Slashdot Mirror
Federal Appeals Court Says Sex Offender's Computer Ban Unfair
crimeandpunishment writes "A federal appeals court says a 30-year computer restriction for a convicted sex offender was too stiff a punishment. The man, who was caught in an Internet sex sting, had been ordered not to own or even use a computer." The D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in the case against Mark Wayne Russell is available as a PDF; slightly longer coverage from the Courthouse News Service.
Why not just cut off his balls?
Given the increasing amount of professions that require the use of a computer, it would make more sense to monitor.
Will hackers also be able to get computers back as well? as some of them have been banned as well.
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished, things like this that are a de facto sort of life sentence (even after release from jail) don't make sense either.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Are computers now so ubiquitous, and potentially so broadly defined, that they're a necessity? Is an Android phone a computer? What about your Tivo? Is banning someone from a computer restraint of trade these days?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Pedophiles who contact their victims over phone aren't banned from ever using a phone, yet apparently some judge thought it would be a good idea to prevent a system engineer of 10 years (from the article) from using a computer. A three judge panel concluded that "it is often necessary to use a computer to apply for a job, including at McDonald's and PETCO."
Why the heck do we have judges who are so out of touch with reality making these sorts of mistakes? If the guy can't use a computer and really wanted to meet kids online, what's to stop him from getting an iPhone or a Blackberry? Justice isn't about revenge, it's about upholding the law and meting out punishment and forcing rehabilitation onto perpetrators. Along the way it became about taking someone off the streets for a time while teaching them the best way to commit crimes and not get called. (It's called jail). And now, we've moved onto some judges literally telling criminals that even when they're not in jail, they can't be a part of modern society at all? [sarcasm] That'll work really well to keep pedos from kids [/sarcasm]
Signatures are the new names.
I'm pretty sure that there was some ruling in a lesser court that basically said that the internet is a right, not a privilege. At least, that's what the language was alluding too, and even talking in the media that way. But of course when you commit a crime you loose all your rights, right? Nope, you serve time and then get them back either fully or under some form of monitoring, such as having to check in with a parole officer or participating in group sessions. we always seem to want to especially crucify pedophiles when all they really are is another form of criminal. They don't even get a decent break in jail for crying out loud.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Unlike receiving a DUI conviction and losing your license, while you are at the helm of your computer you do not risk careening into the other lane and killing a bus full of people. The computer is just a utility, not the vector.
The computer doesn't do the molesting, molester's do the molesting. The computer is one utility of many. If we start piecemeal restricting people from the things that could be used to aid in causing harm, what will we have left? Typical America, treating the symptoms, not the problems.
Props to the appeals court for finally realizing this stupidity.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
That guys whose middle name is Wayne are evil.
examples: John Wayne Gacy, Osama Wayne Bin Laden, O.J. Wayne Simpson, the list goes on.
OK, no computers? So, No iphone? No Crackberry? No emergency transpoder in his car? No calculator? No video camera? No Digital Audio Converter? WTF?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
death, obviously
It should be possible to redirect all this the anger and popular hatred from pedophiles to sociopaths, and eventually ban them from positions of power as a far greater danger to other people than pedophiles. I don't care how "oppressive" or "undemocratic" the government will have to become to achieve this -- it will be still far superior to the current condition when positions of control, be it in government, business religious organizations, media or organized crime, inevitably end up being occupied by them.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Yes.
Look, computers can not, and will not molest anyone. Heck, you can't even violate someone using -only- a computer. You can't commit rape over a computer or molest someone over a computer.
Part of having a free society is once you have paid your debt via restitution you should be free.
If he was really that much of a danger to society he should be in jail. But seeing as he didn't actually -do- anything, I don't see the point of him being in jail.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Doubt it. A hacker's crime essentially requires the use of a computer. They couldn't commit it without one. A sex offender COULD potentially use a computer for nefarious ends, but his/her crime likely goes well beyond a computer. Big difference.
The verdict seems like one step towards common sense. Releasing artificially "impaired" individuals into society fails to promote the general welfare. If he can't use a computer, that causes more problems than it solves for the rest of us.
A bigger step towards common sense would be not releasing, true, hardcore sex offendors back into the general population. "Life in prison" should mean LIFE IN PRISON, for say, a violent rapist.
The final step towards common sense would be decriminilizing the mere posession of certain pornography. As it stands, it's way too easy to frame somebody for mere posession, and you don't get to the actual source of the problem that way.
