Commuting the Sentence of Medical Pedophiles

[Aimless]

You could apply the same line of reasoning to our entire justice system. "Nothing anybody does is their fault. That's just how their brain is."

Sure, but you can adapt the remedy to what you know about their brains. Prison-rape doesn't have to be the first last and only line of defense against the worst scum of the universe. Re. your previous question I just thought that's what dread was getting at. Not all pedophiles and child molestors--whether fixated or opportunistic--have impaired judgement or lack impulse control due to eg. tumor, extreme compulsive disorder, severe personality disorder characterised by impulsivity, etc. Dread's example seemed to be of a man who does fall into one of those categories, just like some people have a readily identifiable cause of psychosis. Don't you guys test for those things when there's a possibility that you're dealing with a eg. psychosis? Or do you leave it all up to judge and jury? We leave it to forensic psychiatrists.





I think we should keep Lewkowski off of juries. He represents the greatest danger with the jury system: a man who bases his verdict on his gut and on his hatred rather than on evidence.

[Aimless]

Naw, that was a strawman by Loki. He tried to discredit the ICD-definitions by pointing out that at some point something was included which we now don't include anymore.

Hmm I think he was saying that a person may have a mental illness and still be reasonably considered to be culpable, ie. it's not enough to just be mentally ill to evade prison.

Well, I'm hoping that's what he was saying, because it's a fair point.

[LittleFuzzy]

I have to admit I don't understand the intent behind the homosexuality angle. Okay so it was considered a psychiatric disorder once. Was law and custom identical wrt how we approach mental illnesses today?

Nope, but are how we approach mental pathology today really the right way to do so? The article behind the OP serves as a demonstration of how limited our knowledge and our practice still is. That was, as near as I can tell, the intent behind Loki's bringing up the homosexuality angle. Because we can pretty much expect that there remain serious problems with what and how behavior is regarded as pathology.

[GGT]

Our approach today is the best ever, though. We have all sorts of imaging, diagnostics, neuropsychology, sub-specialties from child development to geriatric dementias, traumatic brain research.... Some of what used to be called "pathology" is now seen as cultural and social expectations, and nothing to do with disease.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I like the tumor example. It's a prime example of two things. Suppose we can't remove the turmor, this guy still needs to be locked up or placed in a posistion where he can't hurt little kids, or let's go with she for fun. Because this person whether or not it's their fault is still hurting society, even if it's outside their control. Perhaps morally they have nothing to worry about, but as far as social law is concerned the only law is to place them in a situation where they can't harm others.

Now let's take case 2.) where we can remove the tumor. In this case, I'd believe in very minimal sentencing, and rehabilitative counseling, but if we know, that now they won't be a danger to society, then I feel it's fine to let them back into society as soon as possible, and with minimum punishment of any sort. For me it's not about punishment, it's about getting them to a state where they can safely and ideally, but not neccesary, be productive in society.

Those are my comments on the matter.

And again to ingrain this in others head, the distinction Rand drew between a alchoholic drink, and a spiked regular drink.. was that it's expected for you to know and understand how alcohol works in our society, have to be something mentally wrong with you not to, or for you to be in a very rare situation. But ultimately what he's highlighting is negligence is the determing factor, and that ignorance itself is a valid defense, but negligence is not.

For sure morally ignorance is a valid defense, but again societies laws and what's moral don't and sometimes shouldn't coincide.

[RandBlade]

Aha. Okay, I'll quote the passage again.



Ignorance is the state of not knowing something. Which includes a spiked drink. Don't try to weasel out of your own words here. You even broadened your statement by including "or whatever". And I notice that you still did not answer any questions, be that mine or Aimless'.

Still lying . That's not even the full passage

I have no intention of answering new questions when you're still lying about what I said multiple pages ago, chopping off half of the quote and ignoring multiple repeated attempts to point out that other half that you'd rather pretend wasn't there as it suits your agenda. That's dishonesty so why bother?

[Aimless]

So, regarding bipolar disorder and schizophrenic murderers getting off free

[Loki]

Nope, but are how we approach mental pathology today really the right way to do so? The article behind the OP serves as a demonstration of how limited our knowledge and our practice still is. That was, as near as I can tell, the intent behind Loki's bringing up the homosexuality angle. Because we can pretty much expect that there remain serious problems with what and how behavior is regarded as pathology.

