Short prison sentences? Blame Ivana Bacik!!!

Robroy36

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Does what job? I don't think Roy is suggesting using it as a means of extracting highly dubious information.

The ultimate aim of the torture would be to drive them insane, a just desert for murder and paedophilia. I have completely digressed, the fact is we need more, low quality prisons to house more prisoners for longer.

Robroy36

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

We've gotten rid of prisons.

Man sexually abuses multiple children.


What do you do with this person?

Go.

Don't entertain him. A complete troll
living in pseudo intellectual fairyland.

opti0nal

Robroy36 wrote: »

The ultimate aim of the torture would be to drive them insane, a just desert for murder and paedophilia. I have completely digressed, the fact is we need more, low quality prisons to house more prisoners for longer.

....Staffed by highly skilled torturers who can administer sufficient pain to satisfy your desires without killing the prisoner. Otherwise the prisoner would not be alive the next day for more of the same.

It will take a special kind of person to do this. Unfortunately, the people who most meet your requirements are most probably already in jail for murder or paedophilia.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Robroy36 wrote: »

The ultimate aim of the torture would be to drive them insane, a just desert for murder and paedophilia. I have completely digressed, the fact is we need more, low quality prisons to house more prisoners for longer.

Well you were the one who brought up torture. Any advicne on how this makes society a safer place?

opti0nal wrote: »

....Staffed by highly skilled torturers who can administer sufficient pain to satisfy your desires without killing the prisoner. Otherwise the prisoner would not be alive the next day for more of the same.

It will take a special kind of person to do this. Unfortunately, the people who most meet your requirements are most probably already in jail for murder or paedophilia.

He's against the idea of costs. With the right kind of marketing, I think you could get such people for free. This may even be what he's angling towards - creating a market for his own, eh, "talents".

Madam_X

phoenix0250 wrote: »

Despite being so unpopular on this forum, or even in the country, the woman does have a point, everyone has the right to freedom, and should he/she commit a crime (or an error/mistake in the society), why should he/she be punished by the said society? Although, the society should indeed be able to banish the person for their transgressions to some other society or environment of the person's choosing. Simply throwing them in a hole (prison) is a waste of life, and is a testament to how uncivilized the society truly is.

Of course, all you self-appointed guardians of the status quo cannot comprehend this as hardly anyone has the ability or will to step outside the ideologies, values artifacts etc. of the current society you live in. Condescending as it may be, you must understand that a "criminal" isnt always bad nor needs to be punished...imagine living in Germany or Stalinist Russia, where race, religion or even advanced thinking was a crime.

That's the kind of stuff the crowd who go on about "PC liberal yadda yadda" have more grounds for railing against. Thankfully it's rare.

opti0nal

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

He's against the idea of costs. With the right kind of marketing, I think you could get such people for free. This may even be what he's angling towards - creating a market for his own, eh, "talents".

Anyone who likes torturing others should be locked up.

Grayson

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

We've gotten rid of prisons.

Man sexually abuses multiple children.


What do you do with this person?

Go.

I think maybe he means the prisons are a waste of time. Sex offenders should be in a secure treatment facility, not a prison. Prisons are hardly the most conducive location. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked away, just that prisons are probably not the best place to expect someone to get over a mental disorder.

crockholm

Grayson wrote: »

I think maybe he means the prisons are a waste of time. Sex offenders should be in a secure treatment facility, not a prison. Prisons are hardly the most conducive location. I'm not saying they shouldn't be locked away, just that prisons are probably not the best place to expect someone to get over a mental disorder.

Dude, if some man finds children/kids/babies sexually arousing what treatment is there for him? If a heterosexual man is attracted to women,or a homosexual man is attracted to men, what kind of treatment can you give them to change? The pedophile is so fcked up that they wish to carry out their deviant behaviour, even though they know its wrong.

Grayson

crockholm wrote: »

Dude, if some man finds children/kids/babies sexually arousing what treatment is there for him? If a heterosexual man is attracted to women,or a homosexual man is attracted to men, what kind of treatment can you give them to change? The pedophile is so fcked up that they wish to carry out their deviant behaviour, even though they know its wrong.

