TheRPGSite

From CNN and the AP: (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/11/japan.porn.ap/index.html)

QuoteJapan criticized over child porn loopholes

Story Highlights
* Japan urged to ban possession of child pornography by UNICEF
* U.N. children's organization says legal loopholes threaten youngsters globally
* Child porn illegal in Japan, but possession not a crime

 TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan should ban possession of child pornography and crack down on animated films, comic books and computer games that show children being sexually exploited, UNICEF said Tuesday.

The United Nations Children's Fund said Japan's 1999 child pornography law suffers from serious loopholes that hobble law enforcement and threaten children around the world.

"Forms of child pornography that are banned in other countries but not in Japan ... are still widely available on the Internet and on the street," UNICEF said in a statement.

Japan was widely criticized for the wide availability of child pornography until it passed a special law in 1999. That law was tightened in 2004, and lawmakers are working on new measures to firm it up further.

U.S. Ambassador Thomas Schieffer, who recently published an opinion piece in a Japanese newspaper calling for a tighter law, met with Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama to urge such a crackdown.

Critics say a major flaw with the current law is that while it bans production and distribution of child pornography, it is not a crime to possess it.

"Because it is legal in Japan to possess child pornography, it is almost impossible for investigators here to obtain search warrants to confiscate and search suspects' computers," Schieffer wrote in the Jan. 31 article in the Yomiuri newspaper.

The law does also not cover images of child pornography in animated films, comic books and computer game software -- products that Japan is a major producer of.

"(As) Japan, known worldwide as an IT and software contents giant, is left uncontrolled, hundreds of thousands of children ... continue to be sexually exploited," the UNICEF statement said.

I heard that the animated child porn can actually be used to... well satisfy sexual urges of pedophiles, so that pedophile will have no reason to rape kids...

Isn't that like giving someone grain alcohol to cure their addiction to beer?

I think it's more like methadone treatments for heroin addicts.

!i!

When you see Japanese and German pr0n, you understand why we had to win the war.

Quote from: VellorianIsn't that like giving someone grain alcohol to cure their addiction to beer?

Yes, its precisely like that except that the beer could be raped, whereas the grain alcohol doesn't actually exist.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen you see Japanese and German pr0n, you understand why we had to win the war.

You have got a good point there.

RPGPundit

You know, while the term "child porn" certainly evokes distaste in me, I think there is a huge difference between actually making under-age children have sex on camera, and making fictional works about imaginary under-age children having sex.  

The former should be illegal, no doubt.  But the latter is valid free speech and creative freedom, in my opinion.  I don't approve of torture, murder, or rape any more than sexual child abuse -- but I don't have a problem with fictional portrayals of those.  I pretty regularly watch movies or read books that include under-age children having sex, sometimes with adults.  None of it is explicit enough to be called "porn" by most people, but that's a subjective judgement.  I don't think anything should be made illegal on this basis.  

Within the U.S., I am very disturbed by the baseless way that  "obscenity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity#United_States_obscenity_law) is prosecuted.  Neither obscenity nor offensiveness is mentioned in the First Amendment, yet courts continue act on the basis of invented precedent that vaguely-defined "obscenity" is not protected free speech and may be repressed at will by the government.

I'm not sure there is a line between the two.

If the work of art is encouraging fantasizing about underage girls (and boys) - then its still a problem.

Thats also one of the minor reasons that I will never be that interested in 'Anime".

One of the few bits of Anime I like is the Movie Ghost in The Shell - because it looks fairly realistic, is not a comedy, and focuses on adult characters doing their jobs. (admittedly in a Science Fiction setting and situation)

I still have not seen the TV version of it . (Stand Alone Complex ? or something like that?) So I'm not sure if that one is good or not.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarIf the work of art is encouraging fantasizing about underage girls (and boys) - then its still a problem.

I don't agree.  I don't believe in thought crimes.  People may fantasize about all sorts of things -- that's not the same as doing them.  In particular, I think it is very natural and common to be turned on by teenagers having sex -- and indeed that features pretty prominently in lots of mainstream culture.  The set of adults who are turned on by that aren't the same as those who actually act on it.  

There are tons of movies that glorify criminals of various sorts -- from dedicated revolutionaries, to suave scoundrels, to hit men for hire, to clever heist planners.  None of those are made illegal because they encourage fantasizing about crime.  

If there is a proven link between certain fantasies and real crimes, then there is a problem.  However, I'm extremely wary of such claims, though.  The same arguments have been used against D&D as well as horror movies and video games.  Even if there is a correlation on average, I still don't think that the fantasies themselves should be illegal, just discouraged by mainstream culture.  

More broadly than fantasies, people should be free to speak out even reprehensible messages.  That's what free speech means, and I believe it is absolutely vital to true democracy.  People must be free to criticize the legal and moral laws of the majority.

When I said underage - I was NOT referring to teenagers. (puh-leeze!! Zheesh!)

Have you seen some of the more blatant anime images? How about just the mild average every damn girl is in a school uniform thing???

 Thats pretty twisted right there.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarWhen I said underage - I was NOT referring to teenagers. (puh-leeze!! Zheesh!)

Have you seen some of the more blatant anime images? How about just the mild average every damn girl is in a school uniform thing???

Thats pretty twisted right there.

I've seen part of a pornographic anime which featured a bondage rape scene.  That didn't involve kids, but I'm familiar with, say, Ranma 1/2, which has a fair amount of schoolgirl nudity and panty shots.  I'm sure that there are plenty of really twisted anime images out there.  

I still don't think people should be judged by their fantasies.  Some people may find all sorts of weird things hot in their fantasies, and its none of my business.  If there are no actual people being harmed, they're free to do what they like.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, its precisely like that except that the beer could be raped, whereas the grain alcohol doesn't actually exist.

I'm just generally of the opinion that when you're addicted to something, the answer is to avoid it, in every form.  

Feeding the monster does not make the monster go away, it just makes it live, grow and get stronger.

Starving the monster may not necessarily kill it, but it will certainly weaken it and (hopefully) make it manageable.

That being said, I still hold to the firm belief that child molesters should be treated no differently than serial killers.  And if you're too squeamish to do the right thing (kill them immediately), then we can use them to help the rest of society and turn them over to the pharmaceutical companies for medical experimentation.

Quote from: jhkimI still don't think people should be judged by their fantasies.  Some people may find all sorts of weird things hot in their fantasies, and its none of my business.  If there are no actual people being harmed, they're free to do what they like.

I find that a curious attitude to have when you spend so much time on your web site talking about feminism and role-playing and link to pages where they count the images of men and women and whether they are active and passive and so on.  If fantasies are really not anyone's business and nobody is being harmed, then we shouldn't be bothered by a Gor role-playing game, games like FATAL or RaHoWa, or even a role-playing game about men who hunt down, rape, and murder women for fun, should we?  And we shouldn't care how role-playing books depict women or minorities or gays or any other group because it's all a fantasy and nobody is really getting hurt, right?

Duplicate

Quote from: KoltarHave you seen some of the more blatant anime images? How about just the mild average every damn girl is in a school uniform thing???

 Thats pretty twisted right there.

They have stores that sell used schoolgirl outfits.  They apparently charge more if they aren't washed.

And for those who think it's harmless and Japanese men don't actually do anything to real women, explain posters like this:


(http://www.lapetiteclaudine.com/archives/this%20is%20Japan%20-%20subway%20life.jpg)
(http://www.tokyoshoes.com/blog/archives/nogrop_01.gif)
(http://neilduckett.com/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/misc/perverts.jpg)
(I found more doing a search in Japanese...)
(http://www.police.pref.miyagi.jp/hp/tiikisitu/rp/tetudou1.jpg)
(http://k-tai.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2002/06/20/rw17s.jpg) (the first word is "chikan" or molester)
(http://www.aoyama-omotesandou.com/report/tiiki_imgs/08_01.gif)
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/taro/images/Chikan_No.jpg
http://frottage.narod.ru/foto/subway-manners-chikan4.jpg
http://frottage.narod.ru/foto/dcp_0453.jpg
http://frottage.narod.ru/foto/subway-manners-chikan5.jpg

Yeah, these are real posters in Japanese subways (URLs provided where they don't seem to like direct links -- from Google Images, search on "chikan" and "subway").  Note how many depict girls in schoolgirl outfits.

Oh, and let's not forget:

(http://www.sfcityscape.com/japan/railfanning/ladies_only.jpg)

Quote from: Koltarfocuses on adult characters doing their jobs.

What an exciting fellow you are.

Quote from: John MorrowI find that a curious attitude to have when you spend so much time on your web site talking about feminism and role-playing and link to pages where they count the images of men and women and whether they are active and passive and so on.  If fantasies are really not anyone's business and nobody is being harmed, then we shouldn't be bothered by a Gor role-playing game, games like FATAL or RaHoWa, or even a role-playing game about men who hunt down, rape, and murder women for fun, should we?  And we shouldn't care how role-playing books depict women or minorities or gays or any other group because it's all a fantasy and nobody is really getting hurt, right?

I would be upset about these things, and voice my opinion about being upset about these things you mention; that doesn't mean that I would have a right to call for them to be censored just because I don't like them.

If someone into writing Gor fanfiction goes out and rapes some woman, he should be prosecuted for raping a woman, he should not be prosecuted for writing Gor fanfiction, no matter how puerile and disgusting one might find it.

RPGPundit

Some of those posters seem a little outrageous. For example, the one where the guy is just idly setting the seat next to him on fire with a zippo.... Is this also common because there is a sign warning against it? How about punching strangers?

In addition, you realize high school girls wear uniforms too? And you're aware of American Pie? The Girl Next Door? And the movies about teen sex that come out more or less every summer?

The pedophilia I can't get behind, and the fanservice in some animes I find a little juvenile (the ecchi/hentai/whatever category I avoid entirely), but I think it's hypocritical to make the teen sex thing a strictly Japanese phenomenon.

Yeah, there's also horrible loli cartoons out there. But what are we going to censor the internet now? The internet is a dumptruck, not a series of tubes ;)

Quote from: VellorianI'm just generally of the opinion that when you're addicted to something, the answer is to avoid it, in every form.

Not many alcoholics in Saudi Arabia :D

Quote from: beejazzSome of those posters seem a little outrageous. For example, the one where the guy is just idly setting the seat next to him on fire with a zippo.... Is this also common because there is a sign warning against it? How about punching strangers?

Remember that after-work drinking is common.  If it's on the poster, it happens because if it didn't happen, why would they be plastering the subways full of posters telling people not to do it?  The other thing I've seen on posters is vending machine abuse.  The groping is common enough that they run women-only train cars from certain stations at certain hours and one of the guys at JIGG (Japan International Gamer's Guild) talked about his Japanese wife running in to one.  It's not a phantom problem.

Quote from: beejazzIn addition, you realize high school girls wear uniforms too? And you're aware of American Pie? The Girl Next Door? And the movies about teen sex that come out more or less every summer?

Yes.  But I wasn't aware that American Pie or The Girl Next Door had rape scenes or used actresses that looked like they were 13 or younger.

Quote from: beejazzThe pedophilia I can't get behind, and the fanservice in some animes I find a little juvenile (the ecchi/hentai/whatever category I avoid entirely), but I think it's hypocritical to make the teen sex thing a strictly Japanese phenomenon.

I'm not making it a strictly Japanese phenomenon but let's not forget the topic of the original article in this thread.  And don't forget that before that 1999 law mentioned in the article, the creation of child pornography wasn't illegal in Japan and Japan was the top source of child pornography on the Internet.  The point is that that 1999 law didn't make it illegal to possess it.  And we're not talking just high school girls but also little girls.  The little girl fetish stuff in anime as well as the tentacle rape and a generally dysfunctional and nasty attitude toward women and sex is part of a much larger package deal in Japan that doesn't always confine itself neatly to the fantasy realm, which is my point.  

Quote from: beejazzYeah, there's also horrible loli cartoons out there. But what are we going to censor the internet now? The internet is a dumptruck, not a series of tubes ;)

Yet, somehow, the Chinese manage to censor it.  That's not what I'm advocating, however, since there are other ways to deal with it.

Quote from: John MorrowThe little girl fetish stuff in anime as well as the tentacle rape and a generally dysfunctional and nasty attitude toward women and sex is part of a much larger package deal in Japan that doesn't always confine itself neatly to the fantasy realm, which is my point.  

While not denying the particular adolescent and child focus of the Japanese cartoons, I would note that lots of porn has a pretty nasty attitude towards women. "Gagging", "cum dumpster", "tamed teens" and so on, there's some really misogynistic shit out there. Unfortunately misogyny is universal.

Misogyny plus child abuse is of course worse than either one of them alone, but really only in the way that having your leg cut off at the hip is worse than having it cut off at the knee; either is shitty.

Obviously it needs to be made illegal to possess any form of child pornography.

Quote from: John MorrowYet, somehow, the Chinese manage to censor it.  That's not what I'm advocating, however, since there are other ways to deal with it.

What are you advocating then? If this is as big a deal (in the sense of ubiquity that is... it's always a big deal if some real person's getting exploited) as they say... I mean... understatement of the year would be "bummer" but it's all I can come up with at this hour.

Generally, I'm reluctant to believe in the idea that cartoons and video games put ideas in peoples' heads, but I could probably be convinced. And if cartoons on the internet are really prompting Japanese guys to go grope kids on trains then the whole thing needs to get shut down.

And Kyle... you're hella right about misogynistic porn.


Oh... and on a final note... so somebody has lit train seats on fire? That's awesome! I gotta try that some time.

Quote from: beejazzGenerally, I'm reluctant to believe in the idea that cartoons and video games put ideas in peoples' heads, but I could probably be convinced.

I wouldn't expect the stuff to put ideas in anyone's heads, but if the ideas are already there, it can encourage them.

I walk into a game store and see all the game books, that makes me want to game; if I buy a game book and read it, reading it makes me want to game even more! If I'm hungry and walk into a restaurant, I get more hungry, if I smell the food, hungrier still. So if someone fantasises about deviant stuff and then sees it online, well...

I don't think anyone or anything, generally speaking, can make anyone do anything that's not already in them. But it can sure as shit encourage it.

Maybe making kiddie porn should be like "incitement to riot" or "incitement to murder". They're saying "go for it! It's awesome!"

On the other hand, having this shit around lets us track the perverts more easily. Years ago there was a Paedophile's Association in my home state. The government and public wanted to ban it, the police said, "please allow it." See, whenever they had meetings, the police would visit, note down all the licence plates, photograph people coming in and out... They'd be very open about it so that the guys knew they were being watched. Then if it turned out the guy had a family, the police would let the family know the guy was a member, see if they'd had any problems, offer them a chance to get away. And if any kid turned up molested or disappeared, they'd pay the local association members a visit.

So if the cops can do stuff like that with computers, then that perhaps is a reason to let some of these fucked-up cartoons go through - ban them, sure, but let some slip on through by "accident."

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhile not denying the particular adolescent and child focus of the Japanese cartoons, I would note that lots of porn has a pretty nasty attitude towards women. "Gagging", "cum dumpster", "tamed teens" and so on, there's some really misogynistic shit out there. Unfortunately misogyny is universal.

Fair point, though I don't think the intensity of the misogyny is always equal.

Quote from: John MorrowFair point, though I don't think the intensity of the misogyny is always equal.

I wouldn't know, really. You'd have to do a thorough review of all the different published pr0n in each country, make up some sort of misogyny rating to put each on, and then weigh each according to how popular it is.

Sounds like rather a depressing topic for a PhD thesis.

I think it's fair to say the Japanese haven't exactly cornered the market on misogyny and violence against women and children. They just happen to make a lot of cartoons about it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI wouldn't expect the stuff to put ideas in anyone's heads, but if the ideas are already there, it can encourage them.

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much it.  And when certain things become ubiquitous, it gives them a certain air of legitimacy and acceptability that they wouldn't have if they were forced into the shadows.  There will always be creeps in this world but when being a creep is mainstream, society has a lot more of them.

There´s a Traveller adventure inside this thread:

It´s their culture (the Japanese´s)!

Who is the UNICEF to take it away from them?

I´d propose the UNICEF also bans firearms in the US. Getting raped is one thing, but getting shot is even worse, no?


Unrelated: WTF is "German Porn"?

Quote from: John MorrowYeah, I'd say that's pretty much it.  And when certain things become ubiquitous, it gives them a certain air of legitimacy and acceptability that they wouldn't have if they were forced into the shadows.  There will always be creeps in this world but when being a creep is mainstream, society has a lot more of them.

I'm all for chasing them to the shadows in the form of criticizing them and condemning them -- I just don't want fantasy equated with real crime.

Quote from: jhkimI'm all for chasing them to the shadows in the form of criticizing them and condemning them -- I just don't want fantasy equated with real crime.

Fair enough.

Meanwhile, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave:

(http://static.flickr.com/65/217225403_9a902d015b.jpg)

Quote from: jhkimI'm all for chasing them to the shadows in the form of criticizing them and condemning them -- I just don't want fantasy equated with real crime.

So simple possession of photographs of actual child abuse shouldn't be a crime?

For the possessor of the photographs, it's just a fantasy, after all.

I mean, try doing an anime giving a friendly look at Arab suicide bombers, see what happens.

