"on occasion"? "A small percentage"? Are you kidding me? Released criminals commit thousands of crimes. You yourself have said that 90% of sexual offenders are wont to commit those crimes again. Why should they have personal freedoms that risk the well-being of the law abiding majority? Somewhere down the line our society decided that criminals should be coddled and set free to destroy other innocent lives. And why do you feel that getting tougher on criminals will result in a police state? Yes, laws do exist to protect society at large. But obviously current laws do not protect society enough, as is proven on a daily basis. He is a repeat offender. He raped again after being released the first time. Rodriguez is listed as a Category 3 sex offender, considered the most likely to repeat violent crimes. Analysis suggested that he was not a danger, and he was not monitored after his release. Yep, terrific system: it labels the guy as being most likely to repeat violent crimes, has him faultily analyzed, and then releases him. Just a terrific, terrific system. (Hearty applause goes here). The perfect system for eliminating recidivism is indeed capital punishment. It is the only way to be 100% sure that murderers and rapists won't do so again because life without parole sentences are often reduced due to changes in parole boards and endless litigation.. When a catastrophic flaw is discovered in a model of automobile, do we recall just the cars in the eastern part of the country or those with a certain color scheme and cross our fingers that the rest of the ones out there won't kill anybody? When a pharmaceutical product has fatal side effects do we allow a few bottles of the stuff to remain on shelves in the midwest in the hopes that it won't be purchased? Of course not. Why should criminals be treated any differently? Suggesting I move to an Arab country isn't being sarcastic? And besides, why should I? I'm a law-abiding citizen who shouldn't have to worry that a paroled rapist, murderer, or other felon isn't going to victimize me, my family, or other innocent members of society after spending a few years in prison earning his Masters degree in deviancy. What about the thousands who are raped? Assaulted? Kidnapped? Just amazing. Since you have such faith in the system, why don't you rent out a spare room in your house to a paroled murderer, or let your children have a released child molester/rapist for a baby sitter? You and yours may turn up being slaughtered or raped, but hey, through the screams you can tell yourself it's a small price to pay for having this wonderful system of justice.
The "reform" argument may be a reason to give him parole if he appears to have been successfully treated the first time. But after the repeat offence he has basically proven that he got parole under false pretences and is either unwilling or uncapable of avoiding a repetition of his criminal behaviour. Given the severity of the crime, after the second offence he should have been given life without parole. A second chance is reasonable, a third is not. The three roles of punishment of crime are after all, to provide justice, to protect innocent members of society, and to reform criminals. If someone demonstrates by their actions an unwillingness to reform, a propensity to escape justice, and a danger to innocent members of society, then clearly they fulfil all three criteria for punishment. AAA - I entirely agree with you about the Supreme Court. Starting with Roosevelt, political appointments to the Supreme Court have effectively turned it into America's equivalent of the PRC National People's Congress. It has given up all pretence that its role is solely to interpret ambiguities in the law, and has become a fully fledged activist arm of government. Despite becoming a law-making arm of government, it remains completely devoid of any accountability to the people. Power should always come with accountability. The clear solution would be to have justices appointed by popular vote. This would rapidly cure serving justices of any excessively left-leaning tendencies.
If you are going to quote me, why don't you try being accurate and in context. Here is what I said: "I have heard statistics quoted that sex offenders will repeat their crimes again to the tune of 90% of the time. Yet, 10% do experience a recovery from the demons that drove them to commit crime. That 90% figure is a strong argument, if true, for extra caution when considering parole or sentencing. Notice that I said if the 90% figure is true, it should be the basis for extra caution in sentencing. If it is reasonable to believe that someone will necessarily commit crime again, it is also reasonable to take steps to protect society against that personality. However, my point is that you cannot say that any one individual will or won't be rehabilitated necessarily based on the behavior of others. Your approach seem to be to lock them all up or kill them to protect society in a blanket response to their crime. My approach would be to look at an offender on a case by case basis to determine future threat to society, and see if steps can be taken once they are released back into society after paying their debt to society to ensure the security of society. Sexual abuse and child abuse is a topic that triggers strong emotions. I understand that. However, in creating a justice system that is going to work, that kind of emotion needs to be removed from the process.
I think momentum for this (ERA) amendment dried up when it became apparent that under this amendment it would be unconstitutional for a military draft to occur that excluded women. I want equal rights for women. I don't want women drafted during wartime. Most people have come to the conclusion that the due process clause of the constitution protects everyone including women. Do men also not have full legal protection under our Constitution by your logic?
Those women who have volunteered for the service and are fighting or have fought in Iraq might take issue with your not wanting women drafted during wartime. Just as there were deferments for men during Vietnam, there can be deferments for women if drafted. If women can compete on the battlefield, they should be drafted too. In this age of high tech warfare, women can perform equally as well as men in many siutation. It doesn't take too much to follow orders and push push buttons. Yours is a sexist position. I don't understand your question regarding men and full legal protection.