Strangly, people can be treated. Not always, but sometimes. And even if someone can't then we need to study and learn. Because someday you might be a dad. And someday your son might be in a situation where he needs help. Because as you said, no-one choses to be a paedophile, it's just the way they are. Wouldn't you want youir son to get the best treatment.

As long as our only recourse is locking up sex o0ffenders, it means that there will be more people in the next generation who are affected. those who become offenders and those who become their victims.

(BTW, i realise there are any number of reasons why someone could be an offenser. Some were abused. Some got it from somewhere else. Some just are. My point is that some are treatable, some aren't. But we should still keep trying).

Steve O

Madam_X wrote: »

That's the kind of stuff the crowd who go on about "PC liberal yadda yadda" have more grounds for railing against. Thankfully it's rare.

Did someone piss in your cornflakes this morning?

crockholm

Grayson wrote: »

Strangly, people can be treated. Not always, but sometimes. And even if someone can't then we need to study and learn. Because someday you might be a dad. And someday your son might be in a situation where he needs help. Because as you said, no-one choses to be a paedophile, it's just the way they are. Wouldn't you want youir son to get the best treatment.

As long as our only recourse is locking up sex o0ffenders, it means that there will be more people in the next generation who are affected. those who become offenders and those who become their victims.

(BTW, i realise there are any number of reasons why someone could be an offenser. Some were abused. Some got it from somewhere else. Some just are. My point is that some are treatable, some aren't. But we should still keep trying).

I believe that we agree on treatment,but it has to be in a prison,and it does sadden me to think that my son could potentially do such a thing,but it just seems like a certain % will be born with that cruel affliction,and all the treatment,even E.S.T. wouldnt make them see the error of their ways

Zulu

Grayson wrote: »

Strangly, people can be treated.. ).

Of course they can, but it's very very expensive and funding is very very limited. Personally I'd rather my taxes are spent on the education and medical treatment of innocent children.

So I'm all in favour of us giving up the pretence of "rehabilitation" and focusing solely on the much cheaper option of punishment & retribution.

Amirani

Zulu wrote: »

Of course they can, but it's very very expensive and funding is very very limited. Personally I'd rather my taxes are spent on the education and medical treatment of innocent children.

So I'm all in favour of us giving up the pretence of "rehabilitation" and focusing solely on the much cheaper option of punishment & retribution.

It's not really cheaper when you consider the cost to the state of prisoners re-offending.

Steve O

Zulu wrote: »

So I'm all in favour of us giving up the pretence of "rehabilitation" and focusing solely on the much cheaper option of punishment & retribution.

They should all be killed, even the shoplifters.

opti0nal

Zulu wrote: »

So I'm all in favour of us giving up the pretence of "rehabilitation" and focusing solely on the much cheaper option of punishment & retribution.

Why do you think 'rehabilitation' is a pretence? Facts please?

Taltos

I can see where she is coming from but I don't agree with it.

The problem as I see it is we apply one solution to all problems - and clearly looking at our society that is not working.

We need a range of methods to deal with criminality.

1. Due to mental illness - let's deal with it appropriately. Funded properly and not just release as soon as we can. Or where released ensure there is appropriate social support and tracking. Including regular drug tests (not for abuse but to ensure that they are still on their meds). At the first sign of trouble bring back to a half-way house, assess and readmit or release as appropriate or increase the level of social support.

2. Career criminals - 3 strikes. That's it - 3 strikes of a serious nature and you give up all rights to be a citizen who wants to contribute. Now I am not kidding here but then we need a discussion on whether we fund their lifetime incarceration and health care or we just deal with the problem as it is. Provide a fund for their children but remove this cancer permanently. Not the first time I have suggested this.