As I see it, there is some shit we just shouldn't tolerate, and the law's good for that. That includes "just fantasy", when it's in a certain form, explicit and published like that.

A funny society we have in the West: we infantilise adults (blokes living at home at 30, wanting us all to be "consumers" sucking at the tit of the media), and we sexualise children. It's all a bit loopy.

Well yeah Kyle, photographs of children engaging in sex acts is child porn and is rightly illegal. As far as possesion of this hentai cartoon school girl porn - as far as I know it's not and falls into the fantasy category John is talking about.

You raise some interesting points about the porn industry, alas as long as folks have weird fantasies there will always be consenting adults willing to sell their bodies to fullfil them.

I more interested in cracking down on child prostitution. Now this is something I can get worked up about. Like actual child porn this is evil that crosess all national boundaries.

The sexualization of children takes many forms. droog's picture is one side. In my country amongst the Muslims it's covering the child up in the hijab (tudung). Non-Muslims have always found this a bit strange. The hijab is supposedly for covering up the so-called "enticing" sexuality of a woman.  So why are little girls encouraged to wear it. See where I'm going with this?

Regards,
David R

Droog,

 Even the majority of Americans thought the contests that photo is associated with were quite a bit odd.

Quote from: KoltarEven the majority of Americans thought the contests that photo is associated with were quite a bit odd.

I'm sure. But they're not banned (indeed, they're quite popular). And nobody's making sweeping statements about 'Americans' and 'child porn'.

Quote from: droogI'm sure. But they're not banned (indeed, they're quite popular). And nobody's making sweeping statements about 'Americans' and 'child porn'.

They're NOT popular - even less so , since the tabloid case involving that girl.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThey're NOT popular

Figures? Or are you pulling that out of your arse? Are they still happening?

How popular is child-porn anime in Japan?

Quote from: KoltarThey're NOT popular - even less so , since the tabloid case involving that girl.


- Ed C.

Maybe not in the North (even Cincinnati is in the North...barely), but across the Ohio and among lower-middle class  Southerners, it is pretty damn popular.  Child beauty contests are pretty damn huge down in the Deep South (and the Bible Belt...).

A quick Google search of "child beauty pageants" found 3 big ones, two in Texas and one in Illinois:

http://www.httexas.com/ (http://www.httexas.com/)
http://www.universalroyalty.com/ (http://www.universalroyalty.com/)
http://www.ildreamgirlsusa.com/ (http://www.ildreamgirlsusa.com/)

I'd like to note that, disturbingly enough the Illinois one is in Schaumburg (a NW suburb of Chicago) and the director of it lives in my HOME TOWN of New Lenox, IL (A far south 'burb of Chicago and the heart of a red, red county).  These pageants are popular and, apparently, everywhere in the US.

It is a slippery slope tho.  If cartoon depictions of illegal acts become illegal, then what about realistic depictions of illegal acts?  If those are also illegal, then you have abolished nearly the entire entertainment industry.  

And by that I mostly mean acts depicting violence, theft, etc.  If we're going to  hold "fantasy porn" to that standard, then let's hold "crime porn", "murder porn", etc to the same standard.  

Oh, and those RPGs which depict or reference killing...

Quote from: CallousIt is a slippery slope tho.  If cartoon depictions of illegal acts become illegal, then what about realistic depictions of illegal acts?  If those are also illegal, then you have abolished nearly the entire entertainment industry.  

And by that I mostly mean acts depicting violence, theft, etc.  If we're going to  hold "fantasy porn" to that standard, then let's hold "crime porn", "murder porn", etc to the same standard.  

Oh, and those RPGs which depict or reference killing...

I don't know if I've mentioned it recently, but the Japanese media apparently had a field day recently over some teen violence that closely resembled things seen in some anime at the time. The endings of Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni and School Days were canceled for a while, IIRC. Although they both got aired eventually... and one got a second season... lord knows Japan couldn't have done without the TV series about high schoolers killing each other with axes and baseball bats.

Quote from: CallousIt is a slippery slope tho.  If cartoon depictions of illegal acts become illegal, then what about realistic depictions of illegal acts?

When people start jerkin' off to 24, Rambo, or Lord of the Rings, let us know.

That's the difference. It's the halfway step. What's in someone's head is harmless, and what they physically do may be harmful. In between is masturbation. Once a heap of blokes actually, not figuratively, have their dicks in one hand and their kleenex in the other, that's when the fantasy is making the transition from "just in the head" to "acting out." That's when the thing's dangerous.

Quote from: joewolzThese pageants are popular and, apparently, everywhere in the US.

Well, I agree that they are plenty creepy.  So is the argument here that because things like that happen in the United States, too, that it's OK what happens in Japan and vice-versa?  Or is this just typical squeamishness about criticizing another culture no matter what it is (e.g., I've seen feminists defend female circumcision because they didn't want to criticize the women in other cultures who are involved in it)?  I'd rather say that the sexualization of children, particularly pre-teens, is pretty creepy no matter where it happens and regardless of the form, though I agree that actually victimizing real little girls is worse than simply fantasizing about it.

Quote from: John MorrowSo is the argument here that because things like that happen in the United States, too, that it's OK what happens in Japan and vice-versa?  

I don't see anyone here making this argument. droog's picture was just a reminder that creepy shit happens everywhere.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowSo is the argument here that because things like that happen in the United States, too, that it's OK what happens in Japan and vice-versa?

That's not the impression I got at all.  I think he was poking the blind eye in hopes that it might come into focus and see that this sort of creepiness happens pretty much everywhere, but mainfesting in different forms.

QuoteOr is this just typical squeamishness about criticizing another culture no matter what it is ... ?

Please. This is droog you're talking about. I never gotten the impression that he's squeamish about criticising anyone for anything.

!i!

Quote from: David RI don't see anyone here making this argument. droog's picture was just a reminder that creepy shit happens everywhere.

And I don't think that anyone was making the argument that it doesn't.  Why do we need a reminder?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThat's not the impression I got at all.  I think he was poking the blind eye in hopes that it might come into focus and see that this sort of creepiness happens pretty much everywhere, but mainfesting in different forms.

OK, so if we acknowledge that (and I do), what does it mean with respect to the other points being made in this discussion?  OK, so there are probably pedophiles in every country and creepy practices that sexualize children in almost every culture.  So what does that mean with respect to the production of child pornography only being stopped in Japan in the late 1990s, the possession of child pornography still being legal in Japan, or the depiction of minors (both teenagers and pre-teen) in hentai manga and anime?

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do we need a reminder?

Why don't we ?

Regards,
David R

Clearly it means that the Japanese are dirty, dirty fucks. At least by our prudish standards.

!i!

Quote from: David RWhy don't we ?

Because we're already well aware of it?

Quote from: John MorrowBecause we're already well aware of it?

Really ? You sure about that ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaClearly it means that the Japanese are dirty, dirty fucks. At least by our prudish standards.

So now one needs to be a prude to be offended by the depiction of children involved in sex acts?  So if we weren't such awful prudes, we'd see just how OK it is?

Quote from: David RReally ? You sure about that ?

Which brings us back around to my point about squeamishness about criticizing other cultures because of course we'd only do that if we didn't realize how awful our own culture was, right?

Quote from: John MorrowWhich brings us back around to my point about squeamishness about criticizing other cultures because of course we'd only do that if we didn't realize how awful our own culture was, right?

I don't know John, is this the case? Seems to me the subject matter of this particular conversation is wide enough to accomadate both American and Japanese culture. After all when criticizing another's culture, yours is fair game esp in an issue -the sexualization of children - with far reaching implications as this. I mentioned my country , why not yours?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowSo now one needs to be a prude to be offended by the depiction of children involved in sex acts?  So if we weren't such awful prudes, we'd see just how OK it is?

Absolutley.  Clearly we're sick, prudish fucks. At least by their decadent standards.

!i!

Quote from: David RI don't know John, is this the case? Seems to me the subject matter of this particular conversation is wide enough to accomadate both American and Japanese culture. After all when criticizing another's culture, yours is fair game esp in an issue -the sexualization of children - with far reaching implications as this. I mentioned my country , why not yours?

By all means start a thread on the broader topic or specifically on the problems in the United States.  I'd be happy to criticize various aspects of American culture from those "beauty pageants" to the slut-wear that major retail chains sell for little girls when it comes to the sexualization of children.  But when it's introduced into a thread specifically discussing one culture, it has an effect not unlike a stage magician moving an object around in one hand while they perform a trick in the other.  It's a way of diverting attention the to specific practices at hand.  You'll notice that people have been drawing the discussion further and further away from the original article, which talks about UNICEF is specifically singling Japan out because of lax standards with respect to real child pornography depicting real children, the production of which they only stopped (due to international pressure) in 1999.  And this goes back to the quote of mine that Malleus Arianorum uses in his signature here, "That's pretty much how post modernism works. Keep dismissing details until there is nothing left, and then declare that it meant nothing all along."  By turning attention from and ignoring the details, it's easy to dismiss things.  Bear in mind that I spent over a year living in Japan, enjoyed my time living there, and have a great deal of fondness for the country, people, and culture.  But like the racism that's still all too common in American culture, this is an element of Japanese culture that's really not worth defending.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAbsolutley.  Clearly we're sick, prudish fucks. At least by their decadent standards.

Then I'm happy to be one, just as I'm happy to be a "race traitor" as far as white supremacists are concerned.

Quote from: John MorrowThen I'm happy to be one, just as I'm happy to be a "race traitor" as far as white supremacists are concerned.

Dirty fence-straddler.

!i!

Quote from: John MorrowBy all means start a thread on the broader topic or specifically on the problems in the United States.  I'd be happy to criticize various aspects of American culture from those "beauty pageants" to the slut-wear that major retail chains sell for little girls when it comes to the sexualization of children.  But when it's introduced into a thread specifically discussing one culture, it has an effect not unlike a stage magician moving an object around in one hand while they perform a trick in the other.  It's a way of diverting attention the to specific practices at hand.  You'll notice that people have been drawing the discussion further and further away from the original article, which talks about UNICEF is specifically singling Japan out because of lax standards with respect to real child pornography depicting real children, the production of which they only stopped (due to international pressure) in 1999.  And this goes back to the quote of mine that Malleus Arianorum uses in his signature here, "That's pretty much how post modernism works. Keep dismissing details until there is nothing left, and then declare that it meant nothing all along."  By turning attention from and ignoring the details, it's easy to dismiss things.  Bear in mind that I spent over a year living in Japan, enjoyed my time living there, and have a great deal of fondness for the country, people, and culture.  But like the racism that's still all too common in American culture, this is an element of Japanese culture that's really not worth defending.

I doubt any of this has to do with postmodern sleight of hand, but rather the perception of hypocrisy which permeates any discussion where participants comment on anothers culture. When John Kim and you were discussing "fuzzy math" within the American context , nobody brought up any other culture in a meaningful way , because it was two Americans discussing their "own issues". I don't see any evidence of anyone defending the more "negative" aspects of Japanes culture by commenting on the similar problems apparent in American culture or is this a different type of rhetorical sleight of hand, to imply that drawing attention to the bigger picture is evidence of dodging the issue?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI doubt any of this has to do with postmodern sleight of hand, but rather the perception of hypocrisy which permeates any discussion where participants comment on anothers culture. When John Kim and you were discussing "fuzzy math" within the American context , nobody brought up any other culture in a meaningful way , because it was two Americans discussing their "own issues". I don't see any evidence of anyone defending the more "negative" aspects of Japanes culture by commenting on the similar problems apparent in American culture or is this a different type of rhetorical sleight of hand, to imply that drawing attention to the bigger picture is evidence of dodging the issue?

Which brings us back, yet again, to what I said: "typical squeamishness about criticizing another culture no matter what it is".  I said it was either that or making excuses for Japan.  People keep saying that's not it and then wind up saying, yeah, that is it.  Why not just say that you don't think it's appropriate to comment negatively on someone else's culture?

Quote from: John MorrowWhich brings us back, yet again, to what I said: "typical squeamishness about criticizing another culture no matter what it is".  I said it was either that or making excuses for Japan.  People keep saying that's not it and then wind up saying, yeah, that is it.  Why not just say that you don't think it's appropriate to comment negatively on someone else's culture?

I think you're seeing what you want to see, John.  Poking the eye of hypocrisy isn't "squeamishness" about criticising another culture, it's spreading the love around. As David pointed out quite clearly, no one was defending the more egregious social issues in Japan; instead, the discussion rapidly shifted from an accusation against the Japanese to consideration of the root problem, regardless of cultures or borders.

!i!

I guess nobody wants to look at the misogyny and contempt for children underlying many cultures in the world. It's easier just to bitch about cultural relativism or everyone hating America or whatever the fuck Morrow is on about.

Japan's not unique. Again I point to Western porn.  Porn is just another expression of a culture. The West has relatively liberated women, and so we get porn where women are abused and degraded; Japan has men who are more like boys and who spend so much time at work they can't develop relationships with adults, and so we get porn with infantilised women, or sexualised children.

What we're talking about is men who are unable to deal with women as equals, men who are socially inadequate. But I guess that's going someplace nobody wants to look at. Much easier to change the topic to irrelevant shit.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI think you're seeing what you want to see, John.  Poking the eye of hypocrisy isn't "squeamishness" about criticising another culture, it's spreading the love around.

:rolleyes:

What hypocrisy?  And what does it mean to "spread the love around"?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAs David pointed out quite clearly, no one was defending the more egregious social issues in Japan; instead, the discussion rapidly shifted from an accusation against the Japanese to consideration of the root problem, regardless of cultures or borders.

And what is this root problem that's being discussed, and for what problem?  And why do we need to discuss root problems "regardless of cultures or borders" or do you think that culture has no impact on things like child pornography, pedophilia, misogyny, etc.?

Quote from: John MorrowWhich brings us back, yet again, to what I said: "typical squeamishness about criticizing another culture no matter what it is".  I said it was either that or making excuses for Japan.  People keep saying that's not it and then wind up saying, yeah, that is it.  Why not just say that you don't think it's appropriate to comment negatively on someone else's culture?

I find it amusing that you, who can't help but to go on about the hypocrisy of the left, media, Democrats etc in about every political/social discussion (always straying away from the original topic, never condemning outright) on this site finds it difficult to understand where I'm coming from. I'll make it easy for you. Criticize another culture all you want, but acknowledge that your own may suffer from the same faillings.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle AaronNot many alcoholics in Saudi Arabia :D

You might be surprised.  Most of the people I met were heavy drinkers.

There just happens to be a very vibrant black market. ;)

There's also a huge difference between "one person avoiding" something and "goverment restriction to everyone".

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat we're talking about is men who are unable to deal with women as equals, men who are socially inadequate. But I guess that's going someplace nobody wants to look at. Much easier to change the topic to irrelevant shit.

I think that your observations in this thread have been either spot on or pretty near the mark, by the way.  But part of my point is that we can't talk about pornography as a reflection of culture if are forced to talk about problems without regard for cultures or borders.  And I think it's not only about men who have issues but what their respective cultures allow them to get away with both in and out of the shadows.  Before international pressure all but forced Japan to ban the production of child pornography in 1999 (9 years ago), Interpol estimated that 80% of the child pornography sites on the Internet originated in Japan.  It wasn't internal Japanese cultural pressure that stopped that.

Quote from: John MorrowYet, somehow, the Chinese manage to censor it.  That's not what I'm advocating, however, since there are other ways to deal with it.

Such as?

RPGPundit

Quote from: droogMeanwhile, in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave:

(http://static.flickr.com/65/217225403_9a902d015b.jpg)

Touche.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo simple possession of photographs of actual child abuse shouldn't be a crime?

For the possessor of the photographs, it's just a fantasy, after all.

I mean, try doing an anime giving a friendly look at Arab suicide bombers, see what happens.

As I see it, there is some shit we just shouldn't tolerate, and the law's good for that. That includes "just fantasy", when it's in a certain form, explicit and published like that.

I think there's two issues here that need to be addressed:

1. The implication that anime is somehow all about perverse sexuality, or that Japanese society itself is somehow fucked up beyond belief on this matter; this is a pretty ignorant point of view, and I'd hope everyone here could agree with that.

2. That there has to be a difference between condemning Japan for permitting actual child pornography, which is one thing; as opposed to the creation of drawings or stories with no actual children involved, which is another.  The UNICEF business seems unwilling to make that distinction.

Now, I'm no fan of either perverts or anime for that matter, I'm certainly not an "otaku", and the one and only anime I was ever a dedicated fan of was Robotech (which as I understand, hardcore anime fans don't even consider a genuine article or something).  But that said, to me the idea that artwork (using the term "art" loosely) must be censored or illegalized because it will somehow encourage someone (who WOULDN'T have otherwise done so) to commit child abuse seems as utterly moronic as the idea that "violent" video games must be censored or illegalized because they will somehow encourage someone (who wouldn't have otherwise done so) to go kill people.

Come to think of it, I'm no fan of video games either.
But this is very much a case of me not caring for or at all approving of the individuals in question who partake of this stuff, while defending their right to do so, their right to think or express what they want to so long as it doesn't result in the actual harm of a real living human being.
The idea of criminalizing expression based on the notion that it could somehow trend to have harmful effects or could somehow "lead" to crime, rather than leaving it at actually punishing the crime itself, is to me a very dangerous idea that can lead to all kinds of abuse and social repression.