I brought it up because it's a pathology based entirely on one's sexual orientation. Other mental illnesses aren't based on an attraction that is deemed immoral by society (granted, it's deemed that way for good reason for pedophilia). But there are cultures where marrying 9-year-olds is perfectly acceptable. Is every male in that society mentally ill?

[Aimless]

Well, some of the DSM criteria probably have to be put in a cultural context (for example when trying to determine whether or not a person is delusional). That said, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the men in a country such as Yemen--where a quarter of brides are under 15--have some sort of psychiatric diagnosis (ill or not). Sure, they may not be particularly limited by their urges, but still. I also wonder how much of it is sexual attraction and how much of it the thrill of essentially owning a human being while being able to style yourself a devout Muslim.

[Khendraja'aro]

Still lying . That's not even the full passage

I have no intention of answering new questions when you're still lying about what I said multiple pages ago, chopping off half of the quote and ignoring multiple repeated attempts to point out that other half that you'd rather pretend wasn't there as it suits your agenda. That's dishonesty so why bother?

Well, my dear, if you're so indignant about "chopping off the quote", then why are YOU doing that? And "new questions"? My dear, it's the same question repeated for two pages now.

Why don't you do us all a favour and say: "Honestly, I don't have a clue and am talking out of my ass here"?

I brought it up because it's a pathology based entirely on one's sexual orientation. Other mental illnesses aren't based on an attraction that is deemed immoral by society (granted, it's deemed that way for good reason for pedophilia). But there are cultures where marrying 9-year-olds is perfectly acceptable. Is every male in that society mentally ill?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2345971.stm

Weird, huh?

[Aimless]

Btw, does anyone know how much it costs to keep a pedophile locked up in prison vs. in a psychiatric institution?

[Aimless]

Look Khen, he did the crime. Just because someone spiked his brain with tumor doesn't mean one of his personalities should get off free. Off with his balls, it's the only appropriate response in the RandBlowski Codex to this illegitimate form of "cancer".

[CitizenCain]

Do you commute/reduce his potential sentence for soliciting child prostitution and possessing child pornography?

Are we allowed to acquit based on the theory that since he's harmed no one (but himself), he hasn't actually done anything wrong, yet?

And, on a related note, when you say "child" prostitution and "child" pornography, do you mean it in the legal sense of the word that makes late teens who "sext" naked pictures of themselves to their lovers guilty of federal felonies for creating and distributing child porn? (It certainly seems that way, based on the text of the book you posted... unless he solicited one of those 5 year old kids that are always working at massage parlors.)

I don't think so. While his sexual preferences aren't his fault, what he does with them is. Presumably, all pedophiles want kiddies because of some combination of genetic factors and environmental stimuli, so I can't really see the difference between the generic case and this one.

How is this fundamentally different from throwing a Texan in jail for possession of "obscene" material and "lewd and lascivious solicitation"

...

because he happens to be a gay man (possessing gay porn and soliciting gay sex) in a bible-thumping small town?

Neither one is "responsible" for his condition, nor has either one actually done any harm to anyone else, though both probably will at some point in the future (the gay man by inviting the terrible wrath of Jeebus down on all the neighbors who don't stone him to death, of course).

For me it's not about being "his fault" in the legal situation, it's about is he a danger to society, as in will he reasonably re-commit these crimes.

If that's the case, why don't we simply execute (or imprison for life) anyone who tests as medically psychotic or sociopathic? Empirical evidence suggests a near certainty that both conditions will result in a significant portion of life spent in criminal activity.

No, but under most.

Being attracted to children and acting on those impulses are two different things. He did the crime.

Sounds to me like he didn't. He wanted to act on those impulses... but from the sounds of the set up, he didn't get a chance to actually have any sexual contact with a "child" (which in this case sounds to me like it really means fully developed "teenager").

Not buying it. If I was on the jury I'd have no problem convicting.

Who cares? You've also said you'd execute someone for misdemeanor property trespass. No one's surprised that you'd jump on any opportunity to unleash your bloodlust on any poor SOB the law gives you the slightest pretense to.

