« Explaining the WV miner mistake | Main | Adelphia sale »
Friday, January 06, 2006
Worst of the Vermont Blogosphere
If the two blogs I mentioned in my Random Kudos post represent some of the best attributes of our local blogosphere, the comments in the thread of this Alphecca post represent the worst. Yesterday, gay guy nut Jeff Soyer reported on the Burlington judge who sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in prison. The story is in the Burlington Free Press this morning, and was on the TV news.
Jeff, a Fairlee resident, vents his outrage at the "mutant" who commited the crime — truly a disturbing and terrible one. And clearly many people outraged at this sentence. But Jeff takes it a step too far when he suggests that "a firing squad" would have been a more appropriate punishment.
The people who've responded in his comment thread take this train of thought even farther. "Countertop" writes, "I actually like this decision as it gives the family the opportunity - in 60 days - to do the right thing." In other words, shoot the guy. Countertop's comment is the second of 13, and the discussion goes quickly downhill from there.
Here's "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner": "I think a little "frontier justice" is in order here. When this POS gets out and does this again, and statistics show that he probably will, hunt him down, castrate him, stake him down and cover him with honey, and leave him to the ants. Then find the judge and do the same to him for being an accomplice." A guy named Joe Huffman even provides a detailed description of how someone might hunt the guy down, kill him, and hide the evidence.
That kind of conversation is tasteless, unsettling, and possibly illegal. It's "gun nuts" like these that give the whole lot of them a bad name.
January 6, 2006 at 11:32 AM in VT Blogs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b91969e200d8345c230269e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Worst of the Vermont Blogosphere:
» Speaking of Scum-Bag Judges... from Alphecca
A mutant repeatedly rapes a young girl over a period of four years starting when she was 7-years-old. A proper punishment would have been the firing squad. Instead, a Vermont judge who "no longer believes in punishment" hands the mutant... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 6, 2006 4:52:50 PM
» Speaking of Scum-Bag Judges... from Alphecca
A mutant repeatedly rapes a young girl over a period of four years starting when she was 7-years-old. A proper punishment would have been the firing squad. Instead, a Vermont judge who "no longer believes in punishment" hands the mutant... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 11, 2006 12:53:42 PM
» Speaking of Scum-Bag Judges... from Alphecca
A mutant repeatedly rapes a young girl over a period of four years starting when she was 7-years-old. A proper punishment would have been the firing squad. Instead, a Vermont judge who "no longer believes in punishment" hands the mutant... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 11, 2006 1:27:37 PM
» Speaking of Scum-Bag Judges... from Alphecca
A mutant repeatedly rapes a young girl over a period of four years starting when she was 7-years-old. A proper punishment would have been the firing squad. Instead, a Vermont judge who "no longer believes in punishment" hands the mutant... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 11, 2006 1:32:00 PM
Comments
oy. Lot's of thoughts about this, but no time to articulate them clearly. I may try it on Candleblog later. For now, I'll just point out that the Freep article says "molested" not "raped." It might seem like a quibble as both crimes are reprehensible, but the legal (and I think moral) distinction is real. The mitigating circumstances surrounding the short sentence are messed up (why can't he get treatment in jail???) but do make sense given the situation. Then there's the whole talk about the efficacy of punishment as retribution, which Richard Dawkins tackled as his "dangerous idea" of the year.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 6, 2006 2:59:04 PM
Sorry Bill, the link to the BFP story did not use the word "rape," but the WCAX story that Jeff linked to *did* in fact use that word. So I probably should have cited them. I didn't because I don't watch TV.
For the record, I'm not weighing in on the case itself, or the judge, or his verdict. My concern is how we as a society respond to what we perceive as injustice. Or more specifically, how we use the internet and emerging technologies to respond.
I know very little about the case itself, but I'm sure it's more nuanced than it seems.
And while I'm disturbed by this man's crime, I'm equally troubled by the idea of a roving band of snipers out to get him. I read a lot of things online that I don't agree with, but this crosses a line for me, and I had to say so.
Posted by: cresmer | Jan 6, 2006 3:33:28 PM
Jeez. I find that whole thread in alphecca's comments totally disturbing. Is there a point at which you will remove a blog from the blogroll for consistently making offensive/hateful statements? By providing the link to sites like Gay Gun Nut are you helping to spread the bad word? OR ... is freedom of speech, no matter how loathsome, to be embraced above all?
Like Bill I'm interested in the punishment/rehabilitation question that the Cashman story brings up. It'd be great if this story inspired thoughtful consideration of the issue and debate in the local media ...
Posted by: yankunian | Jan 6, 2006 4:02:01 PM
Several things. First off, I think you take things far too literally. If I were to take some of the comments in the forums from the Democratic Underground or MoveON and apply the same standards, the FBI would need 200 agents assigned full time to check out death threats against Bush, Rumsfeld, and others. People like to exaggerate and vent after reading of an outrage like this.