I'm not holding my breath on real common sense when it comes to this part of the law. ZOMG! Children! Quick, burn stuff and behave irrationally and against your own best interest!!! If you don't you must be a witch^H^H^H^H^H pedo yourself.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If you beat someone up with a bat, wouldnt it be silly if a court ordered you to stay away from baseball games, sporting good stores, and ban you from every owning a bat again?
The guy set out to methodically groom what he thought was a 13 year old girl for sex. If you think a 30 year computer ban is too harsh, then fine, let's just throw him back in jail instead. Happy now?
The key word here is thought. Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes? And precisely who is the victim here (other than the defendant, and possibly the taxpayer)?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
First off, there is the pretty much proven idea that people that find children as acceptable sex partners (willingly or unwillingly) aren't going to change. Period. Nothing that we know of today will change this.
The current thinking seems to be that if a child is an acceptable sex partner and they are incapable of providing informed consent that there is no difference between someone that "seduces" a child and one that conks the child over the head, drags them into the bushes and rapes them. Probably kills the child immediately afterword. Whether or not that is true or not doesn't seem to be up for debate right now - it is just assumed as an established fact. This does have some grounding in reality.
The problem with child porn is pretty clear. If it makes children appear as a valid sex partners, well then, they are valid sex partners. Then the above paragraph comes into play - there are no "willing" child sex partners so every act is rape and every rape is violent, potentially leading to murder as well.
The conclusion is that anyone finding children are attractive as sex partners is one small step away from killing the next child they see. This is probably a bit far fetched, but is certainly where current thinking is today, especially in the legal system in a lot of countries.
So what exactly does one do with someone that has been convicted of finding a child an acceptable sex partner? Obviously, they are just one small step away from raping and killing children. While perhaps not a 100% valid conclusion, you can see where the thinking is on this and it is pretty tough to escape the logical progression.
At some point in the future there may be a way to tell the difference between someone that has no problem having sex with a consenting 16-year-old girl and someone that is all set to rape and murder. We aren't there yet. Right now, keeping these people in prison for eternity isn't a realistic solution in most Western countries - why should they be kept at State expense? Releasing them with restrictions on movement, contact with children and other things seems to be pretty logical. Restrictions on using a computer (or at least use of the Internet) seems to make some sense - again, based on the idea that anyone finding a child as an acceptable sex partner is one small step away from raping and murdering children.
The problem with the usual law enforcement methodolgy (you know, commit the crime, do the time, repeat as needed) is the whole part about it being (a) predicable that these people will re-offend and (b) having to tell the parent of the dead child that it was known about. People are pretty sensitive about that - I guess it has to do with the cost of raising a child these days. You know, all that money for nothing when the kid is murdered.
The main problem would seem to be separating the "murdering, raping" offenders from the "teen sex" offenders. We are't doing a good job of that today and there doesn't seem to be a good reliable test for it. And nobody, but nobody, wants to be the one telling the parent that the convicted child sex enthusiast just killed their child.
Assuming you aren't just woefully misinformed on the definition of "sociopath", as most people apparently are...
If you think it's even possible to have a society that requires shared, collective resources and people in positions of power in order to manage them, and then to somehow collectively vet and judge those leaders in order to weed out the "sociopaths" before they reach positions of authority, then you don't actually live in reality. The fact that you suggest oppressive and undemocratic government as a means to this end is just downright hilarious.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children. Sometimes there is "crossover" where someone that apparently just wanted to have fun turns around and kills their next conquest.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
The alternative would be just keeping them all in jail or killing them. Both are pretty expensive - the cheap solution is to find a way to make sure they can't re-offend, or if they start to display offending behavior that their parole is violated. Not anywhere near as certain as keeping them in prison or killing them, but much much cheaper.
Sir, please come with me.
Our records indicate you spend an unacceptably disproportionate amount of time thinking of the children. You have automatically been flagged as a sex offender, and as such are subject to permanent imprisonment or execution.
Now, before you panic, we realize you didn't harm anyone. Execution is unlikely. See? Nothing to be afraid of. Now, please be a dear and follow these nice guards out to the van. I'll see to it your family is notified.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yes.
You see, I believe in fair and proportional punishment. I also believe in not crippling someone's involement in society when they are released back into it. If he hasn't paid his dues, then why the fuck is he out of jail?
Put him in jail, put him in a mental facility, put him on parole... whatever you need to do THAT FITS THE SYSTEM (and doesn't go into the "crime + computer = OMG WTF KILL HIM" pattern)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I think counterproductive is probably a better way to describe it than unfair. If you expect someone to be released from jail and become somehow productive again, you can't really deprive them of the use of a computer these days. It may make sense for some sort of usage restriction, like you can only use the computer access at some sort of kiosk or supervised area or at work, but you can't own one or you can't have internet access or something like that.