Being attracted to children but never acting on that impulse is not actually illegal. We don't have thoughtcrimes. Any criminal activity is an activity they chose to do.

Sure we do, and I know we've had this discussion before. The guy doing ten years in a federal penn for Japanese "magnas" (drawings), or the multiple people in the rest of the Anglo-world convicted of possessing child pornography for possessing cartoons and other drawings... for that matter, I'll go so far as to say that criminalizing the possession of [any] pornography blurs the lines sufficiently to be classified as thoughtcrime. Australia's made recent headlines for their particularly absurd regulations on what pornography is illegal, but we all have similar legislation. Images of [x] should be illegal because [insert weak justification here], but the real reason they're banned is because we find the underlying attraction perverse and sick. It doesn't matter if it harms no one, or even if it's completely consensual for all parties involved, or even if there are any actual people involved at all... it's still outlawed, and that's because we find the thought disgusting. The only reason those actual thoughts aren't against the law is because we've yet to invent a way to record someone else's thoughts.

And I suppose it might be helpful to point out that there are two types of "pedophilia." One is a condition where an adult is attracted to a pre-pubescent child, and the other is a condition where the legal system defines everyone as a child until the moment they are 17 years, 365 days old, ignoring basic biology, psychology and even the most primitive notion of cognition. It seems that the two terms are being used interchangeably in this thread, much as they are in the real world, despite how completely counter-productive that is.

That's not to say some people shouldn't spend the rest of their lives in institutions for the "criminally insane" or are "un-rehabilitable".

Such as, for example, bloodthirsty, self-professed Christians who are itching for any flimsy excuse to blow someone's head off?

That's what I'm talking about here. It's idiotic to measure someone up to normal people's rules and laws when he is subject to a completely different set of rules due to his brain chemistry.

Unfortunately, this exact same "the brain is drastically different" defense is even more valid for sociopaths than it is for pedophiles. Sociopaths are unable to process emotion, and as such can't empathize with other people. When they're not violent, they're con-men and fraudsters who steal from and destroy countless lives before they're put in jail. When they are violent, they generally like to cut women into little pieces, and it's not a coincidence that most serial killers (and certainly the more prolific and famous ones) are sociopaths, and have brain scans revealing that the frontal cortex of their brain has very little blood-flow, and is essentially unused.

So... what of that? That it's a physical defect beyond his control or that we shouldn't apply normal rules to a decidedly abnormal biology seem to pale in comparison to the fact that the condition is untreatable, and if left unincarcerated, this person will continue destroying people's lives, just as surely as everyone else will continue to satisfy their basic biological and psychological needs.

[Dreadnaught]

Are we allowed to acquit based on the theory that since he's harmed no one (but himself), he hasn't actually done anything wrong, yet?

And, on a related note, when you say "child" prostitution and "child" pornography, do you mean it in the legal sense of the word that makes late teens who "sext" naked pictures of themselves to their lovers guilty of federal felonies for creating and distributing child porn? (It certainly seems that way, based on the text of the book you posted... unless he solicited one of those 5 year old kids that are always working at massage parlors.)

Possession of child pornography does tend to be prosecutable.

But if you read the example this was based on, there was apparently no prosecution here. I was talking more about how people weigh the potential impact of our demonstrably-unconscious mind.

[CitizenCain]

I was talking more about how people weigh the potential impact of our demonstrably-unconscious mind.

Oh, well then, we can safely ignore my desires that criminal law only be used against those who actually harm someone else, then. It's a pretty antiquated notion that no one takes seriously anymore, anyway... like liberty or personal rights.

But independent of whether we use the criminal justice system against people who've done anything wrong or not, you can make a very strong case that whether it's a conscious choice or not doesn't actually matter anyway. If people aren't held accountable for their actions, you end up with unspeakable horrors and crimes against humanity, such as "government," so to prevent such horrific abuses from being afflicted upon all of us, you have to hold the "guilty" responsible, regardless of how much of it was "their fault."