The anger I expressed in the post had little to do with the mutant himself. Even the title of the post alerts that my anger is focused on the judge and the cream-puff sentence he handed out. I don't recall saying the judge should be killed. I said cops should be furious and picket his courthouse. I also said that if he doesn't believe in punishment then he shouldn't be a judge.
I conclude with -- in bold type -- a statement that obviously shows I believe the mutant should have received serious jail time. Personally, though, I think most parents who discover that their 7-year-old daughter was being repeatedly raped by a mutant would, in fact, believe that a just punishment by the judge would have been the death penalty and probably by firing squad if we still had them.
Oh, and Bill? The WCAX article says that prosecutors said that the mutant "raped", not "molested" the girl. I guess we'd have to check the court transcript to see which it was though I frankly don't think that should make much of a difference.
As for the commenters themselves, I think you'll notice that most of them start by saying, "...if it were my girl...". Or they say that the short sentence allows the parents to avenge things. Again, I think that most were simply spinning off into hyperbole, much as you read in any comments section where emotions get heated.
I doubt very much that anyone is going to spread molasses so ants will do their thing, as one commenter you quote stated. Did you really take that seriously?
Two of the comments made clear that this was all just "venting" and that vigilante justice would only make matters worse for the family.
While I don't know "Terry" or "Roland the headless", I do know the others -- most of them are bloggers themselves. All are -- unlike the mutant of the story -- law abiding. They also think that crimes do deserve punishment. They believe in justice and justice was not served here. That gets them pissed. That doesn't mean they're literally planning to kill anyone. Most of them post rather constantly to my posts and I know what they're thinking.
There is nothing -- so far -- in the comments that is illegal. Period. Nobody has said, "I'm going to kill...". I don't censor comments unless there is something slanderous, libelous, or is a direct threat. I support the First Amendment as much as the Second.
And now I'll go back to the forums on Kos and Atrios and the Democratic Underground to read the death threats against various Republicans. Frankly, I don't take those seriously either.
Posted by: Jeff Soyer | Jan 6, 2006 4:15:07 PM
I don't have a hard and fast link policy — I use my own discretion, and consult my editors and/or other bloggers when I need some guidance — but in this case, I'm not going to delist Alphecca. At least, not yet.
Jeff's post is not what I find so offensive -- it's the comments from his readers. It bugs me that he hasn't chimed in to direct the discussion more, which is like agreeing with it, but he hasn't spoken up in favor of killing anybody.
At this point, I don't think it would serve any purpose to delist him. Right now, I think it's more important to point this out than to act like it doesn't exist.
Posted by: cresmer | Jan 6, 2006 4:27:38 PM
One last thing: Yankunian -- Click the site meter at the bottom of my blog. Then think if it really matters to me that you or anyone else de-links me. Sure, I'll miss the 3 or 4 visitors but seriously, dude...
Posted by: Jeff Soyer | Jan 6, 2006 4:35:49 PM
Thanks for your response, Jeff. I didn't get the impression that your commentors weren't serious, but then I'm not schooled in the nuances of gun nuttery. Sorry if I misunderstood, but I'm not convinced that I did.
I appreciate your reluctance to censor your comments, but I do find them disturbing. Hence the post.
Posted by: cresmer | Jan 6, 2006 4:43:41 PM
I won't be delinking Jeff anytime soon and I never even considered it. I wrote about the Cashman case my own self and then went to Jeffs place and read his comments there.
I found nothing offensive, being the father of four children three of whom are daughters (not that it would matter if any of them were raped by anyone).
I, like Jeff, am more offended by the sentence and the judge than the fantasy of parents. I am offended that a judge that states that he is opposed to giving jail time could remain a judge. (And by the way, the man plead guilty to two counts of sexual assault which sounds like rape to me.)
And I'm offended that anyone believes that councelling child sex offenders is a) useful and b) a reason to keep the slimball out of the Hooscow.
And I'm offended that anyone on earth thinks that the situation is more "nuanced".
Judge Cashman needs to be fired and Jeff Soyer needs more traffic.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Jan 6, 2006 6:51:20 PM
One last comment and then I'm out of here and again, it's addressed to Yankunian: Dude, I know you leftist, liberal types love to squash the First Amendment on your college campuses when any "conservative" speaker shows up and I suppose that is why you think Cathy should de-link me.
To quote your own comment:
Is there a point at which you will remove a blog from the blogroll for consistently making offensive/hateful statements? By providing the link to sites like Gay Gun Nut are you helping to spread the bad word? OR ... is freedom of speech, no matter how loathsome, to be embraced above all?
I can understand -- although I'm against "hate speech" laws in general -- that many would find abhorrent speech against women, blacks, gays, et al, to be repellent. But I think you're pissing against the wind if you want to apply "hate speech" against those who abhor child-raping mutants.
