- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Sep 20, 2003, 02:35 PMI think establishing a legal age of consent is necessary, but trying to establish some laws is totally out of this world. Prohibition, for example. Consuming alcohol was against the law? Sodomy is illegal in many states, but how many millions of couples, hetero or otherwise, practice that? Legislators, on the whole, may be intelligent when each is considered individually (many are lawyers; lawyers are generally intelligent), but when taken as a group, they appear to be somewhat stupid. My state is trying to enforce saying the pledge of allegiance in classrooms, and was seriously considering a requirement for married people to undergo a year or more of counseling before a divorce could be granted. Ha! Guess who just separted from his wife? Our namby-pamby governor.
Posted by aldo_huxley
- Sep 20, 2003, 05:09 AMGee, after reviewing this post, it gives me an idea.
First we find two remote Islands.
We place male pedophiles on one island and the females on another.
Then in 100 years or less, all of them are extinct.
Or maybe we should do genetic alterations to fix the problem.
I sometimes wonder if the current society has read some of Adolph's speeches. This is where social upheaval is started.
At first you are attacking the "evil", then over time.......death to all Jews!
To sum up, there is an infinite degree of human sexuality and "perverted if you like" branches from there. How in the world does anyone make a digital determination on the cut off point?
Just because the majority believes something makes it true? I would say let the Church correct the "mob" mentality, but they are the first to be hung.
Definition: Morals - what I have and you don't (at least that's what I read here and there in these post).
Still say that local agencies are using this as a cash cow to pad the coffers as this crime or even implied crime results in money to them and the local lawyers does it not?
Aldo
First we find two remote Islands.
We place male pedophiles on one island and the females on another.
Then in 100 years or less, all of them are extinct.
Or maybe we should do genetic alterations to fix the problem.
I sometimes wonder if the current society has read some of Adolph's speeches. This is where social upheaval is started.
At first you are attacking the "evil", then over time.......death to all Jews!
To sum up, there is an infinite degree of human sexuality and "perverted if you like" branches from there. How in the world does anyone make a digital determination on the cut off point?
Just because the majority believes something makes it true? I would say let the Church correct the "mob" mentality, but they are the first to be hung.
Definition: Morals - what I have and you don't (at least that's what I read here and there in these post).
Still say that local agencies are using this as a cash cow to pad the coffers as this crime or even implied crime results in money to them and the local lawyers does it not?
Aldo
Posted by orolan
- Sep 15, 2003, 03:39 PMQuoteSooner or later, politicians will figure out that actually doing something about security is advantageous politicallyI agree.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 15, 2003, 02:22 AMQuote from: orolan on Sep 14, 2003, 12:27 PMI am participating in an ongoing discussion on another message board about exactly "what" pedophilia is.
The Federal government, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, says it is a "behaviour problem", thus not eligible for consideration as a "mental illness".
But then that same Federal government as well as many state governments allow "involuntary commitment" of pedophiles because they have an "incurable mental illness" that causes them to molest children.
Then the American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is not a "mental illness", but is in fact a sexual orientation in some and a behaviour problem in others.
Just thought I'd throw it out for contemplation.
Generally speaking, when the government has such contradictory public positions on a topic, it generally means there are strong political considerations involved. Just as the government considers pedophiles both insane and not insane (depending upon what makes a politician look "tough on crime" -- pedophiles, child pornography, etc. are, by definition, easy to kick around for political gain), so the government considers the polygraph both "inaccurate" and "absolutely essential".
Sooner or later, politicians will figure out that actually doing something about security is advantageous politically, at which point the polygraph will be history. Until then, frauds will continue to hawk their wares and taunt those who call them on it as "disgruntled whiners"...
Skeptic
Posted by orolan
- Sep 14, 2003, 12:27 PMI am participating in an ongoing discussion on another message board about exactly "what" pedophilia is.
The Federal government, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, says it is a "behaviour problem", thus not eligible for consideration as a "mental illness".
But then that same Federal government as well as many state governments allow "involuntary commitment" of pedophiles because they have an "incurable mental illness" that causes them to molest children.
Then the American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is not a "mental illness", but is in fact a sexual orientation in some and a behaviour problem in others.
Just thought I'd throw it out for contemplation.
The Federal government, through the Americans with Disabilities Act, says it is a "behaviour problem", thus not eligible for consideration as a "mental illness".
But then that same Federal government as well as many state governments allow "involuntary commitment" of pedophiles because they have an "incurable mental illness" that causes them to molest children.
Then the American Psychiatric Association says pedophilia is not a "mental illness", but is in fact a sexual orientation in some and a behaviour problem in others.
