POLL: Muslims, you crazy!

[tom502]

The Fuhrer would not have put up with the rampant crime we have.

[sgreger1]

No he is not, and I am right, everything I am saying you have posted exactly that, they have low repeat rates compared to other crimes.

They will do it means they are likely to. 2.3% for example is not likely, heck those are roulette odds. Would you place your life on your lucky number on the roulette wheel? If not why would you place someone elses there.

My point was that using recidivism as justification for capital punishment for murderers and sex offenders is counter logical since the rate is higher among other types of criminals. If you can use that figure to justify that then you might as well start killing all thieves.

Ken

I gave you the lowest number of any study. Most put it closer to 10. 10% will re-offend. That is a HUGE number, considering there are thousands of offenders each year. I don't care if a petty theif re-offends, but I do care when thousands of molesters and rapists reoffend even once. 10%, 2.3%, either way, it is too large a margin of error.

[sgreger1]

Can you really in good conscious justify killing over 100,000 people to protect the population from 2,000 people?

I would be more worried about the 100,000 new rapes that will occur from people we know nothing about yet. And killing that first 100,000 will do nothing to prevent the next 100,000.

Ken

Yes. Kill the 100,000 and the 2,000. Then there is no room for error and everyone gets the punishment they deserve.


The point is: THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. We can't keep them in prison, so what do we do?

[devilock76]

FALE:

Repeat Offenders Account for 9 out of 10 Rapes on College Campuses ...

Outrage Growing over Repeat Sex Offenders - CBS Evening News - CBS ...



Recidivism among sex offenders is quite high, according to the United States Department of Justice. Although not all sex offenders reoffend, they are four times more likely than a criminal convicted of robbery, murder, assault or any other charge. Psychologists believe that recidivism is high among sex offenders because their desire to rape, molest or assault is a psychologically engrained predeliction.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...rs.html?cat=17


Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists.
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html




Because people like you would rather these people get prison sentences, thousands of rapists or sexual predators are released early on parole (instead of being executed) and re-offend every year. Be careful what you are advocating, the line of logic you subscribe to has gotten tens of thousands of children raped or molested. Stop standing up for criminals.

Funny how those numbers contradict your last set. Either way is it relevant since at present no state has the death penalty for sex offenders? I mean I know you are grasping at any straws you can to support logic you already linked proof to its flaws, but please. I mean first of all that statistic is not correlation. I am not going into a statistical explanation as to why. In fact there are so many math inconsistencies in this post vs the last I don't know where to start. How can you be 4 times likely to repeat offend from a group that is already at 75%. On top of that they then say the child molesters are 4 times likely over rapists. So that makes them 10% based on your last number but in these two 16x 77% on this one. You really can't be more than 100% likely in such figures so it does not make sense.

Do you wanna know why the numbers are so different. If you look in there you will find that they are using unreported cases as their basis for recidivism. Basically the person is arrested the first time, and it is found out the raped or whatever before and got away with it. In that case we are talking different figures and again a case where a death penalty would not have fixed it. Nothing would have because the previous case was never reported.

Can we deal with just apples and oranges, not both please.

Ken

[devilock76]

The Fuhrer would not have put up with the rampant crime we have.

And this is why you are at the little kids table when the adults are talking.

Ken

[devilock76]

I gave you the lowest number of any study. Most put it closer to 10. 10% will re-offend. That is a HUGE number, considering there are thousands of offenders each year. I don't care if a petty theif re-offends, but I do care when thousands of molesters and rapists reoffend even once. 10%, 2.3%, either way, it is too large a margin of error.

So therefore the recidivism rate does not matter to your choice of punishment, it is the crime, therefore you can stop mentioning recidivism as a justification for it.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Funny how those numbers contradict your last set. Either way is it relevant since at present no state has the death penalty for sex offenders? I mean I know you are grasping at any straws you can to support logic you already linked proof to its flaws, but please. I mean first of all that statistic is not correlation. I am not going into a statistical explanation as to why. In fact there are so many math inconsistencies in this post vs the last I don't know where to start. How can you be 4 times likely to repeat offend from a group that is already at 75%. On top of that they then say the child molesters are 4 times likely over rapists. So that makes them 10% based on your last number but in these two 16x 77% on this one. You really can't be more than 100% likely in such figures so it does not make sense.

