Subject:
|
Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:54:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> This doesn't really apply to the root question anymore, but...
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > you may be taggable as one of those "sex offenders" that gets
> > watched for 25 years. (someone ought to test the constitutionality of that,
> > actually, but I digress...)
>
> I've wondered about that as well. On one hand, if a medically
> demonstrable risk continues to exist that an individual will commit a crime
> again, is it not in the public's interest to be appropriately informed, even
> at the expense of that individual's right to privacy?
Yes.
> The crux appears to be whether or not the individual has paid his "debt to
> society" by serving a prison term (or what-have-you), but if sexual predation
> isn't simply a crime but an illness, might not more stringent controls be
> appropriate?
Yes.
> Granted, the treatment for illness should't be incarceration in prison, but
> some sort of treatment (and detention in the meantime) seems justifiable.
> Certain drugs like Depo Provera show promise as a means of reining in
> predatory urges, and, while the chemical effects wane after treatment is
> terminated, the behaviors learned during treatment can help control such
> behaviors.
But why should the rest of society have to live with the possibility that the
offender's behavior may not be controlled? Or the possibility that the
offender may decide not to show up for his Depo Provera treatment (or get his
prescription refilled, if that's what it is)? Nope, make it a permanent fix.
(And I would be willing to accept a 100 year time release Depo Provera
implant-- a deep inaccessible implant-- as a permanent fix!)
> However, the long-term health effects are not known; might that
> sort of treatment be acceptable, or at least preferable, to prison?
Does anyone really care about the long-term health effects on these people?
Economically speaking the drugs (assuming the biotechnology exists) would be
cheaper for society than locking the offender up.
> Just asking, really--I don't have a good answer.
Just killing twenty minutes, really-- I don't either, just strong opinions that
probably won't sway or be swayed.
Maggie C.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| (...) I don't think so. But only because I think that they should remain in treatment until they do not pose a credible threat. (...) They need more help than punishment if that's what you you both mean. (...) What's the difference between them and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Girlfriends Guardians!!!
|
| This doesn't really apply to the root question anymore, but... (...) I've wondered about that as well. On one hand, if a medically demonstrable risk continues to exist that an individual will commit a crime again, is it not in the public's interest (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