Are you really suggesting that the mutants who rape 7-year-old girls are somehow a minority, a group that deserves protection from "hate speech"? That child-raping is a legitimate lifestyle that we should all respect and that should be protected from what you call "hate speech"?
Posted by: Jeff Soyer | Jan 6, 2006 8:45:09 PM
Jeff,
I'm not Yankunian, but I'll bite...
I think that advocating the murder of a human being certianly qualifies as "hateful." Do you deny hating the criminal in question? It doesn't sound like it. It seems to me that you make no bones about hating him whatsoever.
Your take on Yankunian's comment--i.e. equating child rapists with protected social groups--is quite a stretch. It's actually a logical fallacy: some people complain about hateful speech directed at protected social groups. Yankunian is complaining about hateful speech directed at a particular sex offender (she's really not, but that's what you're inferring). Therefore, Yankunian thinks sex offenders are a protected social group. I can't remember what it's called but it's "both A and B are true, therefore A=B." It doesn't work that way.
As far as the free speech rhetoric goes--and speaking as someone who's job requires him to defend the free speech of lefty whackos and actual Nazis alike on a daily basis--a blogger who chooses to un-blogroll another blogger is not infringing on free speech. Only the government is prevented from limiting speech. Bloggers are free to link or unlink as they see fit on their own blogs for any reason (as you well know).
Cool Blue wrote:
And I'm offended that anyone on earth thinks that the situation is more "nuanced".
This kind of thinking really angers me and without employing hyperbole I really do think it's the basic cause of most of the suffering in the world. How arrogant do you have to be to assume you know every single angle on any particular situation? Were you in the court room? Do you personally know any of the people involved? Every situation has nuance. I'm not taking a moral relativist stance here, I'm just saying that assuming that any situation is merely black and white is intellectually lazy.
Making this particular point is hard because an un-nuanced view of my argument would make it seem like I'm defending a sex offender here and I'm absolutely not.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 7, 2006 1:55:31 AM
I'm not taking a moral relativist stance here, I'm just saying that assuming that any situation is merely black and white is intellectually lazy.
Sure every situation is nuanced to some extent, however there is no nuance in the core of this matter: It is quite clear what has happened in this case.
The man plead guilty to at least two felony sexual assault counts and will only serve two months in prison because the judge has stated he is opposed to putting people in prison.
What is clear here is that a judge can not be opposed to putting people in prison and still be serving the public's interest as a judge.
What's worse, as I suggested would happen in my post, the legislature is considering mandatory sentences for people convicted of sex offenses which, to my mind is the wrong way to solve the problem.
The right way to solve the problem is to fire judges who show lack of judgement. And while this may be problematic in some cases, in a case where a judge publicly states he is opposed to incarcerating people, it should not be problematic at all.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Jan 7, 2006 8:30:58 AM
Bill -- I was molested by a dermatologist when I was 9-years-old and suffered the mental scars of it for years and years. You're God Damned right I HATE Hulett and and all who are like him. Cashman is going to put this mutant back out on the street where (given the remarkably high recidivism of child molesters) he will probably do it again.
Posted by: Jeff Soyer | Jan 7, 2006 9:28:58 AM
I was just checking up on the week's worth of 802 Online posts, and I have to say, this one is the most intense I've ever read.
My two cents:
Most folks know that when passions run high, civility is the first thing to go out the window. Personally, I can understand the sentiments of those who commented on Jeff's blog. However, the real debate is whether or not it's constructive to publicly air them.
Alphecca merely presented a forum where those disturbed by the lack of justice dealt to the criminal can vent their frustrations. Still, it's easy to imagine some folks being entirely serious about their desire to inflict harm.
But you know what? Murderous rage at violent and sickening crime is pretty common. To ignore this is to live in denial of the full range of human emotions.
Considering the heinousness of the crime and the shockingly light sentence awarded its perpetrator, an outcry is to be expected. Hopefully, the violent imagery in the comments is just talk, but the First Ammendment is the important thing to consider. Sick as some minds may be, we don't need the thought police telling us who not to fantasize killing. I'd never make it through an hour of C-SPAN.
Posted by: casey | Jan 8, 2006 7:01:09 PM
An appropriate punishment for the obvious rape of another human being should be something akin to what was suggested. There is no call for this sort of thing.
I claim no standard for ALL rapes, especially those of one person's word against another's, but violent crimes at times should be dealt with, well, violently.
Posted by: Matthew Burton-Kelly | Jan 8, 2006 8:20:40 PM
Casey, that was a thoughtful response, but I think you're actually missing the central issue. First Amendment speech protections have nothing to do with this. Cathy wasn't saying the commentors on Jeff's blog should be prevented from saying what they think, she was saying she was offended and disturbed by the comments. There is a guaranteed right to free speech, there is no right to not be offended by someone else's speech. Cathy was offended and used her right of free speech to say so.