Again, if you don't think that video games should be criminalized for "encouraging" violence, how can you be of the opinion that art or writing could be criminalized for "encouraging" something either (barring, perhaps, actual direct incitements to criminal activity)?

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowI think that your observations in this thread have been either spot on or pretty near the mark, by the way.  But part of my point is that we can't talk about pornography as a reflection of culture if are forced to talk about problems without regard for cultures or borders.

The particular style of it is a reflection of the culture; the nasty heart of it is universal. In West Africa they prefer genital mutilation of their women, in Pakistan throwing acid in their face. The source of each is misogyny and a social imbalance of power, joined in reasonably enthusiastically by the women, too.

I think we have to look at the source of things, rather than fussing about the particular way they happen to come out. When one man's alcoholism loses him his job and another's loses him his wife matters a lot to each man, but the source of each man's problems is his drinking. While dealing with their rejection by woman or employer is important, more important is dealing with their drinking.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd I think it's not only about men who have issues but what their respective cultures allow them to get away with both in and out of the shadows.

Certainly. Just as the particular expression of misogyny will be unique to the culture, so will be the steps you have to take to fix things up. However, we should not mistake symptom for cause; when a doctor deals with an illness, they certainly give medicine to alleviate the symptoms, but they also look at the underlying causes of the illness. That's why just banning vile porn isn't enough. We have to look at the kinds of societies we have.

This does not mean that all societies are equal in their vileness. Plainly it is better to be a child in the United States than in the Congo with a civil war going on, and better to be a woman in rural China than rural Pakistan, and so on. Nonetheless oppression of women and children and the poor is pretty much universal, and there are common causes to these and other problems.

Quote from: David RThe sexualization of children takes many forms. droog's picture is one side. In my country amongst the Muslims it's covering the child up in the hijab (tudung). Non-Muslims have always found this a bit strange. The hijab is supposedly for covering up the so-called "enticing" sexuality of a woman.  So why are little girls encouraged to wear it. See where I'm going with this?

Regards,
David R

That's also contrary to Islamic tradition: The Hijab is supposed to be worn by women, which according to Islamic tradition is when a girl begins to menstruate, and not before.

But its obviously a case of your society becoming increasingly extremist in its overreaction and fervour toward puritanism; not unlike similar things going on in western society.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen people start jerkin' off to 24, Rambo, or Lord of the Rings, let us know.

The claim of certain puritans in the United States (and elsewhere in the west) is that violent movies or video games "caused" school shootings and the like, or Ozzy Osbourne and D&D "caused" suicides. How is this any difference?

Lets face it, if some stupid fucker is planning to go apeshit in his high school because he feels picked on or isn't getting any handjobs from the cheerleader he likes, he's going to have done it whether or not he played Diablo II or listened to Marilyn Manson. People predisposed to violence are going to be violent, and will likely be drawn to "violent" media-fantasy because of their predisposition, not become violent because of the media they choose to view.

Likewise, if some stupid fucker goes off and rapes a schoolgirl, he's going to have done it whether or not he saw a bunch of little coloured squiggles depicting japanese schoolgirls in perverted situations. And again, he was drawn to the latter because of his nature, the nature was not created by the drawings he saw.

The idea that erotic literature or drawings (deviant in their sexuality or not) will "lead to" sexual criminality is as stupid as the idea some protestant sects have that dancing will "lead to" sex.

Let me put it another way: I'm quite certain that I could look at a metric fuckload of gay porn, and still wouldn't go out and have gay sex, or even become attracted to men.
Much less if they were a bunch of drawings.
Do you really think that if you looked at a bunch of drawings of japanese anime schoolgirls being raped, you'd end up going off and raping a schoolgirl?

Of course, some guys who are already planning to go off and abuse children might look at drawings or read stories to get off on it; and then go ahead and do it anyways, but it doesn't follow that they'll not have done it if only those things hadn't existed.  And personally, I'm of the conviction that if some guy wants to draw pictures or write stories about illegal acts of any kind, but doesn't ever actually go off and commit any of those acts, then its none of my fucking business.

Shit, imagine if the government got to charge with treason anyone who ever wrote revenge porn on the internet about a revolution against the current government or head of state?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle AaronI guess nobody wants to look at the misogyny and contempt for children underlying many cultures in the world. It's easier just to bitch about cultural relativism or everyone hating America or whatever the fuck Morrow is on about.

Japan's not unique. Again I point to Western porn.  Porn is just another expression of a culture. The West has relatively liberated women, and so we get porn where women are abused and degraded; Japan has men who are more like boys and who spend so much time at work they can't develop relationships with adults, and so we get porn with infantilised women, or sexualised children.

What we're talking about is men who are unable to deal with women as equals, men who are socially inadequate. But I guess that's going someplace nobody wants to look at. Much easier to change the topic to irrelevant shit.

I can't help but ask where Anglo-German fascination with whip-wielding leather mistresses or dominant schoolmatrons fits into your little international psychoanalysis?

While we're at it, what about the infamous Jewish oedipal complex?

And who the fuck even knows what Australians get off on?!  I'm pretty sure I don't want to know...

RPGPundit

Quote from: David RI find it amusing that you, who can't help but to go on about the hypocrisy of the left, media, Democrats etc in about every political/social discussion (always straying away from the original topic, never condemning outright) on this site finds it difficult to understand where I'm coming from. I'll make it easy for you. Criticize another culture all you want, but acknowledge that your own may suffer from the same faillings.

My own culture certainly suffers from failings when it comes to the sexualization of children but being reluctant to ban child pornography is not among those failings, which is why UNICEF is singling Japan out and not the United States.  

Japan did not ban the production and sale of child pornography in 1999 because of internal pressure to do so.  They banned it because of international pressure from Interpol and others to do so because they were one of the chief sources of child pornography on the Internet.  And they are showing a similar reluctance to ban the possession of child pornography, again doing so only in the face of international pressure.  Again, not a problem the United States has.  Nor any other Western nation, to my knowledge.  Which is, again, why UNICEF is singling Japan out.

Now you could certainly argue that things as bad, if not worse, happen to women and children in the United States, but do you have anything in particular in mind that's relevant?  My complaint here is not a reluctance to acknowledge that the United States has its own problems with the sexualization of children (it does, and I'd be happy to discuss them if you want to get specific) but this idea that that one must acknowledge that their own side may suffer from the same vaguely defined failings even though nobody can think of one that's comparable is a bit odd.  

Yeah, little girl "beauty pageants" are creepy and probably should be illegal (for reasons that extend beyond the sexualization of children) but I get the feeling that pedophilia isn't the goal there.  If it was, why would they dress the little girls to look like adults?  If someone is attracted to little girls, wouldn't they want them looking like a little girl, which is exactly what you'll see in the Japanese material?

Quote from: RPGPunditSuch as?

Simply making it illegal and enforce it.  International pressure got Japan to make the manufacture and sales of child pornography illegal in 1999 and they went from being the source of about 80% of the child pornography available on the Internet down to about 2%, according to one source that I looked at.  I suspect that the reason why UNICEF is after them is that because it's still legal to possess that a lot of it still gets traded in to and out of Japan.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, if you don't think that video games should be criminalized for "encouraging" violence, how can you be of the opinion that art or writing could be criminalized for "encouraging" something either (barring, perhaps, actual direct incitements to criminal activity)?

The difference is the dick in hand.

A penis in hand is more tangible and closer to the real experience of sex than a mouse click (or dice roll, for that matter) is to the real experience of violence. Masturbation is, by virtue of giving you an orgasm, a more intense experience than any computer game. Having one intense experience builds the appetite more intense experiences.

You can also consider it empirically: of all the people who own violent videogames and movies, very few actually commit acts of violence; but of all the people who own child pornography, a much larger proportion commit acts of child abuse.

Turning from the empirical to the personal, if I go to someone's house and he's watching Rambo, I don't back out of the house nervously expecting that he might do me physical harm. Is my lack of fear rational? If I go to someone's house and he's watching child pornography, I'm not likely to ask him to babysit my kid. Is that fear rational?

I don't think we're talking about prudishness or fucked-up values where violence is okay but sex is wrong; I think we're talking pretty rationally. People with violent games and movies are rarely violent; people with child pornography are much more commonly abusers.

Quote from: RPGPunditI can't help but ask where Anglo-German [...] Jewish oedipal complex? [...] Australians get off on?!

I wasn't aware I was required to submit a doctoral thesis on every issue brought up in a forum. It's just a casual conversation, for fuck's sakes.

Oh, and another point is that if possession of child pornography is legal, that will encourage people to produce it. Legal possession encourages an illegal market.

And some of it will be live action.

Viewing child pornography is not a victimless crime. Sure, in principle cartoons are victimless, but you're not going to be into the cartoons but be repelled by the live action. If you like one, you'll want the other.

And if owning it is legal, people will produce more for money. It happens already. Why make it easy for 'em?

I don't know why we're even arguing this. I feel like I got unbanned and am back on Tangency where people defend all sorts of indefensible and stupid things.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI think we have to look at the source of things, rather than fussing about the particular way they happen to come out. When one man's alcoholism loses him his job and another's loses him his wife matters a lot to each man, but the source of each man's problems is his drinking. While dealing with their rejection by woman or employer is important, more important is dealing with their drinking.

Correct.  But I think it does matter how their culture views drinking and drunken behavior.  For example, when the United States started taking drunken driving more seriously, the percentage of car accidents due to drunk driving went from about 60% down to about 40%.  Sexual harassment was more widespread when society and the law accepted it.  The first step toward change is often not accepting the problem as normal any more.

Quote from: Kyle AaronCertainly. Just as the particular expression of misogyny will be unique to the culture, so will be the steps you have to take to fix things up. However, we should not mistake symptom for cause; when a doctor deals with an illness, they certainly give medicine to alleviate the symptoms, but they also look at the underlying causes of the illness. That's why just banning vile porn isn't enough. We have to look at the kinds of societies we have.

Sure, but the symptoms can support the cause.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThis does not mean that all societies are equal in their vileness. Plainly it is better to be a child in the United States than in the Congo with a civil war going on, and better to be a woman in rural China than rural Pakistan, and so on. Nonetheless oppression of women and children and the poor is pretty much universal, and there are common causes to these and other problems.

So what causes the cause and how to you stop the cycle?

Quote from: RPGPunditLikewise, if some stupid fucker goes off and rapes a schoolgirl, he's going to have done it whether or not he saw a bunch of little coloured squiggles depicting japanese schoolgirls in perverted situations. And again, he was drawn to the latter because of his nature, the nature was not created by the drawings he saw.

So your argument is that sex crimes are entirely the product of nature and that the environment and information a person is exposed to has nothing to do with it?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOh, and another point is that if possession of child pornography is legal, that will encourage people to produce it. Legal possession encourages an illegal market.

And some of it will be live action.

Viewing child pornography is not a victimless crime. Sure, in principle cartoons are victimless, but you're not going to be into the cartoons but be repelled by the live action. If you like one, you'll want the other.

And if owning it is legal, people will produce more for money. It happens already. Why make it easy for 'em?

I don't know why we're even arguing this. I feel like I got unbanned and am back on Tangency where people defend all sorts of indefensible and stupid things.

Again, its a question of basic human rights.

Children have a right not to be abused. So obviously, any production of pornography involving real children would be a crime.
Ok; that issue is settled, no one is arguing against it.

Meanwhile, people have a right to think or express whatever the fuck they want so long as they do not actually commit any criminal act toward another human being, or directly and implicitly advocate such an act.

How this affects me is in that if you start criminalizing either thought or expression, its only a matter of time before someone decides to criminalize something I'm thinking or expressing. You too.

Again, your sentimentality aside, there's NOTHING different from the argument of criminalizing non-real drawings or fiction, and the argument of banning video games or RPGs because some dude might start hacking his friends & family to death with a knife.
I'm not saying you can't think that the dude who's whacking off to schoolgirl-anime is disgusting, nor am I saying you should think of him as an ideal candidate for babysitting.
Likewise, if I found out some guy spent hours watching extremely violent movies and had a bunch of soldier of fortune stuff along with a bunch of fiction about rising up and overthrowing the government, I probably wouldn't want him to be my postal worker. Or my kids' teacher.

Both of the examples above are of potentially dangerous wankers. Great. But they're not criminals, not until they attempt to DO something.  Thinking perverse thoughts cannot be a crime anymore than thinking violent thoughts can be a crime.  Because the second you criminalize it you will have people who have a very different definition of what they consider "perverse" than you wanting to persecute other people.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowSo your argument is that sex crimes are entirely the product of nature and that the environment and information a person is exposed to has nothing to do with it?

You consider yourself a libertarian, and you'd really want to put someone behind bars for something that in and of itself harms no one, essentially imprisoning them for their thoughts?

RPGPundit

PS: and while some kinds of environment might affect sex crimes, I think it'd be far more likely that someone would end up abusing a child because they were abused as a child, or because of some kind of fucked up psychological incident in their life, rather than because they saw some kind of tentacle-rape schoolgirl thingy on 4chan.
I mean jesus fuck, if everyone who's ever looked at those images is going to commit child abuse, we're all pretty well doomed anyways.
You guys were talking about symptoms and underlying causes earlier; well, this is pretty fucking clearly a symptom to me, if it leads to actual crime.   A normal person would not become a child rapist because of anime any more than a normal person would become a mass murderer because he watched a TV show about Jack the Ripper.

Quote from: John MorrowMy own culture certainly suffers from failings when it comes to the sexualization of children but being reluctant to ban child pornography is not among those failings, which is why UNICEF is singling Japan out and not the United States.  

Japan did not ban the production and sale of child pornography in 1999 because of internal pressure to do so.  They banned it because of international pressure from Interpol and others to do so because they were one of the chief sources of child pornography on the Internet.  And they are showing a similar reluctance to ban the possession of child pornography, again doing so only in the face of international pressure.  Again, not a problem the United States has.  Nor any other Western nation, to my knowledge.  Which is, again, why UNICEF is singling Japan out.

Yes and if you bothered reading any of my posts you would realize that I agreed that child pornography should be banned everywhere. (Point in the OP discussed and resolved) As far as the cartoon shit is concerned, I don't think so.

Quote.... but this idea that that one must acknowledge that their own side may suffer from the same vaguely defined failings even though nobody can think of one that's comparable is a bit odd.

I would say that these little girl beauty pageants are worse than anime porn. In the flesh for all to see. No imagination required. These objects (little girls) seem more accessible to these predators. Who knows, if they can't get these girls, others may suffice.

QuoteYeah, little girl "beauty pageants" are creepy and probably should be illegal (for reasons that extend beyond the sexualization of children) but I get the feeling that pedophilia isn't the goal there.  If it was, why would they dress the little girls to look like adults?  If someone is attracted to little girls, wouldn't they want them looking like a little girl, which is exactly what you'll see in the Japanese material?

Oh I don't think pedophilia is the goal maybe just the logical consequence. I'm sure there are tapes of these girls being passed around. From what I've read pedophiles don't consider what they are doing wrong because they believe that children welcome their advances. Sexualizing them further acts as an enticement , don't you think? I mean, I can't think of any reason to sexualize kids.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's also contrary to Islamic tradition: The Hijab is supposed to be worn by women, which according to Islamic tradition is when a girl begins to menstruate, and not before.

But its obviously a case of your society becoming increasingly extremist in its overreaction and fervour toward puritanism; not unlike similar things going on in western society.

Exactly. And I know I've said this before, but Wahhabism is the culprit here. Shit like this started happening in the late 70's ....

Regards,
David R

Let's calibrate our comparisons here.

The counterpoint to "fantasizing over child porn" is not "pretending to liberate video game France from video game Nazis." The acts depicted in child porn are the absolute worse thing imaginable within the sexual realm, so whatever we compare child porn to something different in RPGs or any other medium, the crime must have a coresponding gravitas or it's just equivocation.

Pretending to save Hamlat from elemental evil =/= Pretending to rape kids.

DOES NOT EQUAL!

Pretending to murder everyone in the villiage of Hamlat? That's a little closer. You might ask: should free speach protect hypothetical videogames like "Final Solution: Hitler's wetdream?"

Or hell! Why not equivicate like you got balls! Compare Child Porn to Child Porn. What child porn RPG deserves free speach? What pok'e-child-rape cartoon, videogame or CCG deserves to be protected from the mean UNICEF? And just for the sake of argument, lets say that the jackbooted police destroy all the child porn, why would you or any of us be entitled, (in the same sense that we are entitled to free speach) in what way are any of us entitled to re-introduce child porn into such a hypothetical utopia?

So what if everyone who sees child porn doesn't rape a child? Child porn in and of itself is wrong. I don't want my kids in child porn. I don't want kids who look like my kids in child porn. I don't want pictures of my children with sex and rape drawn over their modest clothing. I don't want cartoon versions of my children in child porn. I don't want people writing fictional stories about my children in child porn. I don't want them carving statues, or sculpting giant parade balloons of raped children. No! No child porn!

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumPretending to murder everyone in the villiage of Hamlat? That's a little closer. You might ask: should free speach protect hypothetical videogames like "Final Solution: Hitler's wetdream?"