3. Minor offenses - what is wrong with public and long term community service. Let's encourage these folk to give back to the communities they have hurt and hopefully encourage them to feel pride in their areas. Jailing someone for not paying their TV license is just ridiculous and total overkill - the opposite extreme of early release for a murderer/rapist...

4. Major offenses - rape / assault / murder - assess and either incarcerate / hospitalise. Depending on the severity of the assessment a medical option might be required here. For example, rapists / paed's - I only have one solution - permanent and irreversible change of lifestyle to that of a non-sexualised individual... I know it is extreme - but what is more important here - protect future unknown victims or the rights of the criminal?

Jail -
> re-education - definitely needed as is mental stimulation.
> phones / TVs - payphones only, limited and monitored/recorded. TV's only in communal areas during set times.
> physical exercise - definitely, but mixed with physical labour in society under armed guard - yes I know it sounds like chain gangs but having damaged or shown no consideration for society why not leverage them for the jobs that either cost too much or are just too difficult to get others to do.

As I said - there is no one solution - we really do need an alternative approach. This wholesale throw them in jail is not working and the next generation has no fear of it at all. Just look to what happened at easter in Blanch with FM104 - how have we let our society devolve like this - and I mean that as a question - we all have had a part so let's use the arguments from Ivana to prompt a new way of looking at this and how we can improve...

opti0nal

Steve O wrote: »

They should all be killed, even the shoplifters.

In China, they harvest the organs first.

Nodin

opti0nal wrote: »

In China, they harvest the organs first.

Why not kill them as you're harvesting the organs? That'd be the two birds with the one stone.

opti0nal

Nodin wrote: »

Why not kill them as you're harvesting the organs? That'd be the two birds with the one stone.

Better not torture them then, it might damage the organs. The water boarding would be bad for the eyes and all the screaming would, over the long term, surely affect the heart?

Problem would be finding medical personnel who would consider it ethical.

Similar dilemma to finding non-criminals to torture people every day.

I see a lot of practical problems with this new regime.

Nodin

opti0nal wrote: »

Better not torture them then, it might damage the organs. The water boarding would be bad for the eyes and all the screaming would, over the long term, surely affect the heart?

Problem would be finding medical personnel who would consider it ethical.

Similar dilemma to finding non-criminals to torture people every day.

I see a lot of practical problems with this new regime.

Indeed. We need to fund some research on the best killish-toturey-harvesty way to deal with the problem. No point worrying about the fact its never worked in the past - thats defeatist pc nonsense.

Grayson

Zulu wrote: »

Of course they can, but it's very very expensive and funding is very very limited. Personally I'd rather my taxes are spent on the education and medical treatment of innocent children.

So I'm all in favour of us giving up the pretence of "rehabilitation" and focusing solely on the much cheaper option of punishment & retribution.

So, if someone was born a particular way, but can be treated, we shouldn't bother? Surely that could be expanded to any number of conditions. MS, Spina bifida, etc...
The same coulds be said of anyone in prison with any illness. Why bother treating anything? Plus, most of these people are going to be released some day. Unless we decide to just lock up a 20 year old offender until they die.

When someone's in prison, society takes away their freedom, but it also takes responsability for them. If we collectively do nothing to help and know that they will probably reoffend, then we are collectively to blame if they do.

Steve O

Nodin wrote: »

Why not kill them as you're harvesting the organs? That'd be the two birds with the one stone.

This guy...this is the guy you want to have in yer boardroom bill, a real warridor.

Grayson

crockholm wrote: »

I believe that we agree on treatment,but it has to be in a prison,and it does sadden me to think that my son could potentially do such a thing,but it just seems like a certain % will be born with that cruel affliction,and all the treatment,even E.S.T. wouldnt make them see the error of their ways

Secure places aren't exactly holiday camps. They're still imprisoned. Just not in a "prison". Prisons are only the way they are because they've always been that way. Very few places have ever thought about changing their function. But strangely, in most places where they have, they have lower re-offense rates.

opti0nal

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. We need to fund some research on the best killish-toturey-harvesty way to deal with the problem. No point worrying about the fact its never worked in the past - thats defeatist pc nonsense.