You're absolutely right that rage and other powerful emotions are provoked by this sort of situation, and those feelings are natural, but it's bad for everyone if we set our judicial code by our emotions (this is separate from what Cathy was saying but it's what is interesting to me personally--more about it below).
Matthew wrote:An appropriate punishment for the obvious rape of another human being should be something akin to what was suggested. There is no call for this sort of thing.
I claim no standard for ALL rapes, especially those of one person's word against another's, but violent crimes at times should be dealt with, well, violently.
Ostensibly, our justice system is based upon rehabilitation and deterance and not on retribution. I actually think this is where Jeff and Coolblue and I part ways philisophically (correct me if I'm wrong guys). Of course the family of the victim wants the guy to get strung up by his short and curlies--if it were my daughter I'd want that to, its a natural, human, evolutionarily hard-wired response--but that's precisely why the family is not allowed to pass sentence on the convicted criminal. The judge's responsibility is to society at large, and in this case it's clear that the judge felt society would be better served by the perp getting treatment (which was not available in prison because of some fucked up DOC rule).
I am amazed at the difference in the coverage of this story between the Free Press and WCAX. How can two reporters covering the same case provide such wholly different facts? Seriously, read both reports (linked above). It's like they are talking about two different cases.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 8, 2006 8:50:30 PM
Bill, my comment was less in response to Cathy's original post than some of the subsequent opinions.
The following are all general musings:
In a "civilized" society we have laws to protect us from well, ourselves, mostly. The extent and measure of these laws were supposedly arrived at by some kind of consensus opinion. Shame nobody invited me.
If certain parties were to administer "frontier justice" in this particular instance, they'd invite judicial retribution greater than that which the "mutant" received. I doubt anyone will actually take it to such lengths. If they do, the system will inevitably deal with them.
Some people simply have better impulse control than others. Shopping at City Market on a Friday afternoon is excellent practice for those looking to develop this skill.
While I hardly think the death penalty is a deterrent, if the consensus agrees to employ it, I have no particular moral qualms. I just want the prosecution's evidence to be air-tight. And get it done quickly — no more sitting on death row for a quarter-century on the taxpayer's dime.
Largely, I'm on the side of "lefty" reason in judicial matters. But I'll admit that putting people in stocks in the pubic square might is an idea that may be due for a comeback.
Posted by: casey | Jan 9, 2006 9:47:26 AM
Ostensibly, our justice system is based upon rehabilitation and deterance and not on retribution. I actually think this is where Jeff and Coolblue and I part ways philisophically
You're correct as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying that rehabilitation shouldn't be part of the equation, it should, but prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second.
To say that someone can't be punished for their crime because there's no rehabilitation available is, in my view wrong.
The rehabilitaion issue is a matter for the legislature; the people's proxy and agent in such matters. The punishment issue is what the judge is for.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Jan 9, 2006 12:57:47 PM
Sure, let's be understanding to someone who rapes YOUR daughter.
What a dumbass
Posted by: Tom | Jan 10, 2006 8:18:45 PM
Matthew Burton-Kelly wrote:
"Ostensibly, our justice system is based upon rehabilitation and deterance and not on retribution."
That was not the way it was originally set up and this is why we have such high recidivism rates. It is well past time we chucked the leftists' rehabilitation model and went back to what actually worked -- the retributive theory of punishment. Crime should be punished and that should be the only "rehabilitation" offenders get.
Tough sentences, complete loss of ALL constitutional protections, and hellish prison conditions should be the NORM. When prisons provide a convicted criminal three hots and a cot, an education, cable TV, lots of work-out equipment, and access to an extensive criminal network, the jail provides no deterent value whatsoever. Make that same jail hell on earth -- an experience far less desirable than what the prisoner experiences on the streets -- and the criminal will think twice.
Fix this and we will fix the problem with recidivism. It is the ONLY thing that has worked and will work. Of course, you criminal-loving libs will never go for it -- will in fact protect your precious criminals at every turn -- and more little girls will be raped and killed.
How anyone could be a liberal is simply beyond me.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 11, 2006 12:35:39 PM
Adversary, that was actually me who wrote the sentence you quoted and it sure sounds to me like you're arguing in favor of a deterance-based justice system (with the emotional rhetoric of retribution thrown in). But you're ignoring the fact that the most heinous punishment we have--the death penalty--is demonstrably not an effective deterrant.
Even though I'm a "criminal-loving lib" I'm all for a practical solution. Show me something that actually reduces violent crime and I'll be right there with you. But your model is broken. When was this mythic past when criminals were effectively deterred by harsh sentencing exactly?
The only path that makes sense (IMHO) is changing the culture that feeds violent crime--a difficult, long-term process that sounds terrible in sound bites and makes people who are looking for simple-minded, eye for an eye solutions crazy. It also means paying attention to all the "nuance" and being willing to use our intellects along with our emotional responses to violent crimes.