Or hell! Why not equivicate like you got balls! Compare Child Porn to Child Porn. What child porn RPG deserves free speach? What pok'e-child-rape cartoon, videogame or CCG deserves to be protected from the mean UNICEF? And just for the sake of argument, lets say that the jackbooted police destroy all the child porn, why would you or any of us be entitled, (in the same sense that we are entitled to free speach) in what way are any of us entitled to re-introduce child porn into such a hypothetical utopia?

We are entitled by the principle of free speech.  That means I support others' right to write or draw works that are offensive to people including myself.  And yes, this includes real neo-nazis writing, drawing, or programming works in defense of Hitler; or Klu Klux Klan members making their own works; or NAMBLA making works advocating reducing the age of consent for that matter.  

I think the view is expressed fairly well in Justice Douglas' dissent of the 1973 "Miller vs. California" ruling, where the censorship of offensive pornographic materials was upheld.  

QuoteThe idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are "offensive" to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed "to invite dispute," to induce "a condition of unrest," to "create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are," and even to stir "people to anger." The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are "offensive" to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to "offensive" as well as to "staid" people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard "offensive" gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment - and solely because of it - speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be "offensive" to some.

Apropos of tabletop RPGs, I think a good case is "Racial Holy War" by Rev. Kenneth Molyneaux, which is an utterly represensible work.  Yet I do not think that the government should be allowed to ban it.  The conclusion of the game goes:

QuoteThe primary purpose of Racial Holy War is to provide entertainment to those loyal to the White Race. It as an experience where our dedicated White Warriors can do like many of us want to--slaughter the foul enemies of our people who are destroying our race. I therefore hope that it does allow our comrades to crush our enemies.

The world created in Racial Holy War is one of strife and mayhem where the White Warriors fight to bring about a glorious White Empire. If the laws of this realm do not conform to the tastes of some, then they can obviously change them. Someone might not like this or that rule, so change or get rid of this or that rule. The important aspect is to have fun.

Input is very welcome and changes to the game are very possible. Any improvements to the game would also be optional and up to the players playing. Of course for those who play strictly by the rules, then this is fine as that is what the rules are there for. In conclusion, have fun building a Whiter, Brighter World! RAHOWA!

Quote from: John Morrow:rolleyes:

What hypocrisy?  And what does it mean to "spread the love around"?

For crying out loud, John.  You're a smart fellow.  You should know what I'm talking about.  Much as you want to believe otherwise, no one here is trying to subvert the conversation with the dreaded Liberal Cultural Relativism.  No one is squeamish about pointing out some messed up things about contemporary Japanese culture, and no one is making excuses for them. The phenomenon you're seeing is that people are finding the more general topic of the sexualisation of children, regardless of where it occurs, much more compelling and relevant.

Is that so hard to see?

!i!

Really children over 12 have always been sexual and thus can't actually be sexualized.

The human hormonal and reproductive system has never read the law nor can it on the whole be brought to account under the law.

People might not be able to chose what they're attracted to but they can focus and direct it.  Pornography is one way of doing it.

What society is trying to do is impose responsibility on the actions of adults and older children.  Sadly responsible and adult don't go together nearly as much as they appear next to each other.  Else we wouldn't need half of the rules our societies run on.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou consider yourself a libertarian, and you'd really want to put someone behind bars for something that in and of itself harms no one, essentially imprisoning them for their thoughts?

Actually, I've repeatedly said that I'm not a libertarian.  One of my main complaints about libertarianism is the idea that we can put neat lines around what harms others.

Let me put it this way...

Do you support laws against drunk driving that fine, imprison, and/or take driving rights away from a person who has not actually gotten into an accident or hurt anyone else yet (thus putting them behind bars "for something that in and of itself harms no one") or should the law wait until they actually get into an accident and hurt someone before they act?

Pedophiles, sexual predators, and serial killers often don't seem to spring forth into the world as full-blown menaces to others.  And for someone who rants about how the toleration of lawn-crappers can ruin a hobby, what's the benefit of tolerating this sort of material?

Quote from: RPGPunditPS: and while some kinds of environment might affect sex crimes, I think it'd be far more likely that someone would end up abusing a child because they were abused as a child, or because of some kind of fucked up psychological incident in their life, rather than because they saw some kind of tentacle-rape schoolgirl thingy on 4chan.

Sure, but seeing that sort of pornography can tip a person who has been an abused into becoming an abuser, just as cruelty toward animals can lead to a person becoming a serial killer.  

Does it drive most people who don't already have problems to do horrible things?  Probably not.  But let's go back to the drunken driving example.

I suspect that plenty of people frequently drive while legally drunk without getting into accidents or hurting anyone.  in fact, I know of quite a few people who have and never got into an accident.  Quite a few people also probably do so innocently because they don't feel drunk and don't realize that they are legally drunk.  So why do they ban drunken driving?  Because the people who have problems with repeated drunken driving are often those with alcohol problems and when they do get into accidents, they kill people.  And being arrested and losing their driving privileges before they actually hurt someone can encourage a person with alcohol problems to seek help.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean jesus fuck, if everyone who's ever looked at those images is going to commit child abuse, we're all pretty well doomed anyways.

The Internet: Home of the Excluded Middle Argument

Quote from: RPGPunditYou guys were talking about symptoms and underlying causes earlier; well, this is pretty fucking clearly a symptom to me, if it leads to actual crime.   A normal person would not become a child rapist because of anime any more than a normal person would become a mass murderer because he watched a TV show about Jack the Ripper.

No, but a person with an unhealthy sexual interest in children might be encouraged by such material (see Kyle's point about the physical aspect), much as the potential serial killer can get encouraged by the thrill they get from killing animals.  

And let me ask you this.  Do you know of any well-adjusted adults that don't have an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children eager to buy and watch such material beyond, perhaps, a "yeah I saw that once" act of transgression, or is the major market for this material the people with an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children?

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumLet's calibrate our comparisons here.

The counterpoint to "fantasizing over child porn" is not "pretending to liberate video game France from video game Nazis." The acts depicted in child porn are the absolute worse thing imaginable within the sexual realm, so whatever we compare child porn to something different in RPGs or any other medium, the crime must have a coresponding gravitas or it's just equivocation.

That's fairly disingenuous of you, and a tactical blunder on your part, you should have known that I would point out that there are plenty of violent video games about running over old ladies in the street or mindless slaughter that have no such noble goals as "freeing france from the nazis".

QuotePretending to save Hamlat from elemental evil =/= Pretending to rape kids.

DOES NOT EQUAL!

Clearly. Now what's your fucking point?

Because if its that we should publically chastize those human losers who fantasize about raping kids, or say, those game designers who design RPGs that fantasize about neck-raping cabin boys, as you'll recall I DID publically chastize, then I'm all on board with you.

If you think that Vince Baker is a fucking idiot for designing an RPG about raping cabin boys, I'm with you, 100%.
If you think Vince Baker should not be allowed the right to design an RPG about raping cabin boys; then you and I no longer agree.
If you think Vince Baker should be put in prison for writing an RPG about raping cabin boys, which is indeed what you appear to be suggesting here, then I think you're a fucking idiot.

QuoteOr hell! Why not equivicate like you got balls! Compare Child Porn to Child Porn. What child porn RPG deserves free speach?

Unfortunately, because its uncomfortable for us, every single fucking one of them, so long as they do not directly incite to real life rape; and even in that case I would think that would be more of a civil issue than a criminal one.

QuoteAnd just for the sake of argument, lets say that the jackbooted police destroy all the child porn, why would you or any of us be entitled, (in the same sense that we are entitled to free speach[/B]) in what way are any of us entitled to re-introduce child porn into such a hypothetical utopia?

Ah, now here's where we see the fundamental issue: you don't really believe we have an inalienable right to free speech do you? You're a fanatical catholic, and one of Catholicism's fundamental principles is that human beings do NOT have a right to say or express anything they want to; that's why they spent a good 500 years fighting against the rise of democracy tooth and fucking nail, seeing the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason as the worst disaster to befall mankind (or really, them) since the dawn of christendom.  Because Catholic dogma is all about the control of ideas, isn't it? You can't really be a Catholic and believe in absolute freedom of speech. You aren't free to speak heresy, after all.

QuoteSo what if everyone who sees child porn doesn't rape a child? Child porn in and of itself is wrong. I don't want my kids in child porn. I don't want kids who look like my kids in child porn. I don't want pictures of my children with sex and rape drawn over their modest clothing. I don't want cartoon versions of my children in child porn. I don't want people writing fictional stories about my children in child porn. I don't want them carving statues, or sculpting giant parade balloons of raped children. No! No child porn!

Yes, I can see that you've got some very strong emotionally-driven opinions about the subject. Now, do you also want people to be able to put you in prison for writing catholic tracts? Because this is fundamentally the exact same liberty we're talking about: the freedom of expression. You can't take it away in certain cases and not weaken it as a whole.

Its an fucking INALIENABLE right; I may despise what some people choose to do with it, but for the sake of society as a whole, we have to defend everyone's right to do it. Or we all end up back in the days of the motherfucking "Holy" Inquisition.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFor crying out loud, John.  You're a smart fellow.  You should know what I'm talking about.

No, actually I don't, so why didn't you answer the question.  What did you mean by "spreading the love around"?  That seems to be a pretty odd turn of phrase to me in this context.  

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe phenomenon you're seeing is that people are finding the more general topic of the sexualisation of children, regardless of where it occurs, much more compelling and relevant.

Is that so hard to see?

When they speak clearly about what they mean and explain the relevance like Kyle has (and like David R did when he originally raised the hajib), not at all.  But I do think you should also recognize skipping to the assumption that this is a broader problem and that the distinctly Japanese elements are largely irrelevant and that specific cultures have little or no influence on it is, itself, a multiculturalist assumption.

Quote from: John MorrowActually, I've repeatedly said that I'm not a libertarian.  One of my main complaints about libertarianism is the idea that we can put neat lines around what harms others.

Let me put it this way...

Do you support laws against drunk driving that fine, imprison, and/or take driving rights away from a person who has not actually gotten into an accident or hurt anyone else yet (thus putting them behind bars "for something that in and of itself harms no one") or should the law wait until they actually get into an accident and hurt someone before they act?

Drunken driving is something that puts the lives of others into clear and immediate danger. Its not the same.  
To compare that to someone writing about rape, it'd be closer to say something like "should someone who  is drinking at a bar be arrested because he might end up drunk driving?"

QuotePedophiles, sexual predators, and serial killers often don't seem to spring forth into the world as full-blown menaces to others.  And for someone who rants about how the toleration of lawn-crappers can ruin a hobby, what's the benefit of tolerating this sort of material?

I'm not talking about tolerating it. I've often ranted about the fucking furries, the otakus on 4chan, and all the general lawncrapper-esque social maladjusted aspergers fuckup behaviour, quite clearly demonstrating how intolerant I am of this little corner of "geek culture".
But there's a huge and wide berth of space between "not tolerating" and "rounding up and imprisoning". We can socially chastize without criminalizing. Antisocial behaviour can be looked down upon without feeling the need to outlaw private behaviour or even thoughts.

QuoteSure, but seeing that sort of pornography can tip a person who has been an abused into becoming an abuser, just as cruelty toward animals can lead to a person becoming a serial killer.  

Look, I'm not sure whether I buy that argument or not, I'm not an expert and have read no studies; I have no particular reason not to believe it, though.
Even so, if you want to argue that some of these guys might belong in a mental hospital; well, that's fine. Or at the very least going to a therapist or something, sure.
But sending them to prison for this and ONLY this would be exactly the same as sending someone to prison for cruelty to animals for writing an essay about kicking a cat; or sending someone to the electric chair for murder for having written a novel where a murder occurs.
You aren't thinking logically about this; you and those on your side are just Maude Flanders, running around waving your arms screaming "Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!" as though "the children" justifies imposing thought control on our society.  The "won't somebody think of the children?!" argument has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of government in history.

QuoteAnd let me ask you this.  Do you know of any well-adjusted adults that don't have an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children eager to buy and watch such material beyond, perhaps, a "yeah I saw that once" act of transgression, or is the major market for this material the people with an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children?

Well again, if the various online "Chan" networks (4chan, anonib, etc) are any indication, if everyone who views that stuff there is a pedophile that will abuse a child because they saw it, we're in for an unprecedented wave of sexual abuse like man has never seen before, and God help us all. :rolleyes:

People look at a lot of stupid shit on the internet, because they're idiots.
So to answer your question: yes, I know of plenty of idiots who I don't think are child rapists (or rapists in the making) but who semi-regularly end up seeing this stuff, maybe even posting it, because they think its funny; again, because they're idiots, on the internet.

RPGPundit

edited to add: I mean jesus fuck, look at the whole "Pedobear" phenomenon.. .what the fuck is that shit?!! Is it a kind of sexualization of children, or is it humourous satire?  I certainly don't believe that everyone who's ever designed a Pedobear photoshop is a pedophile, never mind a child rapist who just hasn't gotten around to it yet; but the photoshops of pedobear often involve real photos of underaged girls, albeit without nudity. Still, they clearly imply lewd suggestiveness, and theoretically some random child rapist could use an image with pedobear on it to jerk off.  Would that then make it a criminal act? Should everyone who's ever seen a pedobear image on their computer go to jail (because that would now include me, unfortunately), or only the people who hosted it on networks like 4chan? What if someone posted it without the hosts approval? Or what if he said he didn't approve of that post, and took it down when it was posted, but you strongly suspected that he was actually inciting people to post such images?

I mean if you start down this road of criminalization WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU STOP?

When it comes down to it, fuckers who'll actually rape a child might whack off to anything; I'm sure that they'd only be whacking off to drawings if real child porn was unavailable, and if drawings weren't available I'd bet they'd whack off to disney movies and the kids' section of the sears catalogue.  It doesn't mean that anyone who's ever owned a disney film or a sears catalogue should go to prison.

Are these getting banned too?

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/rvilliers/Misc/b63be7ba.gif)

Quote from: David RYes and if you bothered reading any of my posts you would realize that I agreed that child pornography should be banned everywhere. (Point in the OP discussed and resolved) As far as the cartoon shit is concerned, I don't think so.

Part of the point of the OP included the cartoons, which I don't think is resolved.  Nor do I think it's resolved that the other issues being raised are all related to the same underlying issues except in the broad sense that people have messed up ideas about children.

Quote from: David RI would say that these little girl beauty pageants are worse than anime porn. In the flesh for all to see. No imagination required. These objects (little girls) seem more accessible to these predators. Who knows, if they can't get these girls, others may suffice.

My understanding of the psychology around them is that its more about parents competing through their children than anything that would attract pedophiles, but I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.  Beyond the creepiness, I think the bigger problem is what the parents put the little girls through to compete.  Similarly, I don't see the psychology behind having little girls wearing the hajib as sexualizing them but as an issue of control but, again, I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

I've never seen one of those "beauty pageants" but I have run into Japanese animated and manga pornography involving little girls (including really little girls), even without looking for it, both while living in Japan and among anime and manga fans in the United States.  Maybe if I lived in a place where those pageants were big, they would seem like more urgent problems to me.

Quote from: David ROh I don't think pedophilia is the goal maybe just the logical consequence. I'm sure there are tapes of these girls being passed around. From what I've read pedophiles don't consider what they are doing wrong because they believe that children welcome their advances. Sexualizing them further acts as an enticement , don't you think? I mean, I can't think of any reason to sexualize kids.

What I think is missing from that chain of reasoning is consideration of what pedophiles are attracted to.  Those "beauty pageants" do sexualize children in a way by making them look like little adults, which is why they seem creepy to people who aren't pedophiles.  But I would think that pedophiles would want children that look like children, not creepy little adults which is why you also get material that makes adult women look like little girls.  I could certainly be wrong about that, though.

Quote from: JongWKAre these getting banned too?

I think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

Quote from: David JohansenPeople might not be able to chose what they're attracted to but they can focus and direct it.  Pornography is one way of doing it.

Is there evidence that it works rather than making the problem worse?

Quote from: John MorrowIs there evidence that it works rather than making the problem worse?

Hey, I know that if I were to jerk off to some porn it wouldn't make me any more likely to go off and pick up a woman, it might even make me less likely to.

I don't have any reason in particular to believe that it would be any different with pedophiles.
Is there any concrete evidence from a source that isn't already biased against pornography that would suggest that it would make the problem worse?
I don't know if I buy the "it makes things better" argument either, but I think that "it makes things worse" is no argument by which to criminalize images or writings that are entirely the product of imagination and involve no real people.

Note: nor does "it makes things better" in ANY way constitute a good argument for making real child porn legal, of course, because a child has already been harmed in the making of it.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowI think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

So what would happen next? Should the government go after Barbie dolls too?

Quote from: John MorrowI think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

Just to clarify, what's the illustration of the American problem here? The prematurely sexualised image of the cunt-faced Bratz doll? Or the desire to ban something that should fall under the aegis of parental authority and general social disapporval?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditDrunken driving is something that puts the lives of others into clear and immediate danger. Its not the same.  
To compare that to someone writing about rape, it'd be closer to say something like "should someone who  is drinking at a bar be arrested because he might end up drunk driving?"

My point being that the line isn't "something that in and of itself harms no one" but also includes something that may stand a chance of harming someone, so the issue is one of haggling over reasonable odds and needs, not absolutes.