Do you wanna know why the numbers are so different. If you look in there you will find that they are using unreported cases as their basis for recidivism. Basically the person is arrested the first time, and it is found out the raped or whatever before and got away with it. In that case we are talking different figures and again a case where a death penalty would not have fixed it. Nothing would have because the previous case was never reported.

Can we deal with just apples and oranges, not both please.

Ken

My original number was based on the absolute lowest number any study has ever found for recidivism. The higher numbers are the ones most people agree on, but I presented the most conservative numbers to show that even if we take the lowest estimate we still end up with several thousand people re-offending. Each of those is a little boy or girl's life destroyed. It matters to me.



I am not grasping at straws, you are the one grasping at straws. Your argument is that "Well if we just had a perfect system than we could just lock them up and be done with it! If we could make prison just for violent criminals and rapists, than that would be fine, but since we know that will NEVER HAPPEN, we must look at it in a more realistic way. Just saying "if it was a utopia than everything would work out great!", doesn't work, we have to find the best way to do it that can actually work.





Anyways, the inconsistencies in the numbers are because I am citing multiple studies, as this issue has been researched again and again. Some say it's low, some say it's high. Even in the lowest number, it is still devestating how many people re-offend. How you can support this and/or a system in which they are free to re-offend I cannot figure out. I do not want anyone who is innocent to be judged as guilty, but that is a fault with the legal system and not with the death penalty.

I just personally believe that some crimes justify removing people from society entirely. Why should I have to pay for them to sit around playing cards and watching TV if they raped my daughter. I can see no justification for it.

[devilock76]

Yes. Kill the 100,000 and the 2,000. Then there is no room for error and everyone gets the punishment they deserve.


The point is: THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. We can't keep them in prison, so what do we do?

We can keep them in prison if we take the non-violent offenders out of prison.

Let me ask you this, I am going to put you in a room with 100 people and tell you that 10 of you are going to commit a crime, murder let us say. We know this to be a statistical fact, therefore we are going to fill this room with carbon monoxide and kill all of you to prevent the 10 of you who we don't know who you are from committing this crime. Even though there will be 100 people outside this room that we don't know about either that will also commit this crime. How do you feel number 64?

Ken

[sgreger1]

So therefore the recidivism rate does not matter to your choice of punishment, it is the crime, therefore you can stop mentioning recidivism as a justification for it.

Ken

I don't see what you're getting at. I just think child rapists and murderers aught to be actually punished as opposed to given a 7 year sentences. Just my 2 cents.


The reason I am all into this is because there is a big case here in southern CA where I spent most of my life which involves this. A rapist brutally raped and murdered several little girls, and ended up getting out after only a few years. The guy has no apologies for his crime. They had to set out an alert to all of the surrounding cities where he was being released to warn people to watch their kids. He violated parole within 10 minutes of being released.

People like that should be dwead, but people like you will fight for their freedom because in your mind jail somehow rehabilitates you and they are statistically unlikely to reoffend, even though we know that they often times do.






WHY SHOULD WE GIVE SECOND CHANCES TO RAPISTS AND MURDERERS. THEY AFFORDED NO SECOND CHANCE TO THEIR VICTIMS.

[sgreger1]

We can keep them in prison if we take the non-violent offenders out of prison.

Let me ask you this, I am going to put you in a room with 100 people and tell you that 10 of you are going to commit a crime, murder let us say. We know this to be a statistical fact, therefore we are going to fill this room with carbon monoxide and kill all of you to prevent the 10 of you who we don't know who you are from committing this crime. Even though there will be 100 people outside this room that we don't know about either that will also commit this crime. How do you feel number 64?

Ken

Your analogy is completely fictional and has no basis in this conversation. A better analogy would be:

You have been convicted of murder. You are in a cage with 100 other murderers. Statistically we know it to be a fact that 2-10% of you will reoffend. What do you do?

^^ It's a trick quesiton. You kill all of them because it is a room full of murderers. Don't give them a chance to mess up again.





EDIT: Yes, it would be great if we could take everyone out and only imprison repeat offenders. But it's never going to happen and I refuse to debate the obvious.

Plus, what would we do with rich people who commit crimes like Bernie Maddoff. Fine them? No jail time? Lol, I think not.

[devilock76]

My original number was based on the absolute lowest number any study has ever found for recidivism. The higher numbers are the ones most people agree on, but I presented the most conservative numbers to show that even if we take the lowest estimate we still end up with several thousand people re-offending. Each of those is a little boy or girl's life destroyed. It matters to me.