How anyone could be a liberal is simply beyond me.
Of this I have no doubt.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 11, 2006 2:10:58 PM
Vermont case of judge giving sentance of 60 days is criminal and setting back human rights and childrens rights back 60 years.Lets go back even farther and let the father settle with the rapiest. Shoot him and punish the judge take some of his retirement by impeachment.
Posted by: Virginia Long | Jan 11, 2006 3:31:29 PM
Hmmm. It appears that by posting about this troublesome situation, I have invited people to post similar responses here. For the record, the opinions expressed in the comments to this blog are not shared by the blog's author--me.
Posted by: cresmer | Jan 11, 2006 3:39:55 PM
Call me a mind reader, but I can just hear the sigh of Bill and others; "Neandertals, all of them".
What one who takes such a position fails to consider is that the whole idea of civilization and rule of law rests on the basis, on the faith, that our civilized mechanisms for doing things can effectively replace "vigilante justice". That it is more fair because we do our best to prove the defendent guilty and free the innocent. And that it is Just because it punishes the guilty.
When the people lose that faith, things will collapse and people will begin to mete justice in less rigorous ways.
Will this single case cause the collapse of civilization?
Hardly.
But the reaction to it should serve as a reminder that people are watching and they demand justice be done.
And for all the high-mindedness of the intellictual analysis, they are right to want justice done.
Never forget.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Jan 11, 2006 3:46:41 PM
Regarding "Wind Energy Sucks" I notice they don't identify themselves, don't allow comments and don't really have much to say other than the title. Given the links I think they're serious. I suppose they feel that coal, oil and nuclear power are better. Ah, the glowing acid rain falling pitter patter on the tin roof... Delightful. Give me wind any day.
Posted by: Walter Jeffries | Jan 11, 2006 4:13:32 PM
Coolblue,
I don't know about you but I'm really ready to stop posting to this thread. For the record, I've met both you and Jeff Soyer and I don't think either of you are Neanderthals. The Jury is still out on The Adversary (anonymous posting doesn't impress me, I'll go that far) and I make no comment at all about Virginia Long. That said, you wrote:
the whole idea of civilization and rule of law rests on the basis, on the faith, that our civilized mechanisms for doing things can effectively replace "vigilante justice". That it is more fair because we do our best to prove the defendent guilty and free the innocent. And that it is Just because it punishes the guilty.
I agree with all of that. I also think that in some cases (like the one we're on about) we have to allow for thinking outside the box and prioritize what's most important: in this case, that this guy doesn't ever do it again. Because of the way Vermont law works (right or wrong), the small minimum sentence was essential to that end (read Freyne's column today for the specifics).
We don't even need to get into the whole "change the culture" stuff I was talking about above to talk about why I think the judge in this case is right. Still, I do believe that the shape of our culture is like the shape of water: it conforms to the shape of whatever glass we pour it into (insert lengthy debate over the efficacy of the philosophy of non-violence here).
What really saddens me are the angry knee-jerk responses to this case even after the mitigating facts have been publicized. That and the ridiculous rage-mongering that the WCAX story amounted to.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 11, 2006 4:50:26 PM
to CoolBlue and others: I am a liberal. But that doesn't mean I love criminals. In fact, part of me does agree that we should lock people up forever for stuff like this. I do believe in rehabilitation for people who are going to join society again (granted it won't always work and who knows exactly what would work). And I think most crimes people commit are worthy for re-entry into society. But I do hesitate on abuse like this -- I like to think I'm "civilized" but frankly why do we let people like this out again? Is once not enough, like murder?
But our priorities when locking people up are screwed up, and I think this is the underlying problem. People get worse time for non-violent, non-harmful crimes (like using drugs). I mean, when people like that are going in and we have to release violent, repeat offenders (or is that a myth?), then something is screwed up (and isn't is conservative politicians who want those tough drug sentences? for what?). And do we really know what works? Like Bill said, I don't think there was ever a time when tough sentences deterred crime. I'm not an expert, so I honestly don't know, but I do know that people are going to commit crime regardless if they know they're going to get killed or not for it.
Anyway, just wanted to say that just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they don't want to be tough on crime (frankly, one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty is that it is too good a way out -- people who deserve the dealth penalty (and really are guilty which is a whole other issue) should rot in a cell for the rest of their life surrounded by pictures resulting of their crime; dying? why are we doing them a favor?).
Actually, now that I'm done typing, I think I've discovered how I feel about this -- lock them up forever. And, yes, I'm still a liberal.
Posted by: evening | Jan 11, 2006 9:18:12 PM
to CoolBlue and others: I am a liberal.
Actually, I consider myself a liberal; it's the Left that calls me a conservative. Go figure.