Once you get into the idea of letting people off the hook for their unconscious, where do you draw the line? It's not the murderer's fault that he had an abusive childhood and his basic sense of right and wrong was warped by horrendous abuse before he even had the ability to develop independent thought... but, so what? Does that mean he should be excused for his actions, or allowed to continue on the same course we know will lead him to harm more people? For that matter, the gangbanger who stuck up a convenience store to pay for his crack addiction really didn't have much conscious input or "free will" in the matter, and definitely didn't plan on, or want to leave 3 bodies behind... but he did just the same when the clerk tried to defend himself. Don't suppose we'll be doing anything but throwing the book at him either. Same thing with the born sociopath. It's not his fault he has a defective brain, but that hardly seems like a good enough reason to unleash him on the world to chop another 6 dozen people.

For that matter, the further down this road you go, the more reasonable "pre-crime" starts to sound. We know he's a sociopath who's going to do nothing but harm others... does that mean we should start handing out life sentences to 12 year old kids who exhibit the homicidal triad? Or for that matter, why not just hand out life sentences to anyone who gets a certain score on the Hare PCL? Or wait, are we only locking up antisocial sociopaths? What about dyssocial sociopaths? They don't have the same "need" to kill in cold blood as the antisocial sociopath, but then again, they tend toward organized crime and can have pretty impressive body counts all the same.

And then what about other mental disorders which are not necessarily correlated to criminality, but tend towards an elevated risk of violent behavior? Drunk driving's a crime, because it increases the risk of someone being hurt in a car crash. Maybe paranoid schizophrenia should be a crime too, because it increases the risk of a dissociative break with reality and a spree of psychotic violence.

And it wouldn't be a proper populist rant without thinking of the children, so what about mothers with depressive disorders? They're much more likely to drown their children in the bathtub, so should we do something about that possibility as well? I mean, it's not their fault, so we shouldn't imprison them, but maybe take away their children, for the sake of everyone's well-being.

I personally think that the law has far too many inherent double-standards, inconsistencies and outright contradictions as it stands without throwing a can of worms like this onto it. We should probably spend more time worrying about how the systems fails people who are unquestionably mentally ill before muddying up the waters even more. Look at the schizo who shot that congresswoman and killed the federal judge and the kid. Instead of saying what everyone knows - that he's out of his freaking mind and should go to a psychiatric ward immediately (and in all likelihood, indefinitely) - you've got a prosecutor (and the victim's families) crying foul over the fact that the might not be "punished" and a court-appointed attorney who's trying to weigh the ethics of allowing him to even receive treatment at all, when as soon as he's competent to stand trial, the state's going to try to execute him!

For fuck's sake, the legal system can't even figure out how to handle someone who everyone agrees is utterly insane and unfit to stand trial, so it doesn't have a chance of properly evaluating border cases like the one you're talking about.

[Lewkowski]

I never understood the reason why we can't lock up insane people forever. And insanity defense is bull shit. A sociopath doesn't have to know right from wrong in order to not commit crimes. A person can have urges and makes choices to act on them. If someone is completely irrational why give them a second chance? I wouldn't have a problem sending people to pysch wards if I knew they could never ever get out.

[Dreadnaught]

Cain, you should really read this book.

[CitizenCain]

I never understood the reason why we can't lock up insane people forever.

For the exact same reason I'm not allowed to lock you up forever... or as would actually be more my style, savagely beat you until I got bored and left to get more alcohol.

And insanity defense is bull shit. A sociopath doesn't have to know right from wrong in order to not commit crimes.

What is your obsession with "crime," Lewk? Jesus Christ was a traitor and a heretic who was executed for his admitted criminal behavior. He was such a "bad" criminal, that the people at his trial asked for a convicted murder to be pardoned, and for a generational curse to be cast upon them, rather than see Jesus walk free. And this was back when people actually believed in such things. The person you're supposed to emulate was a vocal critic of both the Law and the "lawyers" of his day and condemned those whose focus was on the strict interpretation of the Law, rather than its intent. A long-haired, socialist revolutionary who flagrantly violated the laws imposed on him, flouted social standards and was executed for His crimes is who you claim to worship as divine.

Yet, you seem to have nothing but hatred and contempt for everything he stood for and everything he did. Jesus is God and ruler of all creation, and though he was also a hippie criminal who advocated [voluntary] socialism, hung out in a gang and himself used recreational drugs (including opiates, at least once), anyone who embodies any of those same characteristics is a contemptible human who should be locked away for ever, or shot in the back of the head (depending on whether or not he's trespassing on a gun owner's property).