Just thought I'd throw it out for contemplation.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 13, 2003, 02:52 PMQuote from: Mr. Truth on Sep 13, 2003, 02:13 AMWith respect to this subject, there are shades of gray. Someone whose sexual orientation is geared towards minors, no interest in adults, easily fits into what most people consider a pedophile to be (easiest way to get a nun pregnant is to dress her up as an altar boy).
Yep. But at least in western society, acting on one's interest, if one is a pedophile, is unacceptable behavior.
QuoteThen you have the case of someone who acted out, for whatever reasons (cognitive distortions et al), but whose primary (and only real interest) is in adult consensual contact. A lot of those people, once their head is pulled out their ass, I think, are "cured." I don't think you can cure or fix sexual orientation (think of those church groups that try to "fix" homosexuals - do homosexuals really need fixing?). Regardless, it is easy and convenient for society to use the phrase "sex offender" for both types of people who committed a sexual offense. It's too bad so many people get away with sex related offenses for a couple of reasons (the fact a crime was committed and there is no punishment, the fact one or more victims have to suffer through the consequences of being assaulted).
Ouch. I deserved that -- looking back on my comments, I did indeed appear to be supporting a position similar to those of religious right loons who think you can "cure" homosexuality.
Let me make clear that I don't think such a position is viable. Sexual orientation does, indeed, seem to be one of the more immutable of human characteristics.
However, it is imperative (again, in our society) that those whose sexual orientation involves children not be allowed to act on that orientation. And I believe it likely many do not: perhaps they're "bisexual" and can enjoy relations with adults as an outlet, or they simply have sufficient willpower to keep themselves from doing something they know would destroy their lives and those of others.
For those who cannot, it's clear that they cannot be allowed continued contact with open society. Perhaps it's fair and perhaps it's not, but it seems to me that committment and treatment (maybe an alternative outlet can be found for their sexual interests) is a kinder and more Constitutional option than prison.
Skeptic
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Sep 13, 2003, 02:13 AMWith respect to this subject, there are shades of gray. Someone whose sexual orientation is geared towards minors, no interest in adults, easily fits into what most people consider a pedophile to be (easiest way to get a nun pregnant is to dress her up as an altar boy).
Then you have the case of someone who acted out, for whatever reasons (cognitive distortions et al), but whose primary (and only real interest) is in adult consensual contact. A lot of those people, once their head is pulled out their ass, I think, are "cured." I don't think you can cure or fix sexual orientation (think of those church groups that try to "fix" homosexuals - do homosexuals really need fixing?). Regardless, it is easy and convenient for society to use the phrase "sex offender" for both types of people who committed a sexual offense. It's too bad so many people get away with sex related offenses for a couple of reasons (the fact a crime was committed and there is no punishment, the fact one or more victims have to suffer through the consequences of being assaulted).
When more state legislators, relatives of legislators, friends of legislators, etc. are caught and punished (how are these people different from anyone else - they're just like you and me), then you'll see more attention paid to who is a threat and who is not.
Then you have the case of someone who acted out, for whatever reasons (cognitive distortions et al), but whose primary (and only real interest) is in adult consensual contact. A lot of those people, once their head is pulled out their ass, I think, are "cured." I don't think you can cure or fix sexual orientation (think of those church groups that try to "fix" homosexuals - do homosexuals really need fixing?). Regardless, it is easy and convenient for society to use the phrase "sex offender" for both types of people who committed a sexual offense. It's too bad so many people get away with sex related offenses for a couple of reasons (the fact a crime was committed and there is no punishment, the fact one or more victims have to suffer through the consequences of being assaulted).
When more state legislators, relatives of legislators, friends of legislators, etc. are caught and punished (how are these people different from anyone else - they're just like you and me), then you'll see more attention paid to who is a threat and who is not.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 12, 2003, 03:48 PMQuote from: Neo on Sep 12, 2003, 02:07 PM
I'm not sure the intent of the restrictions are a matter of deterence as much as they are a matter of protection. With that said, I would loke to clarify my position a little. I feel I may have inadvertantly taken an extreme position here.
When I use the term "sex offender" I am refering to the actual pedophiles and rapists. I understand that as a legal term "sex offender" has a much broader meaning; anyone convicted of sexual misconduct or crime. I personally do not agree with what appears to be the broad definition and use of the term sex offender. It should only apply to those circumstances which denote the seriousness of the term.
To the others I have been trading posts; My apologies for insinuating your position puts people at risk. I assume you would not want anyone at risk. Your argument seems to be the loose interpretation of what a sex offender is and the use of polygraph in regard to that. I have no beef with that.
Neo,
Well said. Our positions probably aren't as far apart as you might think -- for my part I would prefer to see the more eggregious sex offenders (we're not talking about somebody charged with indecent exposure for urinating around the side of a building after a night of drinking...) treated as insane (criminally or otherwise). For such people, who (to the best of my knowledge) are incurable, I think permanent inpatient treatment would probably be a good option.