I'm not talking about writing about rape.  I'm talking about things that meet the legal definition of obscenity (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm):

   For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm not talking about tolerating it. I've often ranted about the fucking furries, the otakus on 4chan, and all the general lawncrapper-esque social maladjusted aspergers fuckup behaviour, quite clearly demonstrating how intolerant I am of this little corner of "geek culture".

And how has that been working to change "geek culture"?  Getting better or worse by your assessment?

Quote from: RPGPunditBut there's a huge and wide berth of space between "not tolerating" and "rounding up and imprisoning". We can socially chastize without criminalizing. Antisocial behaviour can be looked down upon without feeling the need to outlaw private behaviour or even thoughts.

If that private behavior translates into or migrates into public behavior, then I think it's an issue.  A great deal here seems to depend on whether the consumption of such material is likely to change a person's ideas and ultimately behavior or not and whether there is any positive purpose for protecting the material.

Quote from: RPGPunditLook, I'm not sure whether I buy that argument or not, I'm not an expert and have read no studies; I have no particular reason not to believe it, though.

And if you did?  Hypothetically, if it could be shown that such material, even in animated form, encouraged people to develop sexual attractions toward children and ultimately molest them, would you think outlawing such material would be warranted?

Quote from: RPGPunditEven so, if you want to argue that some of these guys might belong in a mental hospital; well, that's fine. Or at the very least going to a therapist or something, sure.
But sending them to prison for this and ONLY this would be exactly the same as sending someone to prison for cruelty to animals for writing an essay about kicking a cat; or sending someone to the electric chair for murder for having written a novel where a murder occurs.

If you want to debate the punishment, that's fine, and I might even agree with you.  I also think that there should be more safeguards for people who innocently run afoul of these laws (e.g., the person who downloads pictures of girls who look legal but aren't, accidentally surf to a page full of child pornography so it gets caught in their browser cache, have sex with a girl who claims to be 20 and looks it but is really only 14, etc.).  I'm not claiming that the punishment should be the equivalent of actually molesting a child but I think that punishment is a secondary issue.  

Further, I'm not talking about visual depictions of such acts, sold in the public marketplace, for purposes eluded to by Kyle, not someone writing an essay or any material that doesn't meet the standard of obscenity.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou aren't thinking logically about this; you and those on your side are just Maude Flanders, running around waving your arms screaming "Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!" as though "the children" justifies imposing thought control on our society.  The "won't somebody think of the children?!" argument has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of government in history.

Nope.  I'm looking at material that is obscene.  It "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" and I don't feel particularly obliged to protect material that has no imaginable merit.  And before you make a slippery-slope absolutist free speech argument at me, I'm going to point out that all Western nations, to my knowledge, have restricted speech whether it's Japanese laws about showing genitalia, German laws against Nazi symbolism, British laws about libel and blasphemy, American judgments about fighting words and campaign advertising laws, and so on.  The truth is that a lot of speech is restricted in practice around the world without an unstoppable slide down a slippery slope, and I could argue that a lot of the free speech that is restricted has more value to argue that it should be protected than the material in question in this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell again, if the various online "Chan" networks (4chan, anonib, etc) are any indication, if everyone who views that stuff there is a pedophile that will abuse a child because they saw it, we're in for an unprecedented wave of sexual abuse like man has never seen before, and God help us all. :rolleyes:

Not my argument.  But let me put it this way.  What harm would it do to the people in such places who are not pedophiles if they are obliged to avoid such material because it's illegal?  Does it hurt those networks and the people on them that they are prohibited from posting or looking at real child pornography?

Quote from: RPGPunditPeople look at a lot of stupid shit on the internet, because they're idiots.

Sure.  They aren't allowed to look at child pornography without concern about running afoul of the law.  What changes if animated child pornography is added to what's not permitted?  From the perspective of distribution, consumption, and enforcement, what makes the animated stuff different?  

Quote from: RPGPunditSo to answer your question: yes, I know of plenty of idiots who I don't think are child rapists (or rapists in the making) but who semi-regularly end up seeing this stuff, maybe even posting it, because they think its funny; again, because they're idiots, on the internet.

Do those idiots manage to avoid real child pornography?  If they can manage that, then they could manage to avoid the animated stuff, too.

Quote from: RPGPunditedited to add: I mean jesus fuck, look at the whole "Pedobear" phenomenon.. .what the fuck is that shit?!!

I have no idea what this is and I'm not about to Google it to find out.

Quote from: RPGPunditWould that then make it a criminal act? Should everyone who's ever seen a pedobear image on their computer go to jail (because that would now include me, unfortunately), or only the people who hosted it on networks like 4chan? What if someone posted it without the hosts approval? Or what if he said he didn't approve of that post, and took it down when it was posted, but you strongly suspected that he was actually inciting people to post such images?

How do they answer all of these questions for real child pornography?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean if you start down this road of criminalization WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU STOP?

Where does any other legislation stop?  If you haven't noticed, the slippery slope has been tending toward less restrictions for decades and a reversal of that slide does not inherently lead to a slide toward Big Brother.  That's why a democratic system of government is important.  Yes, the United States banned alcohol by Constitutional amendment and after discovering that they'd gone to far, they overturned that amendment with another one.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen it comes down to it, fuckers who'll actually rape a child might whack off to anything; I'm sure that they'd only be whacking off to drawings if real child porn was unavailable, and if drawings weren't available I'd bet they'd whack off to disney movies and the kids' section of the sears catalogue.  It doesn't mean that anyone who's ever owned a disney film or a sears catalogue should go to prison.

So, again, you think that people either are or aren't pedophiles, regardless of what sort of culture of visual material they are exposed to?

Quote from: JongWKSo what would happen next? Should the government go after Barbie dolls too?

Are Barbie dolls obscene?  Is their only possible use to shock or encourage pedophilia?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaJust to clarify, what's the illustration of the American problem here? The prematurely sexualised image of the cunt-faced Bratz doll? Or the desire to ban something that should fall under the aegis of parental authority and general social disapporval?

The American problem is treating little girls like adults and sexualizing them accordingly, thus the former.  I suppose you could argue that the latter is an American problem, too, though.

I asked because, up-thread a ways, you were suggesting that child beauty pageants be made illegal. I thought it was a curious position for you to take, given your political inclinations.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, I know that if I were to jerk off to some porn it wouldn't make me any more likely to go off and pick up a woman, it might even make me less likely to.

And there are people who can drink and never become alcoholics, people who can use drugs without ever becoming a drug addict, and quit smoking without much effort at all.  That doesn't mean that all people react the same way.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't have any reason in particular to believe that it would be any different with pedophiles.

I do.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there any concrete evidence from a source that isn't already biased against pornography that would suggest that it would make the problem worse?

Doing any sort of objective research on pedophiles is difficult for obvious reasons.  But I suggest looking at police profiles of pedophiles and their use of images of children such as this one (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/3.html).

I did find this study (http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=weblog&id=112&wlid=6&cn=98) that shows "statistically that a predilection for viewing child porn is closely associated with pedophilia" and that "subjects convicted of viewing child porn but not previously convicted of any actual child offenses were almost three times as aroused by child porn photos as actual convicted pedophiles".  I'm not really sure how they could ethically go a step further and show that such images cause pedophilia or make it worse.

While doing some Google searches to see if I could find anything, I found discussions of another angle I hadn't considered that I'd like to point out.  Pedophiles can use pornography as a way to encourage children into sexual acts.  Cartoons of children having sex with adults seems fairly ready-made for that sort of purpose, doesn't it?

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't know if I buy the "it makes things better" argument either, but I think that "it makes things worse" is no argument by which to criminalize images or writings that are entirely the product of imagination and involve no real people.

It's not simply that it makes things worse.  It's that it serves no other useful purpose.  There is no respectable use for the stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditNote: nor does "it makes things better" in ANY way constitute a good argument for making real child porn legal, of course, because a child has already been harmed in the making of it.

Well, the argument was about using cartoons so I was assuming this was a given.

Quote from: John MorrowPart of the point of the OP included the cartoons, which I don't think is resolved.  Nor do I think it's resolved that the other issues being raised are all related to the same underlying issues except in the broad sense that people have messed up ideas about children.

What exactly are these underlying issues if not people having messed up ideas about children?

QuoteMy understanding of the psychology around them is that its more about parents competing through their children than anything that would attract pedophiles, but I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.  Beyond the creepiness, I think the bigger problem is what the parents put the little girls through to compete.  Similarly, I don't see the psychology behind having little girls wearing the hajib as sexualizing them but as an issue of control but, again, I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

Like I said, I don't think the goal is pedophilia. I do think from what we do know of pedophiles who function within very normal (mainstream) enviroments - sports activities, religious org etc - it's not illogical to assume that they would find an activity such as this, which does sexualize children, easy to operate in. The socially exceptable passtime of viewing these kids would provide an ideal cover for these predators.

As for the hijab, you're absolutely correct. On the face of it, it's about control. However there are a couple of things one should consider which relates to my point of the hijab sexualizing children. Firstly, these very young girls are taught in religious schools that their bodies attract sexual attention and it is their responsibility to ensure that they do not act as temptation for adults.

Secondly, adults (whatever the race/religion - since I'm taking specifically about Malaysia) equate the hijab with the suppresion of sexuality - which is why many (including many liberal Muslims who have no problems with the hijab in general are appalled, that children - girls - are encouraged to wear it). So, it's language, perception than action - the actual wearing of the hijab.

Just to tie this up with these so called beauty pageants. It's funny, the feelings of "creepiness" that some (most hopefully) view these pageants is exactly the same kind of reaction you get with the majority of people who see kids wearing the hijab. I think this is telling. It's the imagery (and the follwing repulsion) of children as overt sexual objects.

QuoteI've never seen one of those "beauty pageants" but I have run into Japanese animated and manga pornography involving little girls (including really little girls), even without looking for it, both while living in Japan and among anime and manga fans in the United States.  Maybe if I lived in a place where those pageants were big, they would seem like more urgent problems to me.

Honestly, be it kiddie beauty pageants or anime porn, the urgent problem for me is the lax enforcement of child pretection laws in various parts of the world and I'm including sentencing & release of pedophiles, child trafficking, child prostitution.

QuoteWhat I think is missing from that chain of reasoning is consideration of what pedophiles are attracted to.  Those "beauty pageants" do sexualize children in a way by making them look like little adults, which is why they seem creepy to people who aren't pedophiles.  But I would think that pedophiles would want children that look like children, not creepy little adults which is why you also get material that makes adult women look like little girls.  I could certainly be wrong about that, though.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. In the brothels in Bangkok and Russia or wherever children are abused for profit, most times they are made to wear make up. This is certainly true according to news images of abused children from Russia and Thailand. Now of course they want them to look like children, however I don't think these kids being made to look like adults repels them in any way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI asked because, up-thread a ways, you were suggesting that child beauty pageants be made illegal. I thought it was a curious position for you to take, given your political inclinations.

I'm not a libertarian.

The short version:

Liberty is both a blessing and a curse.  When people use liberty responsibly, it's a blessing.  When they abuse it, it's a curse.  When liberty seems to be a net liability, people will happily surrender their liberty and the liberty of others to improve their lives.  This is why, despite all the noble talk about not sacrificing liberty for security, people will do just that, again and again.  So the best way to preserve liberty is to make sure it's not abused.

For people who view liberty as an end not a means, they think things like protecting Neo-Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood or protecting cartoons depicting the sexual abuse of children is a celebration of liberty and what liberty is all about.  It's not.  Those are exactly the sorts of things that make people view liberty as a liability rather than a blessing.  And when that happens, people will happily give up their liberties.

This (http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/NEWS01/803140331), for example, is exactly the sort of thing that gives liberty a bad name.

Quote from: John MorrowDoing any sort of objective research on pedophiles is difficult for obvious reasons.  But I suggest looking at police profiles of pedophiles and their use of images of children such as this one (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/3.html).

OK, I just did.  The very first two sentences of the chapter you link to are this:
   It should be said from the very beginning that no one knows how many pedophiles exist in America since the overwhelming majority never fulfill their fantasies, nor do they come to the attention of law enforcement agents. They seem content to fantasize in the safety and comfort of their own homes.

Now, I would prefer it if people didn't find this stuff sexually exciting.  However, some people do, and if the article is to be believed, then most of them lead blameless lives in this respect.  I've seen very similar debates within feminist circles, with some people pointing out how bondage and even much of mainstream sexual imagery glorified women as passive victims.  Of particular note, I remember a friend of mine saying how that made logical sense to her, but she couldn't help that she found some of that stuff hot.  I know that a bunch of stuff that I find hot, other people would find twisted.  

So, to focus on the positive:

I would approach this first by aggressively tracking down and prosecuting violators (i.e. those who actually molest children).  As mentioned earlier, having such fictional material legal often makes it easier to identify suspects.  

I would also approach it by trying to push cultural change to eliminate the influences that make people find such material sexually attractive.  This would be things like critical articles, letter writing, or at the extreme picketing and/or boycotts of publishers involved in such.  That would likely be as much or more images in mass media and advertising (like Bratz) than in hard-to-find specialized venues (which people probably go to only once their tastes are set).  

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not simply that it makes things worse.  It's that it serves no other useful purpose.  There is no respectable use for the stuff.

I agree.  However, I really really don't want the government coming in and outlawing whatever it decides isn't "respectable".  That's not the governments job.  I especially don't want the government coming in and making judgements about which sexual fantasies are acceptable or not, legislating private sexual behavior.  I would note that the 1972 Miller vs. California decision that set the obscenity precedent was a controversial decision that was a 5-to-4 split, so it's not like I'm terribly radical in this.

Quote from: David RWhat exactly are these underlying issues if not people having messed up ideas about children?

Once you discuss the issues at that broad of a level, we can wind up talking about all sorts of things that really have nothing in common except that they broadly involve adults having messed up ideas about children.  It assumes that they all have the same root cause and I don't think that's true at all, even though they all manifest themselves in adult behavior toward children and have some possible connection to sexuality.  I think the causes and motives are quite different and it's not really beneficial to discuss them as if they were the same.

For example, I thing your comments about little girls and the hajib are are fascinating, but I don't think they have a lot to do with what's going on in Japan.  The same with those "beauty pageants" for young girls.

Quote from: David RLike I said, I don't think the goal is pedophilia. I do think from what we do know of pedophiles who function within very normal (mainstream) enviroments - sports activities, religious org etc - it's not illogical to assume that they would find an activity such as this, which does sexualize children, easy to operate in. The socially exceptable passtime of viewing these kids would provide an ideal cover for these predators.

To be honest, I don't want to crawl into the mind of a pedophile and speculate further so I'll simply say that I could be wrong and you could be right, especially based on your comments later on.

Quote from: David RJust to tie this up with these so called beauty pageants. It's funny, the feelings of "creepiness" that some (most hopefully) view these pageants is exactly the same kind of reaction you get with the majority of people who see kids wearing the hijab. I think this is telling. It's the imagery (and the follwing repulsion) of children as overt sexual objects.

But how does this then tie back to the Japanese issues?  While I think that both the pageants and hajib are parental control issues, if not wholly then primarily, the Japanese pornography seems to be, if not wholly then primarily, about sexual attraction toward the look of children.

Quote from: David RHonestly, be it kiddie beauty pageants or anime porn, the urgent problem for me is the lax enforcement of child pretection laws in various parts of the world and I'm including sentencing & release of pedophiles, child trafficking, child prostitution.

Agreed.  

And to that I'd add the fairly common but ignored problem in the United States of men in their 20s and 30s preying on minors.  In fact, some groups opposed to Planned Parenthood have had women pose as minor teenagers tell Planned Parenthood employees that their 20+ year-old boyfriends got them pregnant, only to have a Planned Parenthood employee tell them to lie about their or their boyfriend's age to avoid filing a statutory rape claim.  In this case (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070515b.html), Planned Parenthood threatened to sue the 18 year-old who posed as a 15 year-old.  Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlmbcbqrK5Y) is a Dallas TV News report about a broader investigation that included a person posing as a 13 year-old girl calling over 800 clinics mentioning a 20+ year-old boyfriend and includes parts of some of the actual calls.

ADDED: Here (http://www.abanet.org/child/statutory-rape.pdf) is a paper that talks about adult males and their relationships with young teenaged girls that includes numbers from studies including these:

   In 1997, researcher Duberstein Lindberg and her colleagues examined data on teenage childbearing which found that "21% of births to unmarried minors are fathered by someone substantially older." The 15-year-old girls in the study were most likely to have partners five or more years older. In fact, Duberstein Lindberg found that 40% of 15-year-old mothers in her study "had a baby with a partner aged 20 or older." "Births to the youngest mothers were disproportionately fathered by much older men who had engaged in sex nine months earlier with 14- and 15-year-olds," she reported.

Also...

   New data from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reports that close to one-half of adolescents between 15 and 19 years old "reported that [in 1995] they had ever had intercourse." In addition, NCHS data reveal that, among all women surveyed (ages 15-44) who were under age 16 at first voluntary intercourse, 7.1% had a partner age 20-22, 2.1% had a partner age 23-24, and 4.0% had a partner age 25 or over.

(For those not keeping count at home, that's 13.2%)

Quote from: David RPedophiles are attracted to children. In the brothels in Bangkok and Russia or wherever children are abused for profit, most times they are made to wear make up. This is certainly true according to news images of abused children from Russia and Thailand. Now of course they want them to look like children, however I don't think these kids being made to look like adults repels them in any way.

