psychologist comes to you and says they are as sure as they can be that this person is planning to rape kids, you have strong doubts against acting on that information, even though it might protect kids. You just pretend that your own prediction isn't psychological, because you want to elevate your wish for vengeance to the nobility of a rational need for protection.

Let me repeat:

Well, no... I'd have to actually be caught re offending.
Although it is a bit of a pain in the ass having a record for simple possession be a barrier to employment. It may even be more annoying as an employer's criminal check doesn't discuss the nature of what I've done, just that I have a conviction that isn't a sexual offence (separate list).

Curious, how many DUIs you have?

For about the tenth time, the only sure way now to KNOW that someone is Pedo-1 is if they are Pedo-2. Due to the fact up we have presumption of innocence we can't put away LIKELY Pedo-1s, but we can Pedo-2s b/c we KNOW they are Pedo-1s.

I've said some variation of this four times, others 5. Hopefully since I used your pedantic language this will be the last time.

You miss the point as usual......

If lists are being made of people who are a danger to society then drug users like you should be locked up.

You've already offended so we know you've gone from possible drug offender to is a drug offender and you will probably re-offend.

Zero.

Unlike you I'm not even close to being a drug using alcoholic.

I do agree with you however there is one rare exception:

The person who says they are a Pedo-1 but has not yet Pedo-2.

Or the person who has child porn but has not yet crossed over to actually doing it.

But other then that Packard is being an idiot. It must be the German in him. He wants to ship everyone off to camp for society's protection.

I think you've got the wrong homey. Afaik, I never claimed it was all about protection.

On this issue Packard can only see Black and White. No nuance. Either you must be willing to do ANYTHING for protection or NOTHING. Either it's ALL about Prevention or ALL about Past Deeds.

His point really is that it's not effective protection and requires dubious due process. Call it punishment, make the sentence fit the crime. Recall my post a repeated back where I said my objection regarded process? Let's just be honest about what we are doing or wanting to do.

For the punishment to fit the crime, they should be castrated both chemically and physically, imo.

Can't you see how messed up that is? Presumption of innocence is about crime. Pedo-1 isn't a crime. You just said that you want to put people in jail for their desire, but unfortunately have to wait until they prove their desire by committing a rape. That's exactly the wrong way around. It's the rape that's the crime.

And that's ignoring that in fact Pedo-2 doesn't prove someone ever was Pedo-1, much less will always be.

So you're going back to claiming that someone who rapes a child isn't a pedophile? A 55 year old man who rapes a 6 year old, is that man a pedophile? Please answer that question b/c I feel like you're just arguing in circles for the sake of arguing now.

And as I said earlier:

A child molester isn't your run of the mill ex con.

No one gets drunk with their buddies and decides to go rape a child. No one gets hooked on drugs and rapes a child to score enough cash for their next fix. No one finds their gf cheating on them with their best friend and decides to go rape a child. No one is down on their luck and decides to start child raping to make ends meet.

Child molestation is a special type of crime caused by a severe mental illness. So far the only known 'cure' with any effectiveness is sterilization, and even that is far from perfect. Aside from that there is treatment but it requires intense therapy (for life) and strict adherence to a drug regime (for life), and again even then it is far from perfect. Recidivism is VERY high.

Very likely. Not with absolute certainty -- there have, for instance, been cases of soldiers raping kids as a means to "punish" their parents, but very likely. Doesn't prove that man was a pedophile twenty years earlier though, and while 55 is kind of old, it also doesn't prove he'll be one at 75. Either claim is only likely, and rests on a psychological argument. Which is why comparing it to a professional psychological assessment is fair play.

Read through that paragraph again and tell me with a straight face that you think you're not engaging in psychology.

point me to where I'm a danger to society for smoking pot?

or are you gonna throw all of us pot smokers in jail or onto lists?

so if it's a metal illness that is treatable (ignoring costs for the moment), then why so bent on maintaining punishment for life?

yes, incarcerate them as we do now. but if the intention is not to rehabilitate why bother letting them out, ever? Might as well just start executing all the perverts and sexual deviants or exile them.