But our priorities when locking people up are screwed up, and I think this is the underlying problem. People get worse time for non-violent, non-harmful crimes (like using drugs). I mean, when people like that are going in and we have to release violent, repeat offenders (or is that a myth?), then something is screwed up
I completely agree. I personally know people who have been given tougher sentences, by Judge Cashman his own self, for drug and alcohol offenses than he gave to this child raper. In once case, a person spent 18 months in jail for a possession charge and she was sent there by Judge Cashman.
So don't feel alone in your "tough liberal" stance. "Liberals" used to be tough (Remember FDR and Kennedy?) I long for the days when I can vote Democrat again.
But I fear it is a long way off....
Posted by: CoolBlue | Jan 12, 2006 7:29:59 AM
An adminstrative note: I removed a comment from "Paul" from this thread. I'm very reluctant to take that action, because I believe if you're going to encourage meaningful debate about issues, you've got to let all sides have a go. HOWEVER, as this blog's author, I reserve the right to remove comments intended to offend — or derail the conversation, or sell something — rather than to advance the discussion.
In other words, I'm glad everyone has chosen to have this conversation here, but please keep it on topic and respectful. Thanks!
Posted by: cresmer | Jan 12, 2006 8:34:10 AM
Bill Simon Wrote:
"Adversary, that was actually me who wrote the sentence you quoted "
My apologies.
"it sure sounds to me like you're arguing in favor of a deterance-based justice system (with the emotional rhetoric of retribution thrown in)."
Nope. I'm arguing for a retributive system that, as a by-product, deters. Further, there's nothing "emotional" about retribution from a systemic viewpoint. Retribution ensures that a criminal does not profit from his crimes and, in fact, loses.
"But you're ignoring the fact that the most heinous punishment we have--the death penalty--is demonstrably not an effective deterrant."
You are 100% incorrect on two levels. First, you ignore the fact that there are TWO kinds of deterrence, specific and general. Specific deterrence works on the person punished while general deterence works on people other than the person punished. With respect to the former, the death penalty is 100% effective -- executed murderers never kill again. Contrary to your claim, the DP DOES have a general deterrent effect, albeit a weakened one in our system. Where is this "demonstrable" proof that it doesn't work?
Now, it could use some tweaking. We can increase the general deterrent effect by making executions public AND making them painful. Show the axe murderer getting hung or electrocuted on a nation-wide broadcast (maybe half-time at the Super Bowl), and I GUARANTEE you will get through to a lot of folks.
Of course, that might hurt the poor murderers' feelings, and you libs just couldn't have that, right?
"Even though I'm a "criminal-loving lib" I'm all for a practical solution. Show me something that actually reduces violent crime and I'll be right there with you."
I just gave it to you.
"But your model is broken."
My model isn't in place, how can you say it is broken?
>When was this mythic past when criminals were effectively deterred by harsh sentencing exactly?
Pick any time prior to 1900. Pick any span of time you want and compare it's per capita crime rate to the per capita crime rate of today.
"The only path that makes sense (IMHO) is changing the culture that feeds violent crime--a difficult, long-term process that sounds terrible in sound bites and makes people who are looking for simple-minded, eye for an eye solutions crazy. "
In other words, more criminal-coddling, and more socialism. No thanks. Billions on prisons before a dime in income redistribution -- particularly where thugs are the recipients. This is the model we have in place TODAY. This is the model that is broken. What you want is ALREADY BEING DONE. And it has already failed.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 12, 2006 10:32:41 AM
Bill Simmons wrote:
"The Jury is still out on The Adversary (anonymous posting doesn't impress me, I'll go that far)"
[Shrug] I'm not here to impress you. I'm here as a Paladin in Hell -- doing battle against the forces of evil in their own lair. And yes, I really do consider liberals to be evil and a threat to America. The attitude of the libs here -- effectively coming to the defense of a judge who has aided and abetted a child molester -- proves my point.
Practically speaking, I learned a long time ago, the hard way, that you libs just will not leave a discussion on a board like this. Suffice to say that having had insane liberals burn up my employer's phone lines on TWO occasions, I won't let it happen again.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 12, 2006 10:42:20 AM
Evening wrote:
"Anyway, just wanted to say that just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they don't want to be tough on crime (frankly, one of the reasons I'm against the death penalty is that it is too good a way out -- people who deserve the dealth penalty (and really are guilty which is a whole other issue) should rot in a cell for the rest of their life surrounded by pictures resulting of their crime; dying? why are we doing them a favor?)."
Yup, you're a liberal all right, coddle the criminal at all costs. Two points on this.
First, as long as they are alive they are a threat to kill again -- guards, other inmates, and, if they escape, other innocent people. Just last year where I'm from, we had a guy escape from jail, kill someone and get caught again. While he was in jail awaiting trial on the murder, he escaped AGAIN and killed ANOTHER person.
That is too big of a risk to take. Do YOU want to be the person to explain to the second victim's family that it was better for this guy to "rot" in jail?