However, a complete ban on usage of computers these days is like banning him from using a phone or the mail. Otherwise you might as well hand him an address for a homeless shelter and instructions on how to pick up his welfare checks, because he's going to be entirely useless to anyone from then on. I think the only thing worse than releasing a predator back into the community is having to pay taxes to keep said pedophile alive while he could be working for a living (and paying his own taxes).
You never did click on that link Anonymous Coward posted, did you?
"Look, computers can not, and will not molest anyone. Heck, you can't even violate someone using -only- a computer. You can't commit rape over a computer or molest someone over a computer."
You haven't used Vista have you?
Problem is, we're doing a really bad job separating the folks that "just want to have fun" with the folks that want to rape and murder children.
And the key word here is want. We are now putting people away for what they might want to do, instead of what they actually have done.
Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
And the key word there is re-offend. In order to re-offend, you must have offended in the first place. What bothers me as that thought crimes are now an offense.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
One of the main reasons that a vehicle restriction is allowed is that there are alternatives; taxi, bus, bicycle, walk etc. What are the alternatives to computers? With a computer ban there is no possibility of any white collar job. Find one where you do not have to at lest read email.
Even finding a job at all would be a problem. The first thing an employment agency does is point one toward a computer and say "Do a job search". How many initial interviews include computer based testing? Many blue collar jobs require one to use a computer for time sheet entry.
By restricting a someone's employment opportunity severely there is only one means of survival; crime. Se we take a paedophile and push him towards a life of further crime. That is not rehabilitation.
It's not much of a guess to consider that the parole board will be depending on a lot of ex-prisoners to have computer access in thirty years time. Judgements like this may end up being impediments to criminal justice.
Then again, the Judge may have considered that and assumed someone else can revise the judgement later if necessary.
I think his definition of "rape" doesn't include eyes as a vector of attack.
The key word here is thought. Since when did we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?
We've (most countries that I know of) been doing this for quite a while. The justice system really doesn't want to always have to wait until *after* someone is killed, raped, robbed or whatever before they act.
Basically, if all you do is think about it "Hey, I wonder what it would be like to have sex with a 13 year old", there is nothing illegal in that. But if you make plans to have sex with a 13 year old, and you act (even if those specific actions are not illegal) toward executing those plans, that is illegal.
So you're probably wondering what is the difference between "thinking about" something and "planning to do" something. It's not clear. That's why we pay judges the big bucks. They have to make the very difficult distinction between "thinking" (which is legal) and "planning" (which isn't). Sometimes people agree, sometimes people don't agree. That's life. If you don't like it, find some better way to determine guilt or innocence without using human judgment.
And precisely who is the victim here (other than the defendant, and possibly the taxpayer)?
Society. Or more specifically every 13 year old girl that he would have abused in the future, if he had been given a chance. The judge determined that, if he had the chance, he would have had sex with a 13 year old girl. Since he was denied the chance, the victim is only hypothetical
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
If you're going to RTFA, read the actual opinion. It's in Jurisprech (a dialect of legalese), but if you can wade through it it's actually quite enlightening as to not only how sentencing works in this country (it is both more and less arbitrary and subjective than most people believe), but also to the work judges do in balancing competing needs. It's actually a pretty good read, and at 22 pages (with lots of whitespace and a rigid formatting convention that most C programmers would envy, opinions are not typographically dense) not even all that long... especially given that there are 2 concurring opinions and a thorough introduction.
Oddly enough, the judiciary, who are without a doubt the most lawyerish branch of government, also tend to write the most readable laws (and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new).
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
All the conservatives screaming about judge-made law forget before the late 19th century pretty much all law was based on common law which was created by judges by centuries of judicial precedent. The bill of rights was basically codification of common law precedents.
Yes, actually. If you think he's a danger to society, throw him in jail. Don't let him out with some kind of ridiculous restrictions on what technology he can use and where he can live.
In South Florida, where I used to live, nearly every municipality had passed ordinances restricting registered sex offenders from living within certain distances of parks, schools, daycares, etc. To the point where there was basically nowhere for these people to live. They either had to abandon their families and leave the area (For where? Many other areas have similar restrictions.) or live under a bridge.
Seriously. There's large numbers of sex offenders living under bridges in the Miami area because there's nowhere else for them to live. Their parole officers know they're there, some of them have family that brings by food and supplies, etc.