In stating the above, however, I'd like to make clear that I'm not a Ph.D.-level psychologist, nor am I up on the state-of-the-art in treatment. It might indeed be possible to cure a pedophile who acts on his urges. But if it is, I haven't heard of it.
Skeptic
Posted by orolan
- Sep 12, 2003, 02:33 PMNeo,
Good show. Now you're on the right track.
"Sex Offender" is entirely too broad a term, and rules appropriate for one may not be appropriate for the other.
Good show. Now you're on the right track.
"Sex Offender" is entirely too broad a term, and rules appropriate for one may not be appropriate for the other.
Posted by Neo
- Sep 12, 2003, 02:07 PMQuote from: Mr. Truth on Sep 12, 2003, 11:53 AMTake registration, for example. What proven deterrent effect has that had?
I'm not sure the intent of the restrictions are a matter of deterence as much as they are a matter of protection. With that said, I would loke to clarify my position a little. I feel I may have inadvertantly taken an extreme position here.
When I use the term "sex offender" I am refering to the actual pedophiles and rapists. I understand that as a legal term "sex offender" has a much broader meaning; anyone convicted of sexual misconduct or crime. I personally do not agree with what appears to be the broad definition and use of the term sex offender. It should only apply to those circumstances which denote the seriousness of the term.
To the others I have been trading posts; My apologies for insinuating your position puts people at risk. I assume you would not want anyone at risk. Your argument seems to be the loose interpretation of what a sex offender is and the use of polygraph in regard to that. I have no beef with that.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Sep 12, 2003, 11:53 AMTake registration, for example. What proven deterrent effect has that had? Hardly a unanimous decision by SCOTUS about that. Of course it isn't punitive, it's an "administrative" requirement.
If registration provides such a valuable benefit to society (increasing public safety, allegedly), then why aren't we registering wife beaters/domestic violence offenders and convicted-of-DUI drivers? These classes of offenders pose a serious risk to society. How may thousands of people are injured each year by either type of offender?
If registration provides such a valuable benefit to society (increasing public safety, allegedly), then why aren't we registering wife beaters/domestic violence offenders and convicted-of-DUI drivers? These classes of offenders pose a serious risk to society. How may thousands of people are injured each year by either type of offender?
Posted by Neo
- Sep 12, 2003, 09:08 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 12, 2003, 12:20 AM". . . without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-- Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
So once a sex offender has been convicted and sentenced you still think it is excessive and unreasonable to restrict and monitor their movements within society for at least a certain period of time? Politics aside, it sounds as though the originator of this string irn434's boyfriend had due process. If he chose to accept a plea or was outright convicted, then he also accepts the sentence.
Lastly, I know the constitution is their for us all, even sex offenders and of course their victims.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 12, 2003, 12:20 AMQuote from: Neo on Sep 11, 2003, 11:57 PM
Now your talking!Or should we take your ultra-liberal point of view and assume that just because "statistically" :-/ they don't re-offend we should err on the side of letting a few get away with it?
Darn those Founding Fathers and their ultra-liberal Bill of Rights. What a bunch of tree hugging, soft-on-crime wimps.
Skeptic
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-- Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-- Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
"No matter what the purpose of the legislation, bad laws that infringe unreasonably on civil liberties are almost always defended with one universal excuse: 'if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about'."
-- Skeptic
Posted by Neo
- Sep 11, 2003, 11:57 PMQuote from: orolan on Sep 11, 2003, 07:28 PM
In case you didn't notice, kids are everywhere. . . .
Should the sex offender be under "house arrest", allowed to come outside only after giving the PO a detailed minute-by-minute itinerary that is to be followed to the second or risk violation? Might as well have sent him/her to prison. . .
Now your talking!
Or should we take your ultra-liberal point of view and assume that just because "statistically" :-/ they don't re-offend we should err on the side of letting a few get away with it?Allow me to make a purely emotional argument. Would you take any risk with your own child based on the sad weeping of a convicted sex offender that he would never do it again or would you prefer restricting his opportunities where he could re-offend? No doubt it is not perfect and restrictive, but something the average parent appreciates.
Have fun attacking this orolan, but I'm happy you sex offenders out there are restricted.
Posted by orolan
- Sep 11, 2003, 07:28 PMQuoteChildren are among them often enough to consider it a potential hazard.In case you didn't notice, kids are everywhere. The grocery store, the convenience store, the barber shop, WalMart, etc.
Should the sex offender be under "house arrest", allowed to come outside only after giving the PO a detailed minute-by-minute itinerary that is to be followed to the second or risk violation? Might as well have sent him/her to prison.
I see your fundamental problem as being a belief that all sex offenders are looking for new victims. With a like-crime reoffense rate between 2 and 8 percent, that would seem to be a rarity, not the norm.