It is sexist to not want women drafted? Is it also sexist to not want men drafted by your same logic or is sexism only a one way street? Do you know what sexism is? How does not forcing women to be drafted take any of their rights away? How does it demean them? If women want to join the military they certainly have the right to do so, but to not want to force women to join the military to fight for their country is hardly sexist. In fact, I'd say it is more compassionate to women than your supposed non-sexist position. If my position is sexist then I gladly embrace sexism. I'd bet if you asked enlisted women whether they were in favor of all women being drafted you would find that the majority are not in favor of all women being drafted. Just because someone wants to volunteer to serve their country in the military doesn't mean they wish to force everyone of their gender to do the same. Your statement is that women currently don't have full protection under the law because there is currently no specific Constitutional protection based on sex. If women currently don't have full protection under the law, then by that reasoning men also don't have full protection under the law because there is no specific part of the Constitution that grants full protection based on sex. Therefore, since everyone is either male or female, nobody has full protection under the constitution. The argument is obviously flawed.
Supposedly the "system" you are so proud of already does that. The subject of this thread was analyzed and deemed not to be a danger to society. Our daily papers are rife with accounts of released murderers and sexual offenders who commit second, third, fourth or more crimes, often after having been incarcerated, "rehabilitated" and released over and over. The parole system and occasional psychiatric reviews are already in place, but they obviously are not enough. IMHO, the system doesn't work, it doesn't protect society to the degree it should. I ask again, if we recall all models of faulty automobiles, pharmaceuticals, etc., why not ensure the same degree of safety to society when it comes to dangerous criminals? Emotions have been the catalyst for the most sweeping reforms in world history. Ideals such as freedom and equal rights for women and minorities did not and do not spring from a robotic sensibililty. Emotion about this issue arises from the daily perpetuation of horrific crimes by repeat offenders. There are those like me who believe the greater good is served by preventing such offenders from ever being given the chance to endanger others again, and then there are those who believe as you do that further casualties among an innocent populace is acceptable.
Have you ever read the following? Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows.... The above is from the United States Constitution. See anything there which could cause a problem for women? If you take a strict use of language, the following is sexist: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office..... Technically speaking, Hillary could not be president without a sex change operation. She could be elected by the people, and then a loaded republican supreme court could strictly speaking deny her the presidency on this basis of constitutional grounds. A thorough examination of all the articles of the Constitution reveals it was written by sexist men, not men who were thinking of granting women equal rights under the law. The equal rights amendment would fix that problem....but men of course have a problem with that. This country will undergo a constitutional crisis within the next 50 years is my prediction. It may be over women's rights, it may be over religion, it may be over sexual freedoms for gays, I don't know, but it is coming.
If you had said that you don't want either men or women to be drafted, that is not sexist. However, that is not what you said. If you are offering up a clarification of your position by indicating you treat men and equally when it comes to the draft, i.e. you oppose it for both sexes, that of course is not a sexist position. If part of being a citizen during a time of war in which a draft is instituted, not drafting an able bodied citizen on the basis of gender is discriminatory. How is it discriminatory? You may or may not be old enough to remember the draft in the 60's. You may or may not recall the draft lottery. Given the population pool at the time, there was a probability of being drafted based on pure numbers of available draftees and birth-dates. If you increased the population pool by including women in that draft, you would reduce the risks that a man would face of being drafted. Therefore, the draft was discriminatory to men by not allowing women as part of the draft for sexist reasons. Though this form of benefit to women came as a result of discrimination, it was none the less discriminatory in effect. If we have a draft, and women are capable of helping in participating in the armed services, they have no reason not to be drafted. If there is a reason that when drafted they are unable to serve, they could be issued a deferment. The point is that men and women should be treated equally by the law, not given preferential treatment or discriminatory practices on the basis of gender. If you need a working definition of sexism, look below: Sexism has been defined, among other ways, as "behavior, policy, language, or other actions of men or women which expresses institutionalized, systematic, comprehensive, or consistent views that women are inferior" (Kramarae & Treichler, 1985, p. 85). Much of the research on sexism has focused on three areas: (1) assessments of the presence and frequency of sexism in various situations (Swim, Cohen, Hyers, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 1997; Peterson & Kroner, 1992; O'Reilly & Borman, 1984; Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970), (2) assessments of personality and behavioral correlates of sexism (McMinn, Lindsay, Hannum, & Troyer, 1990; Joesting, 1974), and (3) development of scales to measure sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997; Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995; Benson & Vincent, 1980; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973). http://www.findarticles.com/m2294/1999_Sept/58469475/p1/article.jhtml