BiIIStickers says

fun fact: in a handful of states you're stripped of your voting rights and forced to register with the sex offender registry for public urination

I don't see anything wrong with the sex offender registry but the voting thing is wrong and I didn't know about that

I don't think this is internet drama. Just a debate. Am I the only one who feels this way?

fun fact: in a handful of states you're stripped of your voting rights and forced to register with the sex offender registry for public urination

Arcbell says

Well it was already stopped before you posted about it again ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

... was it?

Well it was already stopped before you posted about it again ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Well it was already stopped before you posted about it again ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

the tl;dr version is that prisons are extremely profitable here and therefore people in power have incentive to keep them overcrowded and not focused on rehabilitating, because rehabilitation decreases your exploitable labor source and therefore your income

i wouldn't say completely but yeah there are a lot of bureaucratic aspects of the prison system that are just completely out of the hands of the actual individuals handing down sentencing

Rondar says

Sirius says

Rondar says

Sirius says

and, i mean, it comes to the same effect either way, if you like, rondar. yours is an empty morality, a manipulated morality. it's not worth anything, nor has it any real basis.

Your morality is one that arbitrarily assigns values to complex conditions though, which is similarly weak.

here's you lost up your pseudo-psychologising. my morality is for people who live for people and rightness by them. to want to f*ck children is gone from this.

I think it's moot to continue this discussion since we have fundamentally different theories on whether or not pedophilic urges are a choice. Pretty sure mine is the one backed up by a ton of research though.

And I feel like your view that I'm "pseudo-psychologising" is ways off because of this very reason. We're basing our arguments on completely different bedrocks.

then why did you continue it?

yours is actually the one not backed up by anything, rondar.

i mean how the f*ck could paedophilia even be inherent? was having sex with children vital to our reproducing at one stage? is it some remnant of when were all having kids at 2 years old? what?

Sirius says

Rondar says

Sirius says

and, i mean, it comes to the same effect either way, if you like, rondar. yours is an empty morality, a manipulated morality. it's not worth anything, nor has it any real basis.

Your morality is one that arbitrarily assigns values to complex conditions though, which is similarly weak.

here's you lost up your pseudo-psychologising. my morality is for people who live for people and rightness by them. to want to f*ck children is gone from this.

I think it's moot to continue this discussion since we have fundamentally different theories on whether or not pedophilic urges are a choice. Pretty sure mine is the one backed up by a ton of research though.

And I feel like your view that I'm "pseudo-psychologising" is ways off because of this very reason. We're basing our arguments on completely different bedrocks.

Rondar says

Sirius says

and, i mean, it comes to the same effect either way, if you like, rondar. yours is an empty morality, a manipulated morality. it's not worth anything, nor has it any real basis.

Your morality is one that arbitrarily assigns values to complex conditions though, which is similarly weak.

here's you lost up your pseudo-psychologising. my morality is for people who live for people and rightness by them. to want to f*ck children is gone from this.

BiIIStickers says

Rondar says

For some reason I thought the judiciary system was a lot less general than that.

nah mandatory minimums are a huge issue here. i dont have the exact numbers in front of me but there was a huge issue with the disparity in minimum sentences for cocaine possession vs crack possession, with crack carrying a much longer mandatory minimum sentence despite being the poorer "street" version of a more affluent, whiter drug. when you hear that mandatory minimums are classist and racist in a lot of cases people aren't kidding

I've never heard of any of this. It's a little funny.

So basically a criminal's individuality is completely stripped from him the moment he or she commits a crime?

BiIIStickers says

Rondar says

BiIIStickers says

Arcbell says

well, the issue you run into at some point is that you can't really tell if someone is rehabilitated until you give them the opportunity to recidivate, which can end badly for the people who die

correct, but i trust a psychiatrist to make this decision more than a parole board

I assumed you have expert input in cases like this in american courts?

yes but they're a much smaller factor than they should be and ultimately things like "good behavior" matter more than a positive psych evaluation, which only reinforces the idea that criminals are only capable of stopping a life of crime because if they don't they'll get punished

What I take from this is that actual rehabilitation is completely neglected though (and well, passively worked against). Pretty gross.

Rondar says

For some reason I thought the judiciary system was a lot less general than that.

nah mandatory minimums are a huge issue here. i dont have the exact numbers in front of me but there was a huge issue with the disparity in minimum sentences for cocaine possession vs crack possession, with crack carrying a much longer mandatory minimum sentence despite being the poorer "street" version of a more affluent, whiter drug. when you hear that mandatory minimums are classist and racist in a lot of cases people aren't kidding