These are people that the government has deemed to dangerous to live near places children congregate, but not dangerous enough that we need to keep them in prison. So they're homeless. And from the bridge, many of them simply give up and disappear. Off the radar. Gone. Poof. Living somewhere we don't know.
It's ridiculous. Either they're a danger to society or not. Make up your mind.
Since it became unconfortable telling parents that their child was killed by someone that it was known would re-offend since very nearly 100% do so.
Typical fear-mongering - probably not your fault, most likely you are just repeating the same "common sense" bullshit that politicians regularly use to rally votes for their "tough on crime" platforms.
At worst ~50% re-offend, and that's for the group of offenders who are (a) young (b) molest boys (c) do not know the victim. Which itself is a very tiny portion of the population of molesters - somewhere on the order of 3% because almost all pedophiles who actual molest a child do it to a family member or a family member of a friend. That ~50% number drops to around 5% if they receive significant counseling. So the actual number of recidivist pedophiles is quite low and would be practically nil if sentencing was focused on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/recidivism.htm
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
For some time now. If you shoot a deer and it turns out to be an animatronic put up for a sting, you still get busted. If a cop sells you chalk, you still get busted for buying drugs. If you sell a cop chalk, you'll get busted for selling drugs. If you proposition a cop in an alley, you'll still get busted for buying sex.
But if you make plans to have sex with a 13 year old, and you act (even if those specific actions are not illegal) toward executing those plans, that is illegal.
Yes, but he didn't make and act on plans to have sex with a 13 year old girl. He made and acted on plans to have sex with an adult who he thought was a 13 year old girl. That's the difference between a conspiracy crime and a thought crime.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
But it could have read "Sex offender gets stiff punishment". That would have been worth the hardcopy.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
did you know that a cop isn't allowed to investigate a case in which he's personally involved? did you know that judges have similar restrictions? so yeah, maybe if someone close to me was the [potential] victim in this case, i'd want to see the guy tortured to death. but i wouldn't have any say over what the appropriate punishment is. the [very common] thought exercise people like you propose of imagining oneself or a loved one in the victim's position to make judgments about fair punishments is simply irrelevant.
weinersmith
I am of the opinion that if you restrict someone to a life of poverty--punishing them in a way that guarantees that they can't get virtually any straight job--you will create a lifetime criminal. We need to have a solid system of re-entry after someone has paid their debt to society, and do as much as we can to help them become productive people.
Think about who is paying the cost of making sure someone a criminal for life...that's gotta hurt the tax wallet.
I do not understand what the judge was thinking? Was he up for re-election and trying to make himself look good?
Perhaps it would be better not to sentence innocent people in the first place. It's pretty hard to argue about punishments as long as you can't even trust the system with that.
Ok, you invent the technique that only allows the conviction of guilty parties. The only one that currently exists is to have no law, therefore no guilt and no convictions. Total anarchy sounds like a pretty bad idea to me.
That doesn't mean that our system is perfect, or even that it doesn't have a few major problems. It will always have some innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. It will take a truly significant "advancement" to change that. (some of those possible advancements would make Orwell cringe.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
30 years is actually an extreme version of a very common form of "things that are quite clearly permanent". If someone innocent spends 6 months in jail, it is just as permanent, equally unjust, only less damaging. They will never regain that time.
Similarly, someone who spends untold hours over several years fighting off a frivolous lawsuit (and earning the money to pay the lawyer's fees) has permanently lost time from their lives that they will never get back. It doesn't take criminal law to cause irreparable damage. Civil law does so regularly. (just less spectacularly)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is just as much an offense as committing the crime itself. Taking actions to commit a crime, say robbing a bank or gas station, even though you were apprehended before doing so is very much the same as the crime itself happening. This is nothing new and it has been in the news more then a few times where people were arrested, charged, and convicted for actions they wanted to do but failed in doing so. A common scenario of crimes is where someone attempts to find an assassin or thug to kill a spouse or rival or to physically harm them and the guy they hire turns out to be working with the cops. The person wanting to commit the crime is charged and convicted even though the crime never took place. In reality, if the intent to commit the crime is there and there is reasonable means to believe the capacity to commit the crime is there, then any action towards the crime is chargeable even if the crime didn't happen.
Something you might have seen on the news recently is the so called militia members in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan who plotted to kill some police and attack the government. They were arrested and charged (too soon for any convictions) based on their intent and ability to commit the crime even though it didn't happen.