So, the real question I have, is what would you do with Jesus? (The actual Jesus, not the sanitized caricature of him that's one step short of being religion porn.) You'd lock God in jail and throw away the key? Or you'd just shoot Him in the back? Or not God, but anyone who embodies any of God's characteristics? Wait, aren't Christians called to be more like Jesus? Does that make you subconsciously suicidal?

How's any of that work? Please get back to me at your earliest convenience... I feel like I'm trying to untangle the Gordian Knot here, and starting to understand why the proper solution is to use one's sword instead.

Cain, you should really read this book.

I've actually started. Thankfully, on this book, the Google sample is chapter/section 1 (instead of missing random pages), so I've been able to enjoy it already despite a distinct lack of 24-hour bookstores, libraries, or a piracy scene for books that are unrelated to getting technical certifications.

[Khendraja'aro]

Unfortunately, this exact same "the brain is drastically different" defense is even more valid for sociopaths than it is for pedophiles. Sociopaths are unable to process emotion, and as such can't empathize with other people. When they're not violent, they're con-men and fraudsters who steal from and destroy countless lives before they're put in jail. When they are violent, they generally like to cut women into little pieces, and it's not a coincidence that most serial killers (and certainly the more prolific and famous ones) are sociopaths, and have brain scans revealing that the frontal cortex of their brain has very little blood-flow, and is essentially unused.

So... what of that? That it's a physical defect beyond his control or that we shouldn't apply normal rules to a decidedly abnormal biology seem to pale in comparison to the fact that the condition is untreatable, and if left unincarcerated, this person will continue destroying people's lives, just as surely as everyone else will continue to satisfy their basic biological and psychological needs.

You guys are reading the wrong things into my posts. I've never said that criminals with a mental illness shall walk away scott free.
I have said that we can't treat them the same way as normal people.

But, answer this: How would you judge the guy with a brain tumor in his head?

Addendum: Demonification of pedophiles has the problem that those guys won't actively go out and seek help.

[Dreadnaught]

I've actually started. Thankfully, on this book, the Google sample is chapter/section 1 (instead of missing random pages), so I've been able to enjoy it already despite a distinct lack of 24-hour bookstores, libraries, or a piracy scene for books that are unrelated to getting technical certifications.

Most of their eBooks are like that. The part arguing about our justice system being unable to deal with neurological reality (and our theoretically infinite potential understanding of it) is chapter 5 or so, after the sample.

[Aimless]

But people can be sentenced to psychiatric care in the US, right??

[Dreadnaught]

Possibly if they are a danger to others. But it's a fraught issue here at the balance leans towards personal choice if they aren't believed to be a danger to others.

[Aimless]

Which they may in fact be if they're pedophiles or psychotic. And then as a matter of course you can CT them or run reasonable screening tests.

[LittleFuzzy]

But people can be sentenced to psychiatric care in the US, right??

They can be, but I don't think they can generally be sentenced to "involuntary psychiatric care until you are cured." The courts are reasonably leery of indefinite sentencing lengths.

[CitizenCain]

You guys are reading the wrong things into my posts. I've never said that criminals with a mental illness shall walk away scott free.

Well, just for the record, I didn't think you were. Just trying to illustrate how little it matters what the underlying reasons for criminal behavior are, compared with the real-world consequences. And then there's the simple fact that even in the most clear cut cases, most people tend to see the insanity defense as a way for criminals to "get away with it," making it all that much harder to integrate any kind of consideration for mental health issues (or even the meta issue Dread brought up of how responsible we are for our actions) into the criminal court system. At least in this country... things may be different over there.

I have said that we can't treat them the same way as normal people.

OK, well how should we treat them, then? Go with the sociopath - incurably a danger to society and everyone around him, through no fault of his own. Unwilling and probably even incapable of changing his behavior. I just don't see how the fact that he's not normal, and really not even responsible for his condition changes anything about the fact that society needs to be protected from exposure to him.

But, answer this: How would you judge the guy with a brain tumor in his head?

Addendum: Demonification of pedophiles has the problem that those guys won't actively go out and seek help.

