Catholics Blame Gays for their Pedophile Problem

[logician]

The problem with allowing rape to go in prisions is a lot of innocent bystanders will be the victims of it as well. Our prisons shouldn't be hotbeds of torture and abuse.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The problem with allowing rape to go in prisions is a lot of innocent bystanders will be the victims of it as well. Our prisons shouldn't be hotbeds of torture and abuse.

Of course, an argument could be made that the thought/threat of being anally raped in prison, is a stronger motivation for many to avoid incarceration, than incarceration itself.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Depends on the victim. If we asked individual victims, and they stated that it would help them, should we consider it?

I'll vote "Yes" on Proposition 3 on the ballot.

The idea that spending time in a cell is a fair punishment for what these sick ******** did to kids is simply foreign to me.

I understand why some people would say that incarceration is enough, but I simply disagree. That is not justice - it is a mild punishment - and nothing more.

 

[linwood]

Of course, an argument could be made that the thought/threat of being anally raped in prison, is a stronger motivation for many to avoid incarceration, than incarceration itself.

This can be evidenced.

It`s the sole reason I`m not in prison now.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

There is a difference between revenge and justice.

Not always.

Even if there were ALWAYS a difference between revenge and justice, I have no problem with imposing revenge for such a crime. In this instance, I would argue that revenge and justice are actually equivalent.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The problem with allowing rape to go in prisions is a lot of innocent bystanders will be the victims of it as well. Our prisons shouldn't be hotbeds of torture and abuse.

I'll agree with that last statement, in the sense that the state should not be the ones conducting the torture or abuse.

Rape, murder, and all types of abuse happen currently in our penal system. I'm sure that in some rare instances, the institution itself allows it to happen, but on the whole, I would think it simply can't be prevented.

 

[AxisMundi]

Not always.

Even if there were ALWAYS a difference between revenge and justice, I have no problem with imposing revenge for such a crime. In this instance, I would argue that revenge and justice are actually equivalent.

Justice is a set punishment for committing a crime.

Revenge is an angry, often times unthinking response that tends to inflict a punishment far in excess of the crime.

Life time incarceration/institutionalization is what is called for for these rapists, removed from any possibility of further harming childen as well.

And should the prison system be returned to the puhishment it once was. more of a "super-max" style of prison that I ahve been advocating for many years, then the punishment would certainly fit the crime...

Without the anal rape some people seem fixated on.

 

[AxisMundi]

I'll agree with that last statement, in the sense that the state should not be the ones conducting the torture or abuse.

Rape, murder, and all types of abuse happen currently in our penal system. I'm sure that in some rare instances, the institution itself allows it to happen, but on the whole, I would think it simply can't be prevented.

Rape, assault, drug/alcohol abuse and gang activity are absent from Super-max prisons, as the inmates are not permitted to interact with one another.

It is also a safer environment for staff.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it's truly fortunate that gays are responsible for every problem under the sun because otherwise there might be some really really complicated problems that would be hard to solve.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it's truly fortunate that gays are responsible for every problem under the sun because otherwise there might be some really really complicated problems that would be hard to solve.

Not to worry - we'd still have Jews and Gypsies.

 

[stiletto]

Not to worry - we'd still have Jews and Gypsies.

And Atheists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And Atheists.

Wait, I thought all atheists were gay, liberal, communists. Have I been misinformed?

 

[footprints]

Depends on the victim. If we asked individual victims, and they stated that it would help them, should we consider it?

Only if one were as insane or as barbaric as the perpetrator.

Sane people realise, that the victims need psychological help to get them over the trauma and allow them to settle back down in society with a balanced view.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Justice is a set punishment for committing a crime.

That is YOUR definition of justice. MY definition of justice is seeing that the perpetrator of a crime pays a penalty that is equivalent to the crime they committed.

Revenge is an angry, often times unthinking response that tends to inflict a punishment far in excess of the crime.

Again, you are using YOUR definition. I reject your working definition of the term "revenge". Why not use the definition that is found at Merriam Webster's website? If you wish to define the term ourselves, then I'll go with "an act of retribution intended to inflict pain or damage". Notice that, unlike your definition, mine does not invoke emotion, impugn the mental capacity of the person (or group) exacting the revenge, or address the "amount" of punishment. Going by your definition, how would someone seek revenge for the intentional murder of a family member? I mean, how could I possibly "inflict punishment far in excess" of murder? When you say "unthinking", you imply that revenge is always an act committed in the heat of the moment. When the state excutes a serial killer, it is most definitely a thinking response. It takes place (in the vast majority of cases) decades after the act.

Life time incarceration/institutionalization is what is called for for these rapists, removed from any possibility of further harming childen as well.

That is what YOU are calling for. I'm calling for as brutal existence as possible for these scumbags. I couldn't possibly care less about the quality of their lives, nor do I care to have the state put even one penny into trying to rehabilitate them. For me, they relinquished all claims to having "rights" when they chose to abuse children. To hell with them, and to hell with their souls.

Without the anal rape some people seem fixated on.

Well, to be honest, I haven't called for the anal rape of these people, but if that happens, then so be it. I truly don't care if they live beyond the first 24 hours in prison, nor do I care how they die. I don't care what their living conditions are, and I don't care if their cellmates are twisted, demented killers.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Justice is a set punishment for committing a crime.