Good point.

Of course the always the DS little-girl-touching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doki_Doki_Majo_Shinpan%21) video games too! Yeesh!

Japan is a sexually fucked up country, and I don't think it's right to be making animated child-porn, or other child porn based products.

I think it's worth it for the authorities to look into, and if there is a link between someone posessing child pornography or the animated movies and child based sexual offenses, then by all means make that shit illegal.

Quote from: John MorrowBut how does this then tie back to the Japanese issues?

Well the discussion drifted from being only about Japan, no doubt with some doing on my part. Also the issue of freedom of speech has cropped up. So yeah, you're right, these particular issues - beauty pageants/hajib - don't have much relevence to the Japanese discussion. Guess I'm done here. Back to calming shores of rpg Open....

Regards,
David R

See, I'm not so much in favour of making things illegal as much as I am in favour of making slapping people upside their heads and shouting "WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM!!!" legal in certain extreme cases.

Child beauty pagents and Bratz dolls being cases in point.  I predict in a few years young women will be getting head implants to match the body image created by their childhood playthings.

All in all, I don't think more rules solve the problems.  If they did, pedophilles would be rehabilitated when they got out.  In some part I think it's an artifact of the social breeding stock selection methods that exist in our society.  But laws requiring hot women to submist to sex with fat, sweaty losers four times a year for the greater good probably wouldn't fix the problem.

Quote from: jhkimOK, I just did.  The very first two sentences of the chapter you link to are this:
   It should be said from the very beginning that no one knows how many pedophiles exist in America since the overwhelming majority never fulfill their fantasies, nor do they come to the attention of law enforcement agents. They seem content to fantasize in the safety and comfort of their own homes.

The problem is that if we don't know how many exist, then we can't really know how many are harmless.  We can only guess.  But would you leave your child with a person with a large collection of anime pornography dealing with children and if not, why not?

Quote from: jhkimNow, I would prefer it if people didn't find this stuff sexually exciting.  However, some people do, and if the article is to be believed, then most of them lead blameless lives in this respect.  I've seen very similar debates within feminist circles, with some people pointing out how bondage and even much of mainstream sexual imagery glorified women as passive victims.  Of particular note, I remember a friend of mine saying how that made logical sense to her, but she couldn't help that she found some of that stuff hot.  I know that a bunch of stuff that I find hot, other people would find twisted.

It's that "I can't help myself" element that concerns me.  Sex is one of those things that people seem to have trouble controlling.  See a certain ex-NY governor for a good example.  So my concern, for reasons that Kyle has alluded to, is that the people who fantasize can reliably keep that genie in the bottle.

Quote from: jhkimI would approach this first by aggressively tracking down and prosecuting violators (i.e. those who actually molest children).  As mentioned earlier, having such fictional material legal often makes it easier to identify suspects.

How do you feel about the Planned Parenthood stings that I mentioned in an earlier reply?  

Quote from: jhkimI would also approach it by trying to push cultural change to eliminate the influences that make people find such material sexually attractive.  This would be things like critical articles, letter writing, or at the extreme picketing and/or boycotts of publishers involved in such.  That would likely be as much or more images in mass media and advertising (like Bratz) than in hard-to-find specialized venues (which people probably go to only once their tastes are set).

The problem is that people have tried that and it's difficult to reach critical mass and actually bring about change.  For example, Amazon was distributing a book that seemed to be a "how to" guide on molesting children and how to get away with it and conservative groups tried to persuade them to stop selling it and even tried a boycott and, to my knowledge, it didn't amount to anything.

Quote from: jhkimI agree.  However, I really really don't want the government coming in and outlawing whatever it decides isn't "respectable".  That's not the governments job.  I especially don't want the government coming in and making judgements about which sexual fantasies are acceptable or not, legislating private sexual behavior.  I would note that the 1972 Miller vs. California decision that set the obscenity precedent was a controversial decision that was a 5-to-4 split, so it's not like I'm terribly radical in this.

Have you read Brennan's dissent, joined by Stewart and Marshall?  Brennan writes, " I need not now decide whether a statute might be drawn to impose, within the requirements of the First Amendment, criminal penalties for the precise conduct at issue here. For it is clear that, under my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I, the statute under which the prosecution was brought is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face."  In other words, he's not saying that the activities in question couldn't be restricted by a properly written law but that the law in question was overly broad and thus unconstitutional.  

I think it's also important to point out that Miller has been upheld by the Supreme Court since.

Quote from: David RGuess I'm done here. Back to calming shores of rpg Open....

Probably a good idea.  I've been thinking the same thing myself.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not talking about writing about rape.  I'm talking about things that meet the legal definition of obscenity (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/o002.htm):

Well, now you've just changed the goalposts. A second ago you were talking about arresting some guy at a bar for drinking because he might theoretically get into a car and drunk drive.

Obscenity laws are a crock. Obscenity laws were used to persecute Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, countless musicians and artists, never mind producers of legal pornography.  They have been used by politicians to attack their political enemies, and religious leaders to attack their religious opponents. They've been used to persecute minorities of various sorts. They are, if anything, a PRIME example of why this sort of thinking is so dangerous.

This isn't some theoretical "slippery slope" argument, its a historical and verifiable case study that has occurred again and again over time. There's no reason to think that it won't happen again in the future, that somehow the people who are safeguarding the standards and holding the fort won't be as utter fuckheads as countless of those prior moral guardians have been.

QuoteNot my argument.  But let me put it this way.  What harm would it do to the people in such places who are not pedophiles if they are obliged to avoid such material because it's illegal?  Does it hurt those networks and the people on them that they are prohibited from posting or looking at real child pornography?

Well, frankly, its not a question of harming them or not. I couldn't give a fuck about them. Its a case of it being harmful first of all to society, and second to other individuals.
Its harmful to society in that by criminalizing and prosecuting people who might have images of furry fucking or pedobear on their computer browser cache, and dedicating millions of dollars and man-hours to hunting these violators of the public trust who've dared to cause terrible harm to... no one... we're wasting people's money and resources that could be used for countless other more noble causes; like say, addressing the vast majority of REAL child abuse cases that at present are never prosecuted, or treating the victims of the same.
This is throwing away money and valuable effort and time to be able to feel self-righteous, to pretend we're doing something useful, and mainly to punish people we suspect of thinking things we don't like.

Second, it means that people who never had and never would have done actual harm to other human beings might have their lives utterly destroyed by being criminalized with what is undoubtedly the most tainting mark society can place on a human being in this modern age.

QuoteDo those idiots manage to avoid real child pornography?  If they can manage that, then they could manage to avoid the animated stuff, too.

You have yet to establish a reason why they should be forced to on pain of imprisonment.

QuoteWhere does any other legislation stop?  If you haven't noticed, the slippery slope has been tending toward less restrictions for decades

I certainly haven't seen this; certainly not when it comes to pornography. And I really have no problem with having strong restrictions toward child pornography; but to extend that to consensual adult pornography, or drawings or cartoons, or fiction or writings, or non-sexual non-nude images of children,etc.

Again, let's get into fucking specifics here: Do you think the makers of South Park, who have often shown their imaginary 8-year olds in "obscene" situations that, if it was a live action show with real children, would undoubtedly result in everyone involved being sent to prison, should be sent to prison for the things their animated characters have done?
Should Vince Baker be sent to prison for his pirate neck-rape RPG?

I mean come on, why don't you just admit the truth: That you really really hate pedophiles, which is a perfectly understandable sentiment; and that you think they should be punished just for existing, which is likewise an understandable feeling to have?
I mean, that's totally understandable; but it doesn't mean that this is the way we decide to do things in civilization.

QuoteSo, again, you think that people either are or aren't pedophiles, regardless of what sort of culture of visual material they are exposed to?

That they are or aren't? Yes, I'm almost entirely sure of that. From what little I know about the subject, I belive current psychological theory is that this is a deviant sexual compulsion that is the product of extremely early influences (if not from birth), and that its practically impossible to "fix".

If what you were meaning to ask was whether people just are or are not child abusers regardless of what they're exposed to, that's a different subject. I couldn't say that with certainty. I have no idea how many people with these tendencies end up acting on them or not, and whether something like pornography would reduce or enhance the likelihood of abuse, but I would imagine that whether actual abuse of a child would depend VASTLY more on something like opportunity, social pressures, environment, etc.

I mean shit, I really don't believe that someone who plays a lot of GTA is more likely to rob a car, I really don't. So I don't see why someone reading a harry potter slashfic or looking at japanese tentacle rape loli hentai would be more likely to go out and rape a child.

I mean shit, that's right up there with the suggestion that someone playing D&D is more likely to commit "witchcraft" or get into the occult. Its backward stupid specious logic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowThe problem is that if we don't know how many exist, then we can't really know how many are harmless.  We can only guess.  But would you leave your child with a person with a large collection of anime pornography dealing with children and if not, why not?

Dammit, where's a simpsons image with helen lovejoy or maude flanders screaming "Won't ANYONE think of the children?!" when you need it.

I mean shit, if I had kids, I wouldn't leave them unsupervised with a ton of people, for a ton of reasons.

That doesn't mean that because of this alone, those people should all go to prison for 10-25 years, and then be legally-authorized pariahs for the rest of their lives.

QuoteIt's that "I can't help myself" element that concerns me.  Sex is one of those things that people seem to have trouble controlling.  See a certain ex-NY governor for a good example.  So my concern, for reasons that Kyle has alluded to, is that the people who fantasize can reliably keep that genie in the bottle.

And arresting people who have a DVD of Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet on the suspicion that they might be getting off on an underaged leo di caprio and claire danes having fake sex would remedy this HOW?

Again, you're basically admitting here that you think that anyone you suspect of possibly being a pedophile should automatically be sent to jail just for that reason.

QuoteHow do you feel about the Planned Parenthood stings that I mentioned in an earlier reply?  

It feels to me like you're very intentionally muddying the waters with extremely controversial issues that don't add anything useful to the discussion.  I mean shit, obviously the people who did the sting on Planned Parenthood are the type of people who believe that if a 15 year olds 20 year old boyfriend had gotten her pregnant, she shouldn't be permitted by law to have an abortion, and maybe she should be sent to jail too just for asking, huh?

I mean where the fuck do you get off? You claim to be so concerned for the children that we should violate freedom of expression and send people to prison for their thoughts, words, or images; but if a 12 year old was impregnated by rape she can go fuck herself and the little baby machine should be forced to become a mommy rather than get an abortion?

QuoteHave you read Brennan's dissent, joined by Stewart and Marshall?  Brennan writes, " I need not now decide whether a statute might be drawn to impose, within the requirements of the First Amendment, criminal penalties for the precise conduct at issue here. For it is clear that, under my dissent in Paris Adult Theatre I, the statute under which the prosecution was brought is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face."  In other words, he's not saying that the activities in question couldn't be restricted by a properly written law but that the law in question was overly broad and thus unconstitutional.  

I think it's also important to point out that Miller has been upheld by the Supreme Court since.

If that's very important to you, then it might be worth noting that in Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition, the SC ruled that the government cannot restrict freedom of expression by making images, art, or film illegal for depicting sexually explicit or erotic scenes involving children if no actual children were involved in its creation.  Speech that "records no crime and creates no victims by its production" cannot be considered the same as actual child pornography.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThis isn't some theoretical "slippery slope" argument, its a historical and verifiable case study that has occurred again and again over time. There's no reason to think that it won't happen again in the future, that somehow the people who are safeguarding the standards and holding the fort won't be as utter fuckheads as countless of those prior moral guardians have been.

The Miller test has been in place since 1972 in the United States.  Can you give me examples of where you think it has been abused?

Quote from: RPGPunditThis is throwing away money and valuable effort and time to be able to feel self-righteous, to pretend we're doing something useful, and mainly to punish people we suspect of thinking things we don't like.

Not entirely, no.  The problem is that what gets produced always pushes past what's legal.  Thus the failure to prosecute obscene pornography in the 1990s resulted in various companies pushing the envelope and producing pornography that involves the physical abuse and humiliation of women which they wouldn't have dreamed of producing in earlier years, despite no change in the law.

Quote from: RPGPunditSecond, it means that people who never had and never would have done actual harm to other human beings might have their lives utterly destroyed by being criminalized with what is undoubtedly the most tainting mark society can place on a human being in this modern age.

Fair enough.  Would you make a distinction, then, between possession and production, sale, and/or distribution?

Quote from: RPGPunditYou have yet to establish a reason why they should be forced to on pain of imprisonment.

For the same reason why you don't like obscenity laws.  I think it's bad for society and bad for the people who consume it.

Quote from: RPGPunditI certainly haven't seen this; certainly not when it comes to pornography.

The content of pornographic films got far more explicit than before during the Clinton administration.  There has been some shift back during the Bush administration, but it hasn't been a complete rollback.  And outside of the United States, Japan has eased restrictions on what it considers obscene when it comes to adults.  Exactly what kind of timeframe are you considering?

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd I really have no problem with having strong restrictions toward child pornography; but to extend that to consensual adult pornography, or drawings or cartoons, or fiction or writings, or non-sexual non-nude images of children,etc.

How do you ensure that pornography is consensual in a meaningful sense, especially given the large number of women (and men) involved in the sex trade that come from broken homes or worse?

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, let's get into fucking specifics here: Do you think the makers of South Park, who have often shown their imaginary 8-year olds in "obscene" situations that, if it was a live action show with real children, would undoubtedly result in everyone involved being sent to prison, should be sent to prison for the things their animated characters have done?

No, because the drawings are not realistic and I don't think it falls under the definition, given earlier, of obscenity.  It's not designed to appeal to prurient interests.

Quote from: RPGPunditShould Vince Baker be sent to prison for his pirate neck-rape RPG?

Apply the definition of obscenity.  Given that some of the games in question were apparently carried out in public spaces at the convention, I do think that there are circumstances that could have occurred where it might have qualified as illegal (e.g., a child overhearing the game).

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean come on, why don't you just admit the truth: That you really really hate pedophiles, which is a perfectly understandable sentiment; and that you think they should be punished just for existing, which is likewise an understandable feeling to have?
I mean, that's totally understandable; but it doesn't mean that this is the way we decide to do things in civilization.

I don't really hate pedophiles but I do hate pedophilia.  As such, I see no reason to treat it or material designed to cater to it as normal and acceptable, which is what leaving the animated movies designed to appeal to pedophiles does.  I also don't think helping a person feed and support an unhealthy attraction is a good thing.  And given the increasing realism of computer animation, it's only a matter of time before it becomes photorealistic, which probably won't help, either.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat they are or aren't? Yes, I'm almost entirely sure of that. From what little I know about the subject, I belive current psychological theory is that this is a deviant sexual compulsion that is the product of extremely early influences (if not from birth), and that its practically impossible to "fix".

So you don't believe, for example, that exposure to deviant sexual content later in life will have any influence on people?  How do you explain, for example, Bob Crane, then?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf what you were meaning to ask was whether people just are or are not child abusers regardless of what they're exposed to, that's a different subject. I couldn't say that with certainty. I have no idea how many people with these tendencies end up acting on them or not, and whether something like pornography would reduce or enhance the likelihood of abuse, but I would imagine that whether actual abuse of a child would depend VASTLY more on something like opportunity, social pressures, environment, etc.

I'm sure that all of those play a roll but don't you think that immersion in material supporting their attraction to children would contribute?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, I really don't believe that someone who plays a lot of GTA is more likely to rob a car, I really don't. So I don't see why someone reading a harry potter slashfic or looking at japanese tentacle rape loli hentai would be more likely to go out and rape a child.

I think it depends on the person and it's not easy to anticipate who will have a problem and who won't.  Plenty of people can drink alcohol without becoming alcoholics but some who do will.  If they never have any alcohol, they won't become alcoholics and the way that they treat alcoholics is to stop them from drinking completely, not by reducing or managing their intake of alcohol.  

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, that's right up there with the suggestion that someone playing D&D is more likely to commit "witchcraft" or get into the occult. Its backward stupid specious logic.

There are, in fact, people who are into the occult who will freely tell you that role-playing got them interested in it and neopagans are over-represented in the hobby.

I just think it's really odd to argue that the material and ideas that people are exposed to have no bearing on their thoughts or behavior, regardless of what we are talking about.  If that's true, then we can't really do anything to change anyone.

Quote from: John MorrowI think it depends on the person and it's not easy to anticipate who will have a problem and who won't.  Plenty of people can drink alcohol without becoming alcoholics but some who do will.  If they never have any alcohol, they won't become alcoholics and the way that they treat alcoholics is to stop them from drinking completely, not by reducing or managing their intake of alcohol.  

Again, the problem with your logic is that your argument is essentially that anyone who has a drink, who's purpose after all is to get you drunk, should likewise be not only prohibited from being allowed to drink legally, but they should also be arrested and tried on the basis of being "potential" drunk drivers.

QuoteI just think it's really odd to argue that the material and ideas that people are exposed to have no bearing on their thoughts or behavior, regardless of what we are talking about.  If that's true, then we can't really do anything to change anyone.

Sure, ideas can influence. But in the end the influence depends on the adult person's choice. You can't forbid naughty thought just because those thoughts might lead to naughty deeds. Someone might look at those images a million times and never do a thing, someone else might never look at them and do stuff anyways; to punish someone for what they might "potentially" do is a grotesquerie of the worst order.

