5 ms·
You can't draw conclusions from one case. Treatment could have helped him, but he was a menace in that state and shouldn't be released. So you can use this one
by nick_kline 7y ago
You can't draw conclusions from one case. Treatment could have helped him, but he was a menace in that state and shouldn't be released. So you can use this one case to argue either way. I'd sure not want him released. Most people aren't like this.
- Faaak 7y agoYou don't know either if he was a menace or not. People change, believe it or not.
- Grustaf 7y agoIs there any evidence that it’s possible to “cure” violent sex offenders?
- butteroverflow 7y agoOr psychopaths, for that matter. I would very much like to see the attempts to "cure" someone like Ted Bundy.
- King-Aaron 7y agoThey cured him pretty well IIRC.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoPeople can change, but it requires a lot. Most of the time, people will just follow their patterns of thinking and behavior, mainly because they are not aware of the patterns and do not have correctives to change their behavior when they recognize old patterns. Sex offender treatment tries to train them in this.
- thejohnconway 7y agoI don’t believe there is any evidence suggesting successful treatment for these kinds of offenders. Known recidivism is quite high, and combined with the underreporting of sexual crimes, meaning the reoffending rate is almost certainly way higher. We’re taking a massive risk releasing them. I’m comfortable making the moral call that the freedom of a convicted child molester is worth less than the 25-99% risk that they will molest another child.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoCareful, there's a slippery slope to drawing these conclusions about other classes of undesirables that start with your broad and unproven statement about sex offenders. Show us some studies about recidivism that prove sex offenders recommit sex crimes at a greater recidivism rate than, say, drunk drivers or drug users.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoThe slippery slope goes in two directions, mainly: First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Secondly, if we are going to do this to Sex Offenders, and it proves really useful and effective, let's start doing it to violent criminals. Then, say, bank robbers. Then, we should get rid of all the drug dealers. The repeat drug users gotta go now. While we're making society better, let's also clean up all the fraudsters and tax cheats. An example that springs to mind is the way Nazi Germany dealt with the Jewish people. I believe they were morally okay with it, too.
- thejohnconway 7y ago> First, if we as society are going to lock them up forever, why not just save ourselves the expense and execute them all. Because locking someone up is reversible. Your slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy in any case. Not all crimes have equal rates of damage or recidivism. There are many good reasons to differentiate between types of crimes and their motivations. Presumably you agree that we should probably lock up serial killers, right? According to your style of slippery-slope argument you have no way of distinguishing between that and executing children that won't go to bed on time, because it's all a continuum.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoYes, I pretty much agree with you. I was disagreeing with the blanket "lock'em all up forever" opinion expressed above. Emotional reactions I can understand to crimes like these but some sense needs to be exercised or we end up in another situation like Nazi Germany.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> People change, believe it or not. People do change, but people who sexually abuse children outside of their immediate family do so far more rarely than, well, most other socially unacceptable behaviors. The degree of certainty that someone who has displayed that behavior remains a menace just based on that fact alone is fairly high.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoI also agree with this. A very wise man I once knew had a saying he liked to give. "Past behavior is the best predictor of future thinking. "