Well, as I said, I'd vote to acquit (tumor or no) because he hasn't actually done anything wrong (yet). I don't think that possessing pixels and attempting to engage in commerce are valid reasons to throw someone in jail. If he'd actually done something wrong, I'd probably want to see him supervised and then monitored for a good long while, by the appropriate medical professionals (rather than a wanna-be thug who failed out of being a wanna-be thug at the police academy) and forced to make financial restitution to his victim(s). Prison in general is useless solution, even more so for someone who's not at fault and can be "reformed" or cured. (And for what it's worth, that probably means I wouldn't want to see him found guilty of a crime, or branded with a scarlet letter for life, or any of the other obscene remedies available to the criminal court system.)

[RandBlade]

Jesus Christ was a traitor and a heretic who was executed for his admitted criminal behavior.

He was also a socialist, extremely left-wing and pretty much would have been a hippy nowadays. Lewk has nothing in common with Christ, he doesn't believe in a single one of Christ's teachings. Lewk is not a Christian so why would you bother to bring him up?

[Khendraja'aro]

OK, well how should we treat them, then? Go with the sociopath - incurably a danger to society and everyone around him, through no fault of his own. Unwilling and probably even incapable of changing his behavior. I just don't see how the fact that he's not normal, and really not even responsible for his condition changes anything about the fact that society needs to be protected from exposure to him.

It's not so much a matter of actually changing what they're sentenced to, but rather a change how they're viewed.

It's like the difference between doing something wrong without knowing it and doing something wrong, knowing about it but still being forced to do it regardless.
That way, when you actually are in the position to do something about that wrong procedure, there won't be much of a problem.

Largely philosophical, I admit, but then again, such things are the difference between a mob with torches and pitchforks and a proper court with judge and jury. Because that is also a difference in philosophy.

[Lewkowski]

He was also a socialist, extremely left-wing and pretty much would have been a hippy nowadays. Lewk has nothing in common with Christ, he doesn't believe in a single one of Christ's teachings. Lewk is not a Christian so why would you bother to bring him up?

Jesus believe in giving to the poor. I'm in favor of this as well. I am NOT in favor of FORCING people at the point of the gun to do so.

[Lewkowski]

For the exact same reason I'm not allowed to lock you up forever... or as would actually be more my style, savagely beat you until I got bored and left to get more alcohol.

Yes but I haven't murdered/raped/molested anyone. Or stole toothpaste.

What is your obsession with "crime," Lewk? Jesus Christ was a traitor and a heretic who was executed for his admitted criminal behavior. He was such a "bad" criminal, that the people at his trial asked for a convicted murder to be pardoned, and for a generational curse to be cast upon them, rather than see Jesus walk free. And this was back when people actually believed in such things. The person you're supposed to emulate was a vocal critic of both the Law and the "lawyers" of his day and condemned those whose focus was on the strict interpretation of the Law, rather than its intent. A long-haired, socialist revolutionary who flagrantly violated the laws imposed on him, flouted social standards and was executed for His crimes is who you claim to worship as divine.

Yes because pedophiles are being true to the spirit of the law but not the letter? Comparing pedophiles to Jesus isn't going to lead to a constructive discussion but I guess that's never your intent so whatever.

Yet, you seem to have nothing but hatred and contempt for everything he stood for and everything he did. Jesus is God and ruler of all creation, and though he was also a hippie criminal who advocated [voluntary] socialism, hung out in a gang and himself used recreational drugs (including opiates, at least once), anyone who embodies any of those same characteristics is a contemptible human who should be locked away for ever, or shot in the back of the head (depending on whether or not he's trespassing on a gun owner's property).

Voluntary socialism really can't exist. Its predicated on power being given to the state. And in regards to recreational drugs (which I support the legalization of) are you referring to wine? The connotation the term "gang" means compared to the apostles is another absurd comparison.

The simple face remains is that those that molest children shouldn't have second chances in society. Period. If that isn't blatantly obvious then there is just something wrong with you.

[RandBlade]

Jesus believe in giving to the poor. I'm in favor of this as well. I am NOT in favor of FORCING people at the point of the gun to do so.

Jesus also said Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

He also said to show mercy to those who commit crimes and that "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

A gang might be the perfect term for those that hung out with that criminal.