The idea that there is such a thing as a thought so dangerous that it must be destroyed or punished just for being thought is so utterly reprehensible to me that I'd rather have a world filled with otakus and furry fans galore than have to live in a world run by the likes of John Ashcroft and company; or, apparently, you.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat doesn't mean that because of this alone, those people should all go to prison for 10-25 years, and then be legally-authorized pariahs for the rest of their lives.

I haven't advocated any particular punishment.  I think that's a legitimate concern but somewhat independent of the overall issue.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd arresting people who have a DVD of Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet on the suspicion that they might be getting off on an underaged leo di caprio and claire danes having fake sex would remedy this HOW?

The Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet actually has underaged nudity in it but, again, I bring you back to the definition of obscenity posted earlier.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, you're basically admitting here that you think that anyone you suspect of possibly being a pedophile should automatically be sent to jail just for that reason.

Not at all.  If they can abstain from collecting pornography dealing with children, that demonstrates a substantial amount of self-control.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt feels to me like you're very intentionally muddying the waters with extremely controversial issues that don't add anything useful to the discussion.  I mean shit, obviously the people who did the sting on Planned Parenthood are the type of people who believe that if a 15 year olds 20 year old boyfriend had gotten her pregnant, she shouldn't be permitted by law to have an abortion, and maybe she should be sent to jail too just for asking, huh?

It has nothing to do with her getting sent to jail and everything to do with him getting sent to jail.  So you don't think there is anything wrong with a 22 year-old getting a 13 year-old pregnant and have no problem with Planned Parenthood helping him cover it up?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean where the fuck do you get off? You claim to be so concerned for the children that we should violate freedom of expression and send people to prison for their thoughts, words, or images; but if a 12 year old was impregnated by rape she can go fuck herself and the little baby machine should be forced to become a mommy rather than get an abortion?

Where do you get off?  So Planned Parenthood should just give the 12 year-old an abortion and not even tell her parents or the authorities about it?  How about, "I was raped at 11, by my 17 year old boyfriend. I chose not to tell my parents because I didn't think their involvement would help, that was the right choice for me. Planned Parethood helped me deal with the aftermath of the rape allowing me to deal and cope as best as I could in my own way."  That's a testimony that San Francisco Planned Parenthood pulled from their web site (and had deleted from Wayback) because they were called on it.  Do you think that was a good way to handle it?  How about the girl who is suing Planned Parenthood in Ohio because, upon seeking an abortion in 2004 at 16, she told them that the baby's father was her father and he'd been raping her since 2000 and they didn't report it?  Her lawsuit claims that their failure to report the rape led to another year and a half of abuse.  Are you fine with that, too?

Quote from: RPGPunditIf that's very important to you, then it might be worth noting that in Ashcroft Vs. Free Speech Coalition, the SC ruled that the government cannot restrict freedom of expression by making images, art, or film illegal for depicting sexually explicit or erotic scenes involving children if no actual children were involved in its creation.  Speech that "records no crime and creates no victims by its production" cannot be considered the same as actual child pornography.

Correct, because the law, as worded, "prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."  That does not mean that the government can't prohibit those things where the material otherwise meets the definition of obscenity.  That is, that it's made to appeal to prurient interests and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.  Child pornography can be prohibited regardless of whether it has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value because of the children it victimizes.  Since fake child pornography doesn't create victims, it can't take that shortcut, and I'm fine with that.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, the problem with your logic is that your argument is essentially that anyone who has a drink, who's purpose after all is to get you drunk, should likewise be not only prohibited from being allowed to drink legally, but they should also be arrested and tried on the basis of being "potential" drunk drivers.

And, again, I have discussed no particular punishment or penalties.  I think you have legitimate concerns about that but I don't think they are impossible to address.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure, ideas can influence. But in the end the influence depends on the adult person's choice. You can't forbid naughty thought just because those thoughts might lead to naughty deeds. Someone might look at those images a million times and never do a thing, someone else might never look at them and do stuff anyways; to punish someone for what they might "potentially" do is a grotesquerie of the worst order.

Isn't that what punishing a drunk driver who has not gotten into an accident does?  Isn't that punishing them because they might get into an accident?  Plenty of people drive while legally drunk without getting in to accidents.  Why should they be punished for what they might "potentially" do?

You'll also notice that bars are encouraged to cut people off who might drive while drunk or who have had too much to drink because they can be held legally liable if they go out and hurt someone.  

So given your concern over punishment and hurting people who casually look at the stuff, one could make a distinction between the person with a few images in their cache or downloaded carelessly as opposed to the person with a huge collection of the stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe idea that there is such a thing as a thought so dangerous that it must be destroyed or punished just for being thought is so utterly reprehensible to me that I'd rather have a world filled with otakus and furry fans galore than have to live in a world run by the likes of John Ashcroft and company; or, apparently, you.

I'm not talking about punishing thoughts.  I'm talking about punishing actions.

Quote from: jhkimWe are entitled by the principle of free speech.  That means I support others' right to write or draw works that are offensive to people including myself.  And yes, this includes real neo-nazis writing, drawing, or programming works in defense of Hitler; or Klu Klux Klan members making their own works; or NAMBLA making works advocating reducing the age of consent for that matter.

Yes yes it's very cool to support Nazi free speach but how does that work exactly? You support their speaches obviously but do you support their burning Jews-in-effagy? Support their violent demonstrations? Support their tank building? All the cool-kidz support Nazi free speach but the question is to what degree?

QuoteI think the view is expressed fairly well in Justice Douglas' dissent of the 1973 "Miller vs. California" ruling, where the censorship of offensive pornographic materials was upheld.  

Expressed well if being "offended" and "angry" is the worst thing that can happen. I personaly see a distinction between being offended and being raped in effagy.

QuoteApropos of tabletop RPGs, I think a good case is "Racial Holy War" by Rev. Kenneth Molyneaux, which is an utterly represensible work.  Yet I do not think that the government should be allowed to ban it.

Well lets say for the sake of argument that the governement should never do anything. Government = Bad. Could a private individual make a rule like "I won't allow any "white warriors slaugher enemies of the white race" RPGs. It's my house, my rules." Could a group of people make the same rule for their synagogue? What about a city, nation, or world?

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's fairly disingenuous of you, and a tactical blunder on your part, you should have known that I would point out that there are plenty of violent video games about running over old ladies in the street or mindless slaughter that have no such noble goals as "freeing france from the nazis".

Is it the kind of tactical blunder where I lose, or the one where you blow smoke because you've got nothing?

QuoteClearly. Now what's your fucking point?

Because if its that we should publically chastize those human losers who fantasize about raping kids, or say, those game designers who design RPGs that fantasize about neck-raping cabin boys, as you'll recall I DID publically chastize, then I'm all on board with you.

If you think that Vince Baker is a fucking idiot for designing an RPG about raping cabin boys, I'm with you, 100%.
If you think Vince Baker should not be allowed the right to design an RPG about raping cabin boys; then you and I no longer agree.
If you think Vince Baker should be put in prison for writing an RPG about raping cabin boys, which is indeed what you appear to be suggesting here, then I think you're a fucking idiot.

I haven't read Vince Baker, but for the sake of argument lets say that theres a child porn rpg, purient without any redeeming value etc. etc. What do I think of that? Throw the hypotetical author in the brig. I choose the third option, which means that you exercise the first option on me, you think I'm a fucking idiot. ...so now what? Are your 'fucking idiot' thoughts supposed to affect my behavior somehow? What about this Vince Baker dude? Are your 'fucking idiot' thoughts twisting his nose or picking his pocket? Perhaps it makes you happy to imagine that your brain is some sort of Grand Archetect Buddism hatred raygun?

QuoteUnfortunately, because its uncomfortable for us, every single fucking one of them, so long as they do not directly incite to real life rape; and even in that case I would think that would be more of a civil issue than a criminal one.

But that seems exceptionaly lenient. Would you permit people to fire into a crowd legaly until they directly killed someone?

QuoteAh, now here's where we see the fundamental issue: you don't really believe we have an inalienable right to free speech do you? You're a fanatical catholic, and one of Catholicism's fundamental principles is that human beings do NOT have a right to say or express anything they want to; that's why they spent a good 500 years fighting against the rise of democracy tooth and fucking nail, seeing the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason as the worst disaster to befall mankind (or really, them) since the dawn of christendom.  Because Catholic dogma is all about the control of ideas, isn't it? You can't really be a Catholic and believe in absolute freedom of speech. You aren't free to speak heresy, after all.

Yay! :emot-flowers: Pundy affirmed my Catholic identity! Oh what a happy Palm Sunday this is turning out to be. :D  

Anyway, you are correct to say that Catholics do not believe in absolute freedom of speach, 'lying' is 'bad' for example. And the Catholic church is still against misrule. Democracy is permissable only so long as it is enslaved by good. Injustice remains injust even if more than 50% of the watery tarts lob their semitars the other way round.

QuoteYes, I can see that you've got some very strong emotionally-driven opinions about the subject. Now, do you also want people to be able to put you in prison for writing catholic tracts? Because this is fundamentally the exact same liberty we're talking about: the freedom of expression. You can't take it away in certain cases and not weaken it as a whole.

We are the knights who say: NI!

QuoteIts an fucking INALIENABLE right; I may despise what some people choose to do with it, but for the sake of society as a whole, we have to defend everyone's right to do it. Or we all end up back in the days of the motherfucking "Holy" Inquisition.

Oops! I meant: We are the knights who say: Nox! (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29777&postcount=8)

for what it is worth, while attending a seminar about japanese politics in 2000 there was a study that basically compared the amount of actual child abuse crimes in different countries and it showed, that in japan the rate of actual child abuse was as low (or high) as in western countries.
I am not sure how the estimated number of unreported crimes differs though.

Quote from: SaphimI am not sure how the estimated number of unreported crimes differs though.

That's a problem with Japan, where there is strong cultural pressure to say nothing.  Of course estimating the unreported crimes in any country poses that problem to one degree or another.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumExpressed well if being "offended" and "angry" is the worst thing that can happen. I personaly see a distinction between being offended and being raped in effagy.

Douglas was also considered a free speech absolutist and his dissent takes some liberties with the truth.  He talks about "the traditions of a free society" when no society has ever treated free speech as absolutely as he would.  And while one can argue that the First Amendment was designed to "invite dispute" and so on, I doubt the founding fathers intended it to protect obscenity, a step further than offensive.  One should also not forget, that before the 14th Amendment, the scope of the First Amendment, as specified in the first word of it, was to restrict Congress and only Congress, not the states.  That is, under the Founder's version of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court would have no business determining the Constitutionality of a state statute restricting obscenity.  (I should also add that the other Justices that dissented did not sign on to Douglas' dissent.)

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumWell lets say for the sake of argument that the governement should never do anything. Government = Bad. Could a private individual make a rule like "I won't allow any "white warriors slaugher enemies of the white race" RPGs. It's my house, my rules." Could a group of people make the same rule for their synagogue? What about a city, nation, or world?

It's been my experience that the more ideologically absolute and extreme a person is, the less use that they have for democratic institutions and the idea that the people should have leeway to govern themselves.  The perfect libertarian society has no use for democracy because there would be nothing to vote on.  The same is true of the perfect communist society, and so on.  Once you have all of the answers and create utopia, how can you possibly improve on it?  Somewhere along the way, the idea of having the consent of the governed for how their society is run gets lost.

Quote from: John MorrowNot at all.  If they can abstain from collecting pornography dealing with children, that demonstrates a substantial amount of self-control.

One might argue that this something that someone who is looking only at drawings/anime etc is doing.

QuoteIt has nothing to do with her getting sent to jail and everything to do with him getting sent to jail.  So you don't think there is anything wrong with a 22 year-old getting a 13 year-old pregnant and have no problem with Planned Parenthood helping him cover it up?

I think Planned Parenthood's job is to make sure that no girl or young woman is EVER afraid of getting an abortion.  That's their priority one. If a girl knows that by going to PP she'll end up having her boyfriend sent to jail; or even if she ends up not going to get an abortion from a pregnancy that is being caused by abuse, leading to a compounding of the tragedy, then you've effectively denied abortion access rights to those girls.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, again, I have discussed no particular punishment or penalties.  I think you have legitimate concerns about that but I don't think they are impossible to address.

Isn't that what punishing a drunk driver who has not gotten into an accident does?  Isn't that punishing them because they might get into an accident?  Plenty of people drive while legally drunk without getting in to accidents.  Why should they be punished for what they might "potentially" do?

That's already a clear and present danger. The example is like arresting a guy while he's exposing himself to a kid, or trying to lead one away, or whatever.

QuoteSo given your concern over punishment and hurting people who casually look at the stuff, one could make a distinction between the person with a few images in their cache or downloaded carelessly as opposed to the person with a huge collection of the stuff.

No law I've ever heard of makes this distinction.If you're proposing treating "virtual" porn as identical to real child porn, then even ONE image is enough to be an indictable offense.

And if you're not, then where the fuck do you draw the line? Suddenly you're going to have to have people monitoring traffic and users to see that they have 110 images, but being careful not to make an arrest if they're only up to 109? Please.

QuoteI'm not talking about punishing thoughts.  I'm talking about punishing actions.

The action of expressing one's thought. Face it Morrow, no matter how you're trying to wriggle your way around it, or wrap yourself in the flag of the defender of public decency or crying "WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?" you're being identical to Pat Pulling or that guy who wants to ban videogames (Jack Thompson?); you're being worse in fact, because you're suggesting that people doing this thing you don't like that doesn't harm anyone should be sent to prison for many many years, and put on a sex offender registry for it.

Regardless of how you justify it, you're a fascist.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumBut that seems exceptionaly lenient. Would you permit people to fire into a crowd legaly until they directly killed someone?

Bullshit comparison. That's like asking if I would allow a child rapist to go around attempting to rape a child until he succeeded.

But that's not what the people who have furry porn on their computer are doing.

Don't get me wrong, if they attempt it even once, then that's that; but you're talking about charging everyone with murder who owns a gun, because they might end up shooting someone with it one day.

QuoteOops! I meant: We are the knights who say: Nox! (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=29777&postcount=8)

Yes, and your point is?
If you want to mock guys who have underage furry porn or who wank over otaku schoolgirl rape scenes, go hog wild; hell, we can do it together: they're stupid sad fucks!

You want to ostracize them from your personal social environments, boot them out of your forums, etc? Go for it.

If some guy came around here and started advocating pedophilia, and could not stop himself, he would be banned.

There's a huge difference though between rightly mocking someone, or kicking them out of social groups, and sending them to prison for 10-15 and putting them on a registry that will guarantee to socially isolate and criminalize them for life.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowDouglas was also considered a free speech absolutist and his dissent takes some liberties with the truth.  He talks about "the traditions of a free society" when no society has ever treated free speech as absolutely as he would.  And while one can argue that the First Amendment was designed to "invite dispute" and so on, I doubt the founding fathers intended it to protect obscenity, a step further than offensive.

I'm in the same club as most of the Founding Fathers, and I'm pretty sure that they did very much intend that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIt's been my experience that the more ideologically absolute and extreme a person is, the less use that they have for democratic institutions and the idea that the people should have leeway to govern themselves.  The perfect libertarian society has no use for democracy because there would be nothing to vote on.  The same is true of the perfect communist society, and so on.  Once you have all of the answers and create utopia, how can you possibly improve on it?  Somewhere along the way, the idea of having the consent of the governed for how their society is run gets lost.

The simple logic is that anyone whose beliefs differ significantly from the majority will feel some qualms about following democratically determined laws.  So in the 19th century U.S., abolitionists were dangerous radicals who were absolutist and unreasonable in their extreme position of "no slavery" rather than the more reasonable compromises of slave and free state divisions -- which gave rise to their supporting illegal theft and even terrorism and murder.  Today in the U.S. you have anti-abortionists who chafe at the laws which allow what they view as murder -- and they have also gone to extremes of terrorism and murder.  

As far as I've seen, your positions (and mine for that matter) are fairly moderate within our society.  That's nice for us, but it doesn't make us morally superior for our greater belief in democracy.

Quote from: RPGPunditOne might argue that this something that someone who is looking only at drawings/anime etc is doing.

OK.  

Quote from: RPGPunditI think Planned Parenthood's job is to make sure that no girl or young woman is EVER afraid of getting an abortion.  That's their priority one. If a girl knows that by going to PP she'll end up having her boyfriend sent to jail; or even if she ends up not going to get an abortion from a pregnancy that is being caused by abuse, leading to a compounding of the tragedy, then you've effectively denied abortion access rights to those girls.

I don't think that should be their top priority because they aren't, you know, the law or the girl's parents, who are the people with the authority (legal and moral) to make that sort of decision.  And like most people who support unrestricted abortions, you assume that an abortion is always the right thing for the girl (so much for "choice") and that nobody could possibly be pressuring her into getting one that she doesn't want (so much for "choice").  And if we assume, like the law does, that a minor of that age is not competent to make that choice on her own, then what makes a Planned Parenthood employee more qualified to help that girl than her parents or a court-appointed advocate?  And what gives Planned Parenthood the authority to flaunt the law because they feel that making sure girls aren't afraid of getting abortions is more important than reporting child abuse?

