|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [New York Times] Questions rise over imprisoning sex offenders past their terms - Catch-22
Message 121845
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Nov 18, 2003 06:57 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article Questions rise over imprisoning sex offenders past their terms, by Laura Mansnerus, which appeared on New York Times on November 17, 2003.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 121846 (In Reply to Message 121845)
Very detailed article
Posted by steve
on Nov 19, 2003 12:18 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
This article is about civil commitment of high risk sex offenders (though high risk is apparently very subjective) - locking them up after they've finished serving their prison sentences.
It's a very thought-provoking article.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (121845)
Message 121915 (In Reply to Message 121846)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 19, 2003 05:38 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
This looks like a kangaroo court. I have no problem with extending jail sentences. These "commitment" laws are nothing but further punishment and everyone knows it.
Here in Arizona the state is being sued (I'll try and find the article) because someone has been locked up for three years and has gotten virtually no treatment. From what the article said they get four hours of group and one hour of individual therapy per week.
Thats it. Thats wrong.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (121846)
Message 122144 (In Reply to Message 121845)
Catch-22
Posted by lj
on Nov 22, 2003 05:48 AM | Also by lj
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: California,
Country: United States |
Very provocative article, indeed! Talk about power and authority gone bananas, this article shows the arrogance (and ignorance) of some who we deem "experts" to handle with any sort of common logic the issues they are supposed to address in a responsible manner.
It's as if this civil commitment program is really just a gulag rather than a center for treatment and rehabilitation measures. A really sad note to this entire fiasco is that many people don't care about what goes on in there because of the type of criminal this happens to.
This sort of thing justifies those who call going after sex offenders so harshly as "witch-hunting." The obvious argument against that sentence is that these guys shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place, but that literally does not excuse the repercussions they're going through as a result of this program's inexcusable "lies and manipulations" of facts through faulty logic and analysis.
It's also in the same vein as the prosecutors who win cases merely for their own track record of accomplishments rather than the justice to be served.
And it's said that sex offenders are the most manipulative, deceiving, and controlling of all the types of criminals there are. These so-called experts are "straining at gnats" to support their unbalanced conclusions, while the general public "swallows the whole camel." I guess the definition of "criminal" needs to expanded out some more to cover a few of the "legal" hoodlums.
That's probably a pipedream, though. Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (121845)
Thread
121845, admin, Nov 18, 2003 06:57 PM [Introduction]
121846, steve, Nov 19, 2003 12:18 AM [Very detailed article]
121915, Silverthorne, Nov 19, 2003 05:38 PM
122144, lj, Nov 22, 2003 05:48 AM [Catch-22]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