There is no such thing as an escape proof prison. If you are against the death penalty, a fortiori, you are for a system that will GUARANTEE an innocent will be killed by a convicted murderer.
Second, ever heard of John Wayne Gacy? Look him up. That boy was doing anything but "rotting". He had drugs, alcohol, a boyfriend, all while "rotting" in jail. Liberal federal judges, your ideological soulmates, will NEVER allow a prisoner to simply rot in jail. They will take over a prison and order exercise, books, TV, radios, etc. I know it for a fact because I've seen the orders myself.
Your idea of making them "suffer" works ONLY if we could build and escape proof prison and make it impossible for federal judges to interfere in the running of prisons. The former is impossible and the latter is something that people on your side of the political spectrum will never allow to happen.
It is impossible to be a liberal AND be tough on crime.
Posted by: | Jan 12, 2006 10:59:26 AM
Evening: Forgot to put my handle in, the above post was mine.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 12, 2006 11:00:27 AM
What is it with these liberal morons? Send the MF to prison and put him in general population; he'll get the only rehabiliation he deserves.
Posted by: Zorro | Jan 12, 2006 12:16:50 PM
"our idea of making them "suffer" works ONLY if we could build and escape proof prison and make it impossible for federal judges to interfere in the running of prisons. The former is impossible and the latter is something that people on your side of the political spectrum will never allow to happen."
I don't think you're entirely correct in your assumption of my beliefs. If someone would get life in prison in my world, they would literally not leave their cells. No chance to play basketball, no chance to kill a guard -- when I say rot I mean rot (no contact with anyone except through one of those little holes in the door big enough to allow crappy food through). I don't agree with drugs, cigarettes, playing cards, nothing.
Where my liberalness comes into play are for those people who would return to society. These people need to have some kind of normal human existance otherwise I think they'll be crazy by the time they return to society. That doesn't mean I think they should be able to smuggle things in. Or TV really.
It has been a long time since I've read up on prison management, so I don't know what is going on nowadays, but I bet you and I are not that far off in how things should be run.
So I disagree with you when you say you can't be liberal and tough on crime. Just like there are all kinds of conservatives (plenty of whom I feel are evil and ruining society), there are all kinds of liberals. (so you can stop with all your flamatory words and blanket assumptions. for example, this judge is not my ideological soulmate!)
Oh, and in case it needs restating, molesters would rot in a cell in my world.
Posted by: evening | Jan 12, 2006 3:45:18 PM
This will be my last post in this thread. I'm not grandstanding, just very tired of this ugly debate and of being painted as a defender of child molesters. Anyone who wishes to continue discussing this with me can feel free to email me off-blog and I may respond there.
That said, I'll quickly respond to a few comments directed specifically to me:
The Adversary wrote:
Contrary to your claim, the DP DOES have a general deterrent effect, albeit a weakened one in our system. Where is this "demonstrable" proof that it doesn't work?
Go here. In particular, look at this Skeptical Inquirer article that compares and evaluates the types of research done on the matter. The upshot: the death penalty has no deterring effect in the US.
Pick any span of time you want and compare it's per capita crime rate to the per capita crime rate of today.
This a logical fallacy. A is true: that crime rates used to be lower, and B is true: that the justice system used to be more eye-fo-an-eye than it is now, therefore, B caused A. One could just as easily make the claim that the ending of slavery caused the higher crime rates, or the liberation of women. Crime rates were lower back in the day when (fill in the blank) was true. Isn't it more likely that the higher poulation in general along with the advent of very large cities and the loss of the agratrian, self-sustaining lifestyle has more to do with the change in crime rates (this is a rhetorical question)?
I'm not here to impress you. I'm here as a Paladin in Hell -- doing battle against the forces of evil in their own lair.
Oh my. Who are you trying to impress (also rhetorical)?
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 12, 2006 7:31:14 PM
>I don't think you're entirely correct in your assumption of my beliefs. If someone would get life in prison in my world, they would literally not leave their cells.
Then you'd have to get rid of all the federal judges appointed by democRATS...they'd never allow it to happen. Ergo, you can't be liberal AND tough on crime.
>Where my liberalness comes into play are for those people who would return to society.
A child molester should NEVER return to society. He should be executed. The DP is the ONLY punishment that guarantees a 0% recidivism rate.
>It has been a long time since I've read up on prison management, so I don't know what is going on nowadays
I work with people who run them everyday. I do know. Prisoners, thanks to liberals, are coddled and not punished at all for their crimes. If you don't coddle them, they sue you in federal court, and if you get a judge appointed by a democRAT, the court awards them your house. A bit of hyperbole, true, but not very far off the mark.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 13, 2006 10:19:26 AM
>Go here. In particular, look at this Skeptical Inquirer article that compares and evaluates the types of research done on the matter.
Biased, pro-criminal sources, do not constitute proof.
>The upshot: the death penalty has no deterring effect in the US.
Only if you completely ignore specific deterrence and the unmeasurable general deterrent effect that these studies don't measure.
>This a logical fallacy.
Wrong, and your hypotheticals demonstrate why. One could not "just as easily" make the claims about slavery and women because there is no direct effect between free slaves, for example, and crime. Where there is a direct cause and effect relationship, such as the tie between punishment and crime, it does follow logically that B causes A. It is more akin to "a bullet came out of the gun while you were holding it" therefore, "you pulled the trigger".
>Isn't it more likely that the higher poulation in general along with the advent of very large cities and the loss of the agratrian, self-sustaining lifestyle has more to do with the change in crime rates (this is a rhetorical question)?
Rhetorical or not, if it is, it is because it has given rise to modern liberalism which, when it became the dominant ideology in government, deliberately weakened our criminal laws and thereby encouraged crime.
>Oh my. Who are you trying to impress (also rhetorical)?
Why ask if you don't want to know?
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 13, 2006 10:30:04 AM
Evening wrote:
"(so you can stop with all your flamatory words and blanket assumptions. for example, this judge is not my ideological soulmate!)"
I never said he was. What I SAID was:
"Liberal federal judges, your ideological soulmates . . ."
Although "Judge" Cashman is certainly a liberal, he is not a federal judge. Ergo, I never said that Cashman was your "ideological soulmate."
Just setting the record straight.
Posted by: | Jan 13, 2006 10:36:33 AM
"A child molester should NEVER return to society. He should be executed. The DP is the ONLY punishment that guarantees a 0% recidivism rate."
Um, I agree with you that molesters should not return to society - not sure why you keep thinking I think that.
"thanks to liberals, are coddled and not punished at all for their crimes."
Have you ever thought that there are stupid people on both sides of the aisle? I don't think prisoners should be coddled at all, yet I'm a liberal. Or can you not accept that?
I've had enough of your inflamatory language and inability to have a civil, open-minded conversation.
Jan - My bad. I thought that was what you were implying, but re-reading what you wrote I see it isn't. Though that doesn't mean I agree with your statement.
Posted by: evening | Jan 13, 2006 11:24:25 AM
>Um, I agree with you that molesters should not return to society - not sure why you keep thinking I think that.
Because you're against the DP. The only escape proof prison that has, or ever will be, created is the grave. If you keep molesters alive, it is a certainty that at least one will escape and offend again. The only way to stop them is to kill them.
>Have you ever thought that there are stupid people on both sides of the aisle?
I don't see any conservatives supporting Judge Cashman or being against the death penalty. So, at least as far as this particular issue goes, no, I see stupidity radiating from only one side.
>I don't think prisoners should be coddled at all, yet I'm a liberal.
If you're against the DP, you are for coddling prisoners. It is easy to say that you would put them in a sealed off cell with no access to the outside world, but your actions, voting for politicians who will appoint like-minded judges who will NOT allow such conditions to come to fruition, betrays the lip service you are paying here.
>I've had enough of your inflamatory language and inability to have a civil, open-minded conversation.
The truth is "inflammatory" only to those that don't want to hear it. As for "open-minded", it is YOU that are terminating this conversation, not I. I have often found that you liberals apply the "close-minded" tag to anyone who disagrees with you, while, hypocritically, refusing to open your own minds to the near-certainty that you are wrong.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 13, 2006 1:33:56 PM
What's most disaoppointing about this argument itself is that none of you will give up compartmentalizing people and calling them "liberals" or "conservatives." People are people--if you don't have someone specific to cite in any given case, just shut up.
Posted by: Matthew Burton-Kelly | Jan 16, 2006 11:04:03 PM
You got to admit though, they fell into the predictable pigeon-holes. Liberals (with a few exceptions) support and defend the sentence. Conservatives (all of them that I've seen so far) are outraged.
Like it or not, people, being people, do fall into camps/cliques/clans/parties/etc.
I, for one, won't shut up. If you don't like the truth, I'm sure there's another thread you can read.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 17, 2006 12:35:30 PM
Ahem, just piping back in here briefly to point out that trolling blog discussions like this one anonymously is now a federal crime. It's a dumb law, but seems relevant here.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Jan 18, 2006 8:04:48 PM
I hate it when amateurs play at being lawyers. Prove that I have the intent to annoy. If you're annoyed, that isn't enough. I must INTEND to annoy you, towit:
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person..."
Consequently, even if this were to make it past a First Amendment challenge, proof is almost impossible, particularly in a situation such as this where the website is set up, at least ostensibly, for the exchange of political ideas.
In other words, I'm not worried about it. So save your bloghouse lawyer in terrorem threats for someone who doesn't know better. Or better yet, file a complaint against me. I could use the free press.
Posted by: The Adversary | Jan 23, 2006 4:54:41 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