That is YOUR definition of justice. MY definition of justice is seeing that the perpetrator of a crime pays a penalty that is equivalent to the crime they committed.

Revenge is an angry, often times unthinking response that tends to inflict a punishment far in excess of the crime.

Again, you are using YOUR definition. I reject your working definition of the term "revenge". Why not use the definition that is found at Merriam Webster's website? If you wish to define the term ourselves, then I'll go with "an act of retribution intended to inflict pain or damage". Notice that, unlike your definition, mine does not invoke emotion, impugn the mental capacity of the person (or group) exacting the revenge, or address the "amount" of punishment. Going by your definition, how would someone seek revenge for the intentional murder of a family member? I mean, how could I possibly "inflict punishment far in excess" of murder? When you say "unthinking", you imply that revenge is always an act committed in the heat of the moment. When the state excutes a serial killer, it is most definitely a thinking response. It takes place (in the vast majority of cases) decades after the act.

Life time incarceration/institutionalization is what is called for for these rapists, removed from any possibility of further harming childen as well.

That is what YOU are calling for. I'm calling for as brutal existence as possible for these scumbags. I couldn't possibly care less about the quality of their lives, nor do I care to have the state put even one penny into trying to rehabilitate them. For me, they relinquished all claims to having "rights" when they chose to abuse children. To hell with them, and to hell with their souls.

Without the anal rape some people seem fixated on.

Well, to be honest, I haven't called for the anal rape of these people, but if that happens, then so be it. I truly don't care if they live beyond the first 24 hours in prison, nor do I care how they die. I don't care what their living conditions are, and I don't care if their cellmates are twisted, demented killers.

These guys abused deaf boys, and raped kids who couldn't fight back. Kids that depended on them for guidance, shelter, upbringing, and help.

May they rot in their own feces.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Rape, assault, drug/alcohol abuse and gang activity are absent from Super-max prisons, as the inmates are not permitted to interact with one another.

It is also a safer environment for staff.

Just to be certain I understand you - are you saying that in your mind, locking a man in a room is a fair act of justice, in response to his having raped, beaten and abused a defenseless child?

A second question - are you espousing the rehabilitation of these people, or are you saying we should just lock them up for a long time?

 

[footprints]

Just to be certain I understand you - are you saying that in your mind, locking a man in a room is a fair act of justice, in response to his having raped, beaten and abused a defenseless child?

A second question - are you espousing the rehabilitation of these people, or are you saying we should just lock them up for a long time?

I am not sure what you are saying here, are you implying we should just walk away from people with diseases like cancer and just let them die, or are you saying we should just fix physical diseases and leave those inflicted with mental illnesses alone?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I am not sure what you are saying here, are you implying we should just walk away from people with diseases like cancer and just let them die, or are you saying we should just fix physical diseases and leave those inflicted with mental illnesses alone?

I'm not saying that "we should let people die of cancer". I'm saying that, personally, I don't see any benefit in trying to rehabilitate a serial pedophile that has made a conscious decision that their personal satisfaction is a higher priority than the well being of a child that cannot defend himself (or herself).

I don't really care if 10, 20, or 30 years later, some psychiatrist feels like these people have "learned their lesson". In my view, these people have conceded their right to live among a civil society. I'm not remotely interested in their well being - mental or physical.

On a side note, you seem to be struggling with referring to these people as "pedophiles". I'm working on the assumption that you feel as repulsed by the idea of someone abusing a deaf six year old boy as much as I am. The difference appears to be that you think of this as some sort of "speed bump" that can be overcome with time. I do not.

 

[Father Heathen]

the gay is innocent.

The gay is innocent, indeed. Thread over.

 

[footprints]

I'm not saying that "we should let people die of cancer". I'm saying that, personally, I don't see any benefit in trying to rehabilitate a serial pedophile that has made a conscious decision that their personal satisfaction is a higher priority than the well being of a child that cannot defend himself (or herself).

I don't really care if 10, 20, or 30 years later, some psychiatrist feels like these people have "learned their lesson". In my view, these people have conceded their right to live among a civil society. I'm not remotely interested in their well being - mental or physical.

On a side note, you seem to be struggling with referring to these people as "pedophiles". I'm working on the assumption that you feel as repulsed by the idea of someone abusing a deaf six year old boy as much as I am. The difference appears to be that you think of this as some sort of "speed bump" that can be overcome with time. I do not.

I understand what you are saying, unfortunately due to my education I cannot agree with you. Paedophila is a mental illness, people with a mental illness are not really responsible for their actions, which in no way shape or form, should be interpreted as, they should not be held accountable for their actions. Only that the mental illness must be taken into consideration, and will be by any civilised court.

Paedophila most probably repulses me, more than it does you, unless like me you have had to help these children regain a normal life again and seen the devastation first hand. Not just with the victims but on their whole family.

This notwithstanding, I don't always succeed in helping the victims before they do themselves more personal harm. A young boy I was seeing (19), had been raped multiple times by his step-father, this caused him severe aggression problems to which he would take it out on every male who looked sideways at him or he personally thought were making advances toward him. Needless to say, one victim made many other victims and he ended up in court for his trouble and is now in gaol. The point to this, irrespective of psychological reports in court, in most cases they will be ignored, albeit will always be taken into consideration, and due to my report, the boy did get a lighter sentence. This though wasn't much compensation for his victims, who truly believed in their eyes, I was an apologetic for voilent and abusive people who don't belong in society.