I suppose I should also point out that the girl in those phone calls indicated that she was not aware that her boyfriend could get arrested if she showed up with him until the Planned Parenthood employees warned her of that, thus it wouldn't have discouraged her from showing up.  But maybe if word got around that 22 year-olds couldn't just hand their 13 year-old girlfriends a few hundred bucks to take care of it without risking getting arrested they would be more careful about not getting them pregnant or, you know, not pick 13 year-olds as their girlfriends in the first place.  That's how deterrence works.  But yet again, the abortion uber alles attitude trumps any other common sense interest including preventing the abuse of young girls.  Better to cover up child abuse and help enable it than give young girls any reason not to have an abortion because nothing is more important for young women than making sure that they have abortions when they get pregnant whether they want one or not, right?

Quote from: jhkimThe simple logic is that anyone whose beliefs differ significantly from the majority will feel some qualms about following democratically determined laws.

Which is something that people need to get over if they really want to support the idea of democracy.

Quote from: jhkimSo in the 19th century U.S., abolitionists were dangerous radicals who were absolutist and unreasonable in their extreme position of "no slavery" rather than the more reasonable compromises of slave and free state divisions -- which gave rise to their supporting illegal theft and even terrorism and murder.  Today in the U.S. you have anti-abortionists who chafe at the laws which allow what they view as murder -- and they have also gone to extremes of terrorism and murder.

Yet the vast majority of people involved in both causes continued to try to enact change within the law.  In the case of the abolitionists, the reason why the Southern states started to secede was that the long term prognosis for slavery was not good staying within the system.  Things were changing in the abolitionists' favor.

In the case of abortion, the problem is that it was decided nationally in an undemocratic way (Supreme Court decision) which even some supporters of abortion rights question (e.g., here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html)) and has politicized the Supreme Court such that litmus tests and who a President will nominate has become a major election issue.  If abortion were returned to the states to regulate or not regulate, then the issue could be worked out democratically (as it was being in the late 1960s and early 1970s before Roe stepped in and 7 justices set a national policy).  But even then, most anti-abortion people are working to resolve the issue by changing the makeup of the Supreme Court and through a variety of other legal or nonviolent means, not by killing abortionists and bombing clinics.  And there will always be violent nuts in almost any emotionally charged group (e.g., the environmental movement, the Puerto Rican independence movement, the anti-war movement, etc.) so the anti-abortion groups are hardly special in this regard.

Quote from: jhkimAs far as I've seen, your positions (and mine for that matter) are fairly moderate within our society.  That's nice for us, but it doesn't make us morally superior for our greater belief in democracy.

No, but it does give us a vested interest in supporting it.

Quote from: John MorrowYet the vast majority of people involved in both causes continued to try to enact change within the law.  In the case of the abolitionists, the reason why the Southern states started to secede was that the long term prognosis for slavery was not good staying within the system.  Things were changing in the abolitionists' favor.

In the case of abortion, the problem is that it was decided nationally in an undemocratic way (Supreme Court decision) which even some supporters of abortion rights question (e.g., here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html)) and has politicized the Supreme Court such that litmus tests and who a President will nominate has become a major election issue.  If abortion were returned to the states to regulate or not regulate, then the issue could be worked out democratically (as it was being in the late 1960s and early 1970s before Roe stepped in and 7 justices set a national policy).

I find it a bit shocking that you can talk about slavery, and then immediately jump into saying that determining state-by-state is the only democratic way of working things out.

Quote from: jhkimI find it a bit shocking that you can talk about slavery, and then immediately jump into saying that determining state-by-state is the only democratic way of working things out.

There are several reasons for that but I really don't want to turn this into a lengthy abortion debate (net.abortion, which became talk.abortion, was the first "noise" newsgroup on the Usenet created to keep abortion debates out of all of the other topics because they tend to get out of control very quickly).  All I'll say is that I think that both sides can make a legitimate slavery analogy in support of their own side, even if most people can't understand why the other side feels that way.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm in the same club as most of the Founding Fathers, and I'm pretty sure that they did very much intend that.

Not all of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons and they weren't in complete agreement about a great many things (hence the split between Federalists and anti-Federalists and so on).  So at this point I'll concede that it's silly for me to argue that none of them supported that sort of intent (so I won't) but the Bill of Rights was a compromise document and I doubt it would have passed when it did had it applied to the States as well as Congress.  It's actually pretty interesting reading the earlier drafts of the Bill of Rights recorded by James Madison, George Mason, and others because it gives some interesting insight into what they were thinking.  And, of course, some of the Founding Fathers (non-Freemasons, as far as I can tell) went on to support the Anti-Sedition Acts of 1798 which was pretty clearly in violation of the First Amendment.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights reads in part:

   XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Mason's draft of the Bill of Rights reads, in part:

   16. That the People have a right to Freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their Sentiments; that the Freedom of the Press is one of the great Bulwarks of Liberty, and ought not to be violated.

20. That Religion or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society of Christians ought to be favored or established by Law in preference to others.

One of Madison's early drafts reads:

   The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

It also would have inserted the following text between clauses 3 and 4 of section 9 of the first article:

   The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

I suppose I should add that in addition to the original scope of the First Amendment ("Congress..."), the final amendment of the Bill of Rights reads:

   The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  




I don't think that should be their top priority because they aren't, you know, the law or the girl's parents, who are the people with the authority (legal and moral) to make that sort of decision.  And like most people who support unrestricted abortions, you assume that an abortion is always the right thing for the girl (so much for "choice") and that nobody could possibly be pressuring her into getting one that she doesn't want (so much for "choice").  And if we assume, like the law does, that a minor of that age is not competent to make that choice on her own, then what makes a Planned Parenthood employee more qualified to help that girl than her parents or a court-appointed advocate?  And what gives Planned Parenthood the authority to flaunt the law because they feel that making sure girls aren't afraid of getting abortions is more important than reporting child abuse?

I suppose I should also point out that the girl in those phone calls indicated that she was not aware that her boyfriend could get arrested if she showed up with him until the Planned Parenthood employees warned her of that, thus it wouldn't have discouraged her from showing up.  But maybe if word got around that 22 year-olds couldn't just hand their 13 year-old girlfriends a few hundred bucks to take care of it without risking getting arrested they would be more careful about not getting them pregnant or, you know, not pick 13 year-olds as their girlfriends in the first place.  That's how deterrence works.  But yet again, the abortion uber alles attitude trumps any other common sense interest including preventing the abuse of young girls.  Better to cover up child abuse and help enable it than give young girls any reason not to have an abortion because nothing is more important for young women than making sure that they have abortions when they get pregnant whether they want one or not, right?

I think that if you want to veer into a full-blown discussion about abortion, you should start a new thread on that topic. Just a suggestion.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIn the case of abortion, the problem is that it was decided nationally in an undemocratic way (Supreme Court decision)

The independent judiciary is an essential part of the American democratic process.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that if you want to veer into a full-blown discussion about abortion, you should start a new thread on that topic. Just a suggestion.

No.  My argument is that Planned Parenthood has an obligation (and a legal requirement) to report statutory rape and child abuse and that they've been failing to do so, thus enabling child abuse.  You argued that they had higher obligations than preventing child abuse and obeying the law.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe independent judiciary is an essential part of the American democratic process.

The politicization of the judiciary is threatening it's independence.

Quote from: John MorrowThe politicization of the judiciary is threatening it's independence.

I like how with the Right, the SC is "politicized" when they're defending free speech for obscenity trials, or preventing states from passing anti-homosexuality laws, or defending womens' right to choose; but when they're being stacked with religious fundamentalists who've written anti-gay tracts or consistently voted to support right-wing causes they're just engaging in "strict interpretation" of the constitution and that's suddenly ok.

I think that on the whole, the SC is working pretty well; ironically some of the judges that the Right bitches about these days were put in there by Reagan or Bush, the right claims that they were "stealth liberals" or something like that, because they don't pass the kinds of judgments that the right-wing wants, while in fact the guys are just being competently apolitical in their judgments.

The only guy in the SC right now that I think is truly unqualified to be there is Clarence Thomas; and not because of the nonsense about him and Anita Hill, but because he's really very incompetent and a political mouthpiece. Even Scalia, who's politics I rarely agree with, has at least got a spine.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditDon't get me wrong, if they attempt it even once, then that's that; but you're talking about charging everyone with murder who owns a gun, because they might end up shooting someone with it one day.

Well duh! That's what the act of posessing a gun is: a threat to use it. A wicked man with a gun is a threat to good people, a good person with a gun is a threat to the wicked, a careless person is a threat to everyone etc... So the sane approach to gun control then is to ballance the good effects of gun ownership against the bad. I don't want to weigh in on Shakespere-this or criticaly acclaimed Lolita-that. Just actual children in actual porn.

It reminds me of a skit where Batman's nemisis, "the Penguin" tried to get past a policeman and failed because, unlike the police of Gothem city, this policeman wasn't an idiot -- he didn't fall for the old "smell the gas coming out of the Penguin's umbrella" trick. Point is, Penguin is a supervillian who can only function in a world where people sniff umbrella gas. The all kiddie porn is free speach routine only functions in a world where people can't distinguish between Shakespeare and nailing a 4 year old.

Therefore I call upon the en-brained people of earth to legislate against kiddie pr0n! EDIT: I'm lookin' at you Japan! :IGMEoY:

QuoteYes, and your point is?

It's not a point but a challenge -- and one that you responded to nicely.

QuoteIf some guy came around here and started advocating pedophilia, and could not stop himself, he would be banned.

There's a huge difference though between rightly mocking someone, or kicking them out of social groups, and sending them to prison for 10-15 and putting them on a registry that will guarantee to socially isolate and criminalize them for life.

I like the cut of your jib although I think the difference between banning people from social groups and banning people from society is only one of degree. Since you've got a big mouth, you berate pedophiles. Since you own a board, you ban them. If you were sheriff? If you were Prime Minister? If you were dictator for life? I think you're on the same slippery slope as I: the right to free speach is not absolute.

Quote from: RPGPunditI like how with the Right, the SC is "politicized" when they're defending free speech for obscenity trials, or preventing states from passing anti-homosexuality laws, or defending womens' right to choose; but when they're being stacked with religious fundamentalists who've written anti-gay tracts or consistently voted to support right-wing causes they're just engaging in "strict interpretation" of the constitution and that's suddenly ok.

And can you give me an example of a decision by those "religious fundamentalists" making actual rulings at odds with the Constitution, especially give that some of the most staunchly conservative justices are also the most reliable defenders of the First Amendment in a way that you should approve of?  In other words, do you have any specific example of right-wing activism or is this just generic lightweight partisanship masquerading as a deep opinion on the subject?  

(And before you cite Bush v. Gore, please read Souter's dissent that was joined by Breyer, which agreed that the remedy offered by the Florida Supreme Court was not Constitutional.  It was originally reported as a 7-2 decision for a reason.)

Of course Republicans ran Justices Ginsberg and Breyer through a wringer the same way Democrats run the appointees of Republicans through a wringer.  Oh, wait.  They didn't, instead arguing that a President is entitled to appoint who he wants to the courts.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that on the whole, the SC is working pretty well; ironically some of the judges that the Right bitches about these days were put in there by Reagan or Bush, the right claims that they were "stealth liberals" or something like that, because they don't pass the kinds of judgments that the right-wing wants, while in fact the guys are just being competently apolitical in their judgments.

On what basis do you think it's "working pretty well"?  That you like the rulings? :rolleyes:

Do you really believe that the interstate commerce clause covers activities that don't involve interstate commerce because they might have some small theoretical impact on interstate commerce?  Do you really believe that any tiny creek or muddy wetland is legally a "navigable waterway" because it might have some small theoretical impact on an actual navigable waterway?  Have you ever actually read Roe v. Wade (or Doe v. Bolton, or Griswald or any of the other key privacy rights decisions)?  Did you bother to read the Edward Lazarus column that I posted a link to earlier where he writes:

   As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather.

[...]

Why Roe, As Constitutional Interpretation, is Virtually Impossible to Defend

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.

Before Roe, the right to contraception established in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird was a concept that was already barely hanging onto the high ledge of defensible constitutional thinking. In Roe, the Court added a 500 lb. lead weight. And the Court's been looking up at the ledge ever since.

Instead, as conservatives now scurry to do with Bush v. Gore, the friends of Roe seek to find other constitutional bases to defend its outcome. Might Roe be a stealth equal protection case - really relating not to the right of privacy, but instead to women's equality? Perhaps, but to say so amounts to a concession that the decision itself, as written, is unsustainable.

And it's not all that difficult to find other left-wing writers who agree with the outcome of Roe v. Wade who, nevertheless, feel that it' a legally indefensible position.  For example you can find columnist Richard Cohen's opinions about it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html)

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized Roe v. Wade.  From a New York Times article: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/politics/ginsburg.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

   Judge Ginsburg's critique of Roe v. Wade is twofold. First, she said in the New York University lecture, as she has written for years, the right to abortion might have been more secure had it been grounded in the concept of women's right to equality rather than in the right to privacy. "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center," she said, had it "homed in more precisely on the women's-equality dimension of the issue."

[...]

The second part of Judge Ginsburg's critique concerns the scope of Roe v. Wade, and it is this part that has made some abortion-rights leaders, including Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League, somewhat wary. Judge Ginsburg has argued that by issuing a broad ruling that swept most state abortion laws off the books, the Court created an inherently vulnerable precedent that led to a backlash and short-circuited a liberal trend then under way in the states.

ADDED: Then there are these quotes from an L.A. Times article from 2005 titled "Roe Ruling: More Than Its Author Intended":

   [...] On the day the ruling was announced, Burger said, "Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand."

Blackmun proposed to issue a news release to accompany the decision, issued Jan. 22, 1973. "I fear what the headlines may be," he wrote in a memo. His statement, never issued, emphasized that the court was not giving women "an absolute right to abortion," nor was it saying that the "Constitution compels abortion on demand."

In reality, the court did just that.

I suggest doing a Google search for the article and read the entire thing.  It talks about how the scope of Roe v. Wade was unintentional and how it happened the way it did based on the release of Blackmun's papers from the time.

Yes, I know that this is all far more nuanced than a Bill Maher monologue.  Please note that I'm making a point about the grounds upon which these decisions were made rather than how much I like or don't like the decision, so please try to keep your responses on that issue.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe only guy in the SC right now that I think is truly unqualified to be there is Clarence Thomas; and not because of the nonsense about him and Anita Hill, but because he's really very incompetent and a political mouthpiece. Even Scalia, who's politics I rarely agree with, has at least got a spine.

I find it ironic, given the shallowness and partisanship of this response, that you'd use it to call anyone else incompetent or a political mouthpiece.  

I suggest that you take a look at Edward Lazarus' other columns on the Supreme Court at FindLaw.com because even though I don't agree with his politics, he's not relying on comedians like Bill Maher for his opinions of the court.  Another Lazarus article (I posted a link to one earlier) from FindLaw worth reading is here (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20050106.html).  In an article explaining why Thomas would make a poor Chief Justice, he writes:

   Don't Believe the Hype: Many Liberals' Views of Thomas Turn Out to Be Inaccurate

To see Thomas, as a Justice, clearly, it's first necessary to put aside many of the inaccurate claims that have been made about him.

In liberal circles, Thomas is often derided as an intellectual lightweight whose deep resentments fuel a passionate but unprincipled conservative judicial record. Often, liberals dismiss Thomas as a Scalia clone who can't think for himself.

As evidence for their claim, liberals almost universally point to his habitual silence at the Court's oral arguments. Surely, they say, this silence must be a sign of Thomas's indifference, his ill-preparedness, or his inability to engage in intellectual sparing with the lawyers who appear before him.

Much of this description of Thomas, however, has little grounding in reality. Court insiders (including ex-clerks who don't like Thomas's views) tend to agree that Thomas is plenty smart and intellectually engaged in the Court's work. They concede that Thomas's clerks do much of the heavy lifting in his opinions. But there is also no denying that Thomas has produced a body of incisive, provocative opinions that merit (and are increasingly receiving) serious attention.

In other words, whatever the reason for Thomas's consistent silence at oral argument, it isn't a lack of ability, nor is it any shirking of his duties. Those who suggest otherwise conveniently forget that, like Thomas, some of their own heroes (including very conscientious justices such as Harry Blackmun) only rarely contributed to oral argument.

Additional Years on the Court Have Proven Thomas Is Not a "Scalia Clone"

It is also wrong to suggest that Thomas is a Scalia clone (though this description was more apt in Thomas's first few years at the Court). To the contrary, in recent years, Thomas seems very self-consciously to have staked out a position distinctly to the right of Scalia on numerous issues.

Last term, for example, in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (the Pledge of Allegiance case), Thomas broke from Scalia's already conservative position favoring a more modest separation of Church and State. Thomas's view is much more extreme - so much so, that no other justice in the modern era has taken this view.

Thomas declares that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (which creates the Church/State separation) applies only to the federal government, and not to the fifty states. As a result, according to Thomas's view, states are not prohibited from establishing a religion, as long as they do not violate citizens' rights - such as their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of their religion in doing so.

I don't doubt that the idea that Thomas is even more right-wing than Scalia makes him even worse in your eyes, but the point is that your shallow, partisan, and uninformed critique of him is, well, shallow, partisan, and uninformