pudge's Journal: Public Input

Heh, I just read that mere days before I went to the Jessica's Law rally in Olympia, the Democrat leader of the House said it would be "wrong" to being such a "massive bill" before the House "without public input."

First of all, she's lying. Last year she and her party pushed through a ton of new legislation -- having just won control of both houses, and holding a tenuous grip on the governor's seat -- that the public had no knowledge of, let alone feedback on, before it got passed (including a record number of "emergency" bills designed specifically to avoid the public's oversight).

Second of all, I don't recall seeing her, or any Democrat, at the rally, listening to our concerns, accepting our input.

Funny that.

Now Playing: Lost Dogs - Free Drinks And A Dream

I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

1. That a Democrat would be against this- it's a nice use of "Big Mommy Government", and Democrats are usually for that.

2. That Republicans would be for it- what ever happened to right wing government tracking fears?

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

1. That a Democrat would be against this- it's a nice use of "Big Mommy Government", and Democrats are usually for that.

It's because they think punishment doesn't work and would prefer treatment. They think you can be healed of your sickness that causes you to harm children, and want to help you. Plus, they find it is sometimes difficult to get convictions for crimes with tough penalties, and don't want to work harder to get it done. They don't think protecting children is worth the time and effort and m

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's because they think punishment doesn't work and would prefer treatment. They think you can be healed of your sickness that causes you to harm children, and want to help you. Plus, they find it is sometimes difficult to get convictions for crimes with tough penalties, and don't want to work harder to get it done. They don't think protecting children is worth the time and effort and money. (And no, I am not being facetious, they actually argue this bill costs too much, and will make it harder to get convi

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

That's stupid- for more than one reason. It's a lot easier to get somebody treatment if they can *find* him. Anonymity just helps people escape treatment for sex addiction diseases. But more importantly, I think it would actually help *real convictions* as this solution doesn't require jail space, which is far more expensive.

Again, this bill is primarily about longer jail sentences, not tracking. They oppose long sentences, so they oppose this bill.

Which makes sense from a justice point of view- but not ne

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I don't understand why this is a privacy issue. It's part of your sentence. The Right is often big on privacy, but not once you've been convicted of a crime. Then your privacy rights -- and your other rights -- are subjugated accordingly to the public's right of safety from you.

And once you've served that sentence? Better yet- recent studies on Catholic Priest sex offenders who were basically treated with tolerance all of their lives show a pattern- past age 65 or so the number of incidents drop off dras

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

And once you've served that sentence?

You mean and get out of jail? Ideally, that should not happen until you are dead. That's the point. We want you to stay locked up forever, and if we can't get that, we will enforce some other type of sentence that will keep you away from our kids.

Protecting me from you is more important than your rights, once you've been proven to be prone to violent acts against innocents. I could not possibly care less about your privacy at that point.

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You mean and get out of jail? Ideally, that should not happen until you are dead. That's the point. We want you to stay locked up forever, and if we can't get that, we will enforce some other type of sentence that will keep you away from our kids.

In that case, I'd have to say your sentencing standpoint would indeed cost a lot...more than tracking bracelets. But even worse, it isn't based in truth. Human beings do not retain the ability to use violence, especially sexual violence, against one another for

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

In that case, I'd have to say your sentencing standpoint would indeed cost a lot...more than tracking bracelets.

What's that got to do with anything at all? Unless you mean that the safety of our children is not worth the cost of keeping them in jail ...

But even worse, it isn't based in truth.

It certainly is.

Human beings do not retain the ability to use violence, especially sexual violence, against one another for their entire lives- most lose it at some point, sometimes years before death.

"Most," "sometime

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What's that got to do with anything at all? Unless you mean that the safety of our children is not worth the cost of keeping them in jail ...

No, what I'm saying is that every human being finds themselves one day at a point where they are dependant upon others for such necessities as food and bowel movements- and that such people are not a danger to our children.

"Most," "sometimes." Until you can prove that a given person can no longer possibly be a danger -- either himself, or by working with an accompl

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

No, what I'm saying is that every human being finds themselves one day at a point where they are dependant upon others for such necessities as food and bowel movements- and that such people are not a danger to our children.

And I already proved to you that you're wrong. Such people can work with accomplices, even if everything you say about them is true.

Having said that- we're talking about sexual deviants-not mass murderers I'd assume, or they'd already be getting life sentences or the death penalty.

No, th

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And I already proved to you that you're wrong. Such people can work with accomplices, even if everything you say about them is true.

Accomplice to do what, exactly? What do you think such a person could do to a child, assumeing they could even get out of bed?

No, they are not sexual deviants. Sexual deviants engage in odd, but consensual, sexual activities. These people are evil and violent predators, only one small step down from murderers. And they absoultely should get life or death. That's the point.

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

Accomplice to do what, exactly?

Harm children. Duh.

Actually, the majority of people on Megan's Law lists in Oregon and Washington are men who had girlfriends who lied about their age.

This discussion started in relation to Jessica's Law, which is regarding children under 14. So that's beside the point.

Even the so-called "sexual predators" (those with more than three convictions) have a tendency to just have *different* sexual appitites.

And they should die.

They are a danger to children because that's where t

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Harm children. Duh.

And how, exactly, would a bed-ridden nursing home patient harm a child?

This discussion started in relation to Jessica's Law, which is regarding children under 14. So that's beside the point.

And you've never known a 13 year old girl to lie about her age to get an older boyfriend?

And they should die.

I think that's an emotional, rather than an unbiased, opinion.

Yes, when they are dead.

Actually, long before they are dead- a man in a coma or in senile dementia is equally harmless

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

And how, exactly, would a bed-ridden nursing home patient harm a child?

Are you just completely retarded? WITH AN ACCOMPLICE. What part of that do you not understand?

And you've never known a 13 year old girl to lie about her age to get an older boyfriend?

I've never seen one that could reasonably be mistaken for necessarily over 18, no. If he thinks "she HAS to be over 18" he's lying to himself to justify his behavior. If he is not sure, he better make sure. Either way, he's responsible for it, and he's

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Are you just completely retarded? WITH AN ACCOMPLICE. What part of that do you not understand?

Explain it to me- step by step. What is this accomplice supposed to do? Wave a magic wand so that the old person has enough energy to suddenly leap out of bed and attack the child?

I've never seen one that could reasonably be mistaken for necessarily over 18, no.

You must not know many 13 year old girls then.

If he thinks "she HAS to be over 18" he's lying to himself to justify his behavior. If he is not s

Re:I find two interesting things in this

[pudge]

Explain it to me- step by step.

Um.

You must not know many 13 year old girls then.

Um.

No, I'm saying she TOLD him, outright, that she was over 18.

And he is responsible for checking to make sure if there is any question.

I wouldn't consider that a sexual act- if they're incapable of penetration.

You really don't know that rape does not require penetration with a penis? And you think sexual molestation is not a sexual act?

I don't believe that there is any reasonable evidence to claim that- only weak people who wa

Ugh, stupid demos

[Zeriel]

You keep coming up with great examples of why I'm not and probably never will be a registered Democrat.

Granted, there's just as many reasons in PA to avoid the Republicans, at least if you're a social liberal like myself.

On topic: "Life, or death"... I'm in total agreement.