I think the proposers are more into feeding their deviant fantasies of other people being harmed than in really addressing tricky problems in society.

Not sure why they have an obsession about Ivana Bacik though. Still trying to figure out why they pick on her.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crockholm wrote: »

Dude, if some man finds children/kids/babies sexually arousing what treatment is there for him? If a heterosexual man is attracted to women,or a homosexual man is attracted to men, what kind of treatment can you give them to change? The pedophile is so fcked up that they wish to carry out their deviant behaviour, even though they know its wrong.

You're confusing a fetish with an oreintation - not the ame thing at all.

crockholm wrote: »

I believe that we agree on treatment,but it has to be in a prison,and it does sadden me to think that my son could potentially do such a thing,but it just seems like a certain % will be born with that cruel affliction,and all the treatment,even E.S.T. wouldnt make them see the error of their ways

EST? Anyway, it would depend on the actual crime that was committed. What about a paeophile who had never toruched a kid coming forward and looking for treatment?

Steve O wrote: »

They should all be killed, even the shoplifters.

There is the world overpopulation problem angel to consider, yes...

Nodin wrote: »

Indeed. We need to fund some research on the best killish-toturey-harvesty way to deal with the problem. No point worrying about the fact its never worked in the past - thats defeatist pc nonsense.

Itchy and Scratchy Universty do some excellent modules.

crockholm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You're confusing a fetish with an oreintation - not the ame thing at all.



EST? Anyway, it would depend on the actual crime that was committed. What about a paeophile who had never toruched a kid coming forward and looking for treatment?



There is the world overpopulation problem angel to consider, yes...



Itchy and Scratchy Universty do some excellent modules.

What i'm confused about is your contribution to the thread,are you here to argue about semantics,tell me i'm wrong,admonish me?
I thought I laid out my reason for being skeptical of treatment,if you disagree,then say it!

Ecce_Agnus_Dei

Ivana, from her ivory tower in Trinity, preaches to the mortals about all these high fallutant left-wing ideologies that are far abstracted away from the real issues facing the working man (i.e. the traditional Labour voter).

She is so far out of touch with reality it's not funny.

It's no wonder she was rejected by the electorate on numerous occasions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

crockholm wrote: »

What i'm confused about is your contribution to the thread,are you here to argue about semantics,tell me i'm wrong,admonish me?
I thought I laid out my reason for being skeptical of treatment,if you disagree,then say it!

I disagree with it for the reason I highlighted: you are implying that people are trying to treat an orientation, which is probably not possible, and very dubiously motivated. What you need to understand is that people are trying to treat a fetish (definitely possible in some cases).

This isn't a case of opinion, this is a case of fact: paedophilia is not an orientation.

WayneMolloy

When are we getting the referendum to abolish the seanad?

Odysseus

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I disagree with it for the reason I highlighted: you are implying that people are trying to treat an orientation, which is probably not possible, and very dubiously motivated. What you need to understand is that people are trying to treat a fetish (definitely possible in some cases).

This isn't a case of opinion, this is a case of fact: paedophilia is not an orientation.

I would not classify it as a fetish it is totally different to that. One way of looking at it is the ICD-10, which classifies it as a disorder of sexual perference.

Now unders the same heading the ICD-10 situates:
Fetishism.
Fetishistic transvestism.
Sadomasochism.

However, whilst it includes disorders of Sexual Preference, it also excludes: problems associated with sexual orientation.

So here WHO are situating it as a disorder of sexual preference, and fetishism is also under the same heading you who not classify it as a fetish.

Treating fetishism is a really interesting topic, there is an arguement that there are no female fetishists, that it is a male disorder.

Now TBH I'm not as familiar with the arguement as I used to be, but there is a body of work out there on it. IIRC correctly it depends on the criteria for fetishism, for example likeing something unusal is not really a fetish. It becomes a fetish when the fetishtic object has to be present for sex to occur.

Anyway I gone way OT here, but it is a interesting subject.