You're sort of looking at it backwards. It's not a thought crime because his intention was to commit a crime. His thought mistake was not that it wasn't a crime or that he desired a 13 year old, or he imagined sexual acts with someone under age, it was that he thought a mature DC cop was a 13 year old girl and willfully set out to do something illegal based on that incorrect knowledge. But make no mistake, this wasn't about him just thinking of doing something, he masturbated to this person thinking that she was a 13 year old kid and invited her to have sex with him. The cop who he thought was a 13 year old girl provided an address and a time frame. The perp drove to the kids house then emailed her that he was there. They kept him waiting for some reason, maybe to see if he would commit a further crime, and arrested him as he drove off. This guy plead guilty to "travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(b) (2006)" In other words, he said he did act with intent (not just think) on his assumption that the person was 13 and it was illegal for him to have sex with her.
As with other crimes concerning crime that weren't actually committed (failed robberies or hit man schemes), the act of participating in the attempt of the crime is a crime just the same. This was no thought crime where he sat there and thought "she's hot, or I wonder what sex with her would be like, or imagined sex with her", he knowingly propositioned someone he believed to be under the age of consent for sex after showing himself doing a "solo sexual act" and then proceeded to act upon a response he interpreted as an acceptance. That turned out to be illegal and isn't a thought crime because he acted outside of the thought process in the commission of a crime.
I think the issue is that the judges and court officials who know well enough recognize that they're not really a serious danger, enough to justify life in prison.
However, people who don't know any better freak out when they find out one lives x hundred feet from the playground and threaten to not re-elect John City Council if he doesn't institute regulations on where they live.
This is probably where this legal limbo comes from. I think it's just the result of soccer moms freaking out and leaning into city council members who dream about being state senators some day.
What if it was your daughter? Your wife? Your son? You'd still think it was 'unfair' to ban him from a computer? Seriously?
If my daughter decided to be an FBI agent running stings, and was this guy's victim, I'd be proud of her for doing her job well...
what was the point again?
is that we may wind up accepting such monitoring without it being punitive at all. We're already seeing far too much of that sort of thing by government for investigative purposes as well as by private companies for marketing purposes. I agree with you, but it isn't going to be the punishment-for-child-molestation angle that starts us down the slippery slope.
No, it's about preventing further incidents of crime. Incarceration is no more than that. They can't hurt anybody because they're locked up. Rehabilitation is also a good idea for the same basic reason - preventing further crime.
Confusing incarceration with punishment is very similar to confusing incarceration with rehabilitation. It's just not effective as that kind of tool, but it doesn't keep people from using it that way.
(Other judgments are about deterrence as a means to prevent crime, and function to varying degrees; and dysfunction for that matter...)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Predatory child molesters should be given life. Traditional rape should have a harsher average penalty than it tends to. Other "sex offenders" should suffer their own stigma, and not the stigma of the truly debased.
I realize that you're just trolling, but you could at least try to make sense.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
But of course when you commit a crime you loose all your rights, right? Nope, you serve time and then get them back either fully or under some form of monitoring,...
What about the right to vote? The right to bear arms? Many would contend the right to pursue happiness is never fully restored (records are not sealed against background checks in the US as they are in some countries). No, they don't get all their rights back. That would require further legal reform. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The proper thing is for the lower court to modify the sentence and say that he can't have access to the internet via a computer. Of course, that still leaves open the definition of what constitutes a computer that others have mentioned.
If he's accessing the Internet, then he's doing so by computer. This is by definition.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The only source that says he existed is a single book, compiled from papers that come from almost a century later, that further contains all manner of information that can't be trusted - magic, superstition, etc. That doesn't make his existence likely.
No. We only have copies of the scrolls, codexes, etc. These all date from a hundred, or more, years after the time the story is placed in. There's no evidence whatsoever that there are four true stories. The book is full of fiction - magic, etc. - it is obviously a fabrication. Just because there are four chapters that purport to tell the story from four perspectives doesn't mean that any one of those perspectives is any more valid than the magical story of making wine out of water, etc.
The bottom line is that there is no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus. No tax records, nothing about the legal issues, nothing about the costs of the supposed execution, not one darned thing. All there is, is the NT, and it in turn isn't from the same time as the story. Every historical mention that talks about Christians (and what a pain in the neck they were, usually... some things just don't change) ...all of these mentions are about the Christian groups/cults of the day... not about Jesus himself.
People talking or writing about something -- even in a very emphatic and passionate manner -- is not evidence of the thing. Look at the Heaven's Gate cult. Those buffoons went so far as to off themselves... for an entirely imaginary premise. So the historical evidence that bands of Christians were running around causing havoc in the mid 50's is in no way a slam-dunk that there was a Jesus at all.
The only certainties about Christianity are that the leather and papyrus scraps that form the source for the NT are from 150 AD or later; that they are either each and every one a copy, and therefore we have no originals (this is the position of most reputable scholars, btw) or else they were created 150 AD or later; that there is no contemporaneous information about Jesus at all; and that the NT contains stories that are scientifically nonsensical.
Now, if that leads you to think that Jesus's existence is "likely"... well, you're one gullible person, that's all I can say. There's better book-evidence for the existence of Jack Ryan, CIA agent. At least the books that he is in don't have any magical malarkey in them. They do tell the story from multiple perspectives; they do refer to people, cities and geographies we can recognize; they do refer to events that actually happened... all of these places where bible apologists try to stand... but Jack Ryan stories are still 100% fiction. Odds hugely favor that Jesus is also fiction.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
MAJOR BULLSHIT COMING UP. TAKE COVER and that some clients left and did not re-offend within the 5 year window they followed up in.
WHOA, that was a bad one. Everyone okay? Okay, then lets start clearing up this mess before the next wave comes in.
What is this bullshit?
and that some clients left and were not caught within the 5 year window they followed up in.
Fact, only a tiny portion of crimes are ever solved and that is only of reported crimes. Many crimes go unreported. All those catholic child rapist in the news lately? 30 or more years without being caught.
This kinda bullshit is always pulled by the bleeding hearts.
For someone to register as a re-offender that person must:
All this, and we still get a 70-80+ recidivism rate. Treatment centers slap themselves on the back if they get 84% down to 83%. Whoo, we are so good!
Remember, when we talk about recidivism, we are getting the story from people in the industry. If they ever would suggest that it is all pointless, then they would be out of a job. A job that pays rather well. Only one person claimed it was pointless, right before he killed himself, and all his colleagues have done since is deny that he claimed what he claimed. They don't even try to revute the claims, because they can't. Just claim that he never made them.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
...If you sell a cop chalk, you'll get busted for selling drugs.
Only if the lab tech lies or the cop switches the white powders.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Theoretically. Many of them receive parole anyways.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Please stop perpetuating the "paid dues" fallacy. The legal system isn't about retribution (when it's functioning), but about preventing future crime. In that light, your suggestions of jail or mental facility (and/or counseling) are still spot on.
Now arguments contending that his punishment may be ineffective at preventing future crime (ex: other vectors of attack) have some weight behind them. That he has "paid his dues" is just weak.
(I don't blame you. It's just a faulty paradigm that you've been taught.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
A friend of a former boss of mine was sentenced to 4 years in prison and once released, forbidden to use any electronic device for twenty years. The crime was computer related, but I was never told the specifics. Upon release, he challenged the restriction and was turned down the first time, but the second challenge, he brought along a tech-savey attorney. By pointing out even the most mundane of electronic devices including his hearing aid. Which his attorney pointed that technically it is an electronic device and it helps him deal with a hearing disability and that by denying him the right to use that device, then the judge would be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last I heard, the restriction was reduced, but I do not know the specifics
Better to be executed than sit in those torture centers the call prisons.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
and yes, their opinions ARE law... that's neither un-Constitutional nor new
Only in the loosest sense, and only through stare decisis. Such is referred to as "case law", and is subject to being overturned by a later or higher court. Legislating from the bench certainly isn't new, but is unconstitutional. The Judiciary has constitutional power to apply law given them by constitutionally authorized legislators, not to make stuff up themselves.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The only reason it's expensive to execute someone, is that you have chosen that it should be so.
Five blanks and a live round are fairly cheap if you choose to go with a firing squad immediately after sentencing. Alright, you'll need a firing squad and cleaning crew as well.
If you choose to place the defendant in an air tight, transparent box with its own air supply before the sentence is read out, you could switch the air supply to pure nitrogen and kill him through nitrogen asphyxiation. Bonus points for very easy clean-up and the ability to use the deceased as an organ donor. It can be done on the cheap, by simply having the jury turn on the gas.
Hanging is cheap, and the rope and gallows can be reused afterwards. It can be a bit messy if the rope is too long or not long enough, but you could make it a stadium event where people have to pay to see it. Might be able to turn a profit.
Or for a bigger profit - turn it into a gladiator style execution. Every time we have say ... 25 people sentenced to death, you put them into an a well lit arena, cameras covering every angle, live spectators and an obstacle course. Give them each a choice of hand-to-hand weapons, like swords, knives, clubs etc. and have a last man standing pay-per-view event. Survive three, and your sentence is changed to life instead of execution.
There is a difference.
Many pedophiles go without Heck, many gay men and straight men are celibate as well. Celibate pedophiles are still pedophiles.
Many child molesters are not pedophiles. They are motivated by power or other issues besides romance or their own orgasm.
In most countries, pedophilia is not a crime. In the few that it is a crime, it's the very definition of a thought-crime.
In most or all countries, child molestation is a crime, as it should be.
By the way, there are so-called "adult" relationships that are very power-imbalanced. Whether it's the boss with his secretary, or a sophisticated person with someone who can vote but has the emotional maturity of a middle school student, the result is the same: An emotionally unequal but usually perfectly legal relationship.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Um... No. Thought crime would be thinking of having sex with a 13 year old girl - you know, fantasizing. This guy went beyond that and attempted to have sex with a 13 year old girl. His attempt simply failed.
It's a bit like the difference between fantasizing about killing your boss, and taking a shoot at your boss but missing. The first would be at most a thought crime, the second is attempted murder: you thought about doing a crime vs. you tried to do a crime but were sufficiently incompetent to fail.
So yes, he went and made plans to have sex with a 13 year old girl. It's the exact same as someone planning to find the treasure at the end of the rainbow: sure, there is no treasure, but he planned finding that nonexistent treasure anyway.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
We don't have a justice system in the U.S.
We have a legal system. The best money can buy.
Assuming Jesus didn't exist, how did Christianity start?
Are you seriously proposing that a bunch of people got together, invented a story about a man who could do magic and believed it so much that they were willing to be burned on crosses and get eaten by lions before admitting that it was a hoax? Please abandon this conspiracy theory in favor of a more plausible one.
Um... No. Thought crime would be thinking of having sex with a 13 year old girl - you know, fantasizing. This guy went beyond that and attempted to have sex with a 13 year old girl.
Wrong! Read the case document. He did not attempt to have sex with a 13 year old girl. He attempted to have sex with an adult who he thought was a 13 year old girl.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I wasn't there. Nor are there any reports from people who lived at the same time... just this one book, which is full of nonsense. So I don't know. However, I don't have a problem with that. Looking at modern examples of similar events, though, there are a number of reasonable candidates that don't involve magic, only human nature. The smart money bets on the mundane, not the magic. Because we've never - ever - been able to demonstrate any magic. Anywhere. Period. So either the cult is based upon a complete work of fiction - an idea that is backed by the fact that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence outside the cult itself; or else Jesus was just Some Dude, because again, everyone to date has been just Some Dude. No magical people. Ever. Anywhere. Period.
Yes, absolutely. It certainly would not be either the first time, or the last. See behaviors predicated upon the Hindu, Chinese, and many other mythologies to observe exactly the same thing. And more recently, Heaven's Gate, Muslim bombers, the behavior of the Protestants and Catholics in northern Ireland, and it is also interesting to consider the socially orthogonal behavior of those in Sun Myung Moon's recent cult. Also, pay attention to the history: That willingness, as it were, came along considerably after the time the biblical stories refer to. It is typical cult behavior. We still see it today in various sects of Christianity. Crucifixion, crawling miles on gravel, on bloodied knees, to get to church, and so forth. There's no shortage of demonstrative people with strong convictions, without the benefit of a real Jesus anywhere to be found.
Your faith in people's common sense is nice to see, but the objective facts don't support it at all. People, especially in groups with wacked out leadership, act dependably as excitable idiots. Go to a tent revival if you'd like a concrete modern example of this. Or a homeopathy seminar, for that matter.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In other words, he intended to have sex with a 13 year old girl, but accidentally ended up trying to pick up an adult instead. It's exactly the same as attempted murder, attempted robbery, or attempted scam: not a thought crime, but trying to commit a crime.
You trying to stretch the concept of "thoughtcrime" to cover a case where a criminal fails in his attempt to commit a crime due to incompetence is the same as calling someone attracted to a 17-year old a pedophile: it makes the concept meaningless.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
With regards to the "13" part, I'm inclined to see it as far enough away from 18/21 to not really be the gray area you seem to imply.
In general, I'm more concerned about violent crime (cf. Carlin, "I'd rather have my son watch a video of two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.")
However, some specific sex & other nonviolent crimes are more serious than some specific violent crimes.
Real-world gray areas stink. :(
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
As much as I want to see guilty people get punished
Sigh; why?
I want to see them dealt with effectively, which may or may not include stiff punishments; I understand if some important nuances got lost in a quick first post.
In a way, I'm saying that things like this are an example of ineffective punishment
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I long since figured that's a problem with the term "sex offender"; even with some distinctions legally drawn, it tends to lump together people with offenses with widely various degrees of seriousness.
Justified concern about the more-serious sex-related offenses somehow tends to trigger not-as-justified concerns about less-serious sex-related offenses
Witchhunts don't make sense, even if there are a few witches out there. :P
There's also the whole "improperly assessing the degree of risk" issue.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Assuming 'ms13' refers to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I had guessed that there might some sort of naturalness connection; however, I had been afraid to say it because making the connection makes pro-homosexual arguments even less successful.
It's not an absolute connection; however, valuable things could still be drawn from it while still recognizing the areas where it doesn't at all work.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
As someone who recognizes the reality of evolution, while also not being a homophobe, "why homosexuality exists" is a very interesting question.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Your proposal that all religions are hoaxes is astounding. I could believe that at some point in time, a person or a group of people managed to impress enough followers to start a religion. (S)he or they perpetrated some hoaxes, fooled some simple minds and started a legend. But your suggestion that this is how ALL the major religions of the world started is simply absurd. The amount of complexity involved with creating deceptions of this scale is too big to have succeeded so many times.
Again, please stop spreading false conspiracy theories and state something that's actually believable.
The reason pedophilia is considered reprehensible is because it tends to leave the children emotionally damaged, unable to form proper relationships, and generally messed up for life.
So it's like school then?
A bit off-topic here, but given the high-profile 15-year-old who killed herself over being bullied, you may not be far off the mark. Despite the best and most sincere efforts on the part of teachers and staff, many people walk out of high school more emotionally messed up than when they walked in, due to bad things that happened to them on school grounds.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Thank you AC, whoever you are.
Especially for that last line.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Being asked to report once a week, by someone who is overworked, is NOT intense supervision.
Parole ain't as hard as you think it is.
In Holland we got TBS (Forced mental treatment) and there are countless incidents with inmates being let out for a short while and offending.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If I intend to rob a bank, but instead bust into a police station with a sign outside saying "BADLY GUARDED BANK (NOT A POLICE STATION)", is that no-harm, no-foul simply because I'm incompetent?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So, if I thought I was planning to rob a bank, but it turned out to be a police station in disguise, you'd argue no-harm-no-foul?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
In states with no Romeo and Juliet laws, "typically" if both parties are under-aged, only the older one is charged, or if both are close in age the cops will look the other way unless an angry parent insists on charges being filed.
But suppose the cops don't look the other way and the age difference is minutes not a year or two. Would the state prosecute both "to be fair," or would they just go after the older one, never mind that "older" is a matter of minutes.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I made no such proposal. I simply start from the premise that some are known to be (Scientology... Heaven's Gate... etc.), and since all theist religions are nonsense, and that religion is a first-order gateway to power in most societies, that intentional deceit is one of the very likely candidates for their origin. There is both motive and opportunity.
Again, I made no such suggestion. You really need to work on those reading skills. I said that I was suggesting that Christianity may have started that way, and that it would not be either the first time, or the last, and that people had given their lives for a hoax, and laid out a few examples.
What's not believable about one possibility for Christianity's origin being a constructed religion? I mean, look at it: We have total nonsense stories about magic, and quite a few of them, told in the present tense -- not just creation stories, but stories about a magical man who walked among the people of the time (of whom there is no actual record.) We have direct conflicts in the associated myths, right in the cult's own book (for instance, Luke says Mary was being purified in Jerusalem at the same time that Matthew says Mary was hiding in Egypt, waiting for Herod to die -- one or the other... or both... of those statements is an untruth.) And Christianity has been, since it's very founding, a power base. It was used to oppose the Romans, to stand apart from the Jews, to found communities and secret societies and so forth. It has grown today into some of the wealthier entities on the planet - the Catholic church is a good example of one of those entities - and yet, the whole thing is based upon nonsense stories; furthermore, many components of those stories resemble previous religions almost to a 't.' Smells an awful lot like "borrowing."
As I said, (and please pay attention this time), I don't know how Christianity got started. There's no record of that except in the bible, and as the bible proves itself an unreliable record many times over, I won't accept the bible's account of anything as evidence by itself. I just consider it likely that it was an intentional construct. But hey, it might have been just bad bread... you can see amazing visions with a little fungus byproduct in your system. Or the whole thing might have been the result of a head injury. Or dreams. CS Lewis asks, "Liar, lunatic or lord?" I think he's being more than a little disingenuous there, as there certainly are other possibilities (such as entirely fictional, alien, or peacemaker) but as one can ask those questions about Jesus, one can also pose them about the religion itself. Lies are certainly not uncommon in human experience.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.