I am not grasping at straws, you are the one grasping at straws. Your argument is that "Well if we just had a perfect system than we could just lock them up and be done with it! If we could make prison just for violent criminals and rapists, than that would be fine, but since we know that will NEVER HAPPEN, we must look at it in a more realistic way. Just saying "if it was a utopia than everything would work out great!", doesn't work, we have to find the best way to do it that can actually work.





Anyways, the inconsistencies in the numbers are because I am citing multiple studies, as this issue has been researched again and again. Some say it's low, some say it's high. Even in the lowest number, it is still devestating how many people re-offend. How you can support this and/or a system in which they are free to re-offend I cannot figure out. I do not want anyone who is innocent to be judged as guilty, but that is a fault with the legal system and not with the death penalty.

I just personally believe that some crimes justify removing people from society entirely. Why should I have to pay for them to sit around playing cards and watching TV if they raped my daughter. I can see no justification for it.

I am actually not really presenting any answers, other than when asked. I am saying that the death penalty does not fix anything. It does not reduce the crime rates, in fact in almost every state that has a death penalty there are higher murder rates (the only crime that can get the death penalty) per capita than states that don't have a death penalty. It is completely in effective. This is a fact.

Grasping at straws is bringing in the sex offender list and all sorts of other items that technically have nothing to do with the death penalty. I think I did bring up the subject as well at one point because I know it is another one that gets people's emotions up where the recidivism statistic is often used in accurately.

You know I actually used to be very much for the death penalty. My mind got changed one day. I just hope my heart isn't ever challenged over my beliefs on it by something terrible happening to a loved one of my own. I understand the base human need for revenge. It is an animalistic desire we all have. However as it has been said, if you go out for revenge, you should start by digging two graves.

Ken

[texastorm]

Do any of you remember a few years back when there was discussion of chemical castration, and the outcry of the general population over how cruel that would be. Even though that offender could possibly be reintegrated into society at some point with relative safety.

I swear no one thinks of the victims til they become one.

[devilock76]

I don't see what you're getting at. I just think child rapists and murderers aught to be actually punished as opposed to given a 7 year sentences. Just my 2 cents.


The reason I am all into this is because there is a big case here in southern CA where I spent most of my life which involves this. A rapist brutally raped and murdered several little girls, and ended up getting out after only a few years. The guy has no apologies for his crime. They had to set out an alert to all of the surrounding cities where he was being released to warn people to watch their kids. He violated parole within 10 minutes of being released.

People like that should be dwead, but people like you will fight for their freedom because in your mind jail somehow rehabilitates you and they are statistically unlikely to reoffend, even though we know that they often times do.






WHY SHOULD WE GIVE SECOND CHANCES TO RAPISTS AND MURDERERS. THEY AFFORDED NO SECOND CHANCE TO THEIR VICTIMS.

I am beginning to seriously doubt your reading comprehension abilities. First off for the murder would be the only reason he could face the death penalty. So really in someways the rapes are inconsequential. I think that the person in question can be in prison forever and ever, with no hope of release unless there becomes irrefutable evidence that the person is innocent.

Trust me I am not saying such offenders should be released like that.

Ken

[devilock76]

Your analogy is completely fictional and has no basis in this conversation. A better analogy would be:

You have been convicted of murder. You are in a cage with 100 other murderers. Statistically we know it to be a fact that 2-10% of you will reoffend. What do you do?

^^ It's a trick quesiton. You kill all of them because it is a room full of murderers. Don't give them a chance to mess up again.





EDIT: Yes, it would be great if we could take everyone out and only imprison repeat offenders. But it's never going to happen and I refuse to debate the obvious.

Plus, what would we do with rich people who commit crimes like Bernie Maddoff. Fine them? No jail time? Lol, I think not.

It is fictional, but still relevant. No matter how you look at it, to discuss recidivism as the rational you are discussing future action not past. So if it is a room full of convicts or a room full of random people has no statistical consequence to the logic point at hand.

Ken

[devilock76]

Do any of you remember a few years back when there was discussion of chemical castration, and the outcry of the general population over how cruel that would be. Even though that offender could possibly be reintegrated into society at some point with relative safety.

I swear no one thinks of the victims til they become one.

It actually wouldn't render them harmless. It is just unusual punishment that makes one appendage not work anymore. The frustrated offender could find more HARMFUL releases. Unless they were rotting away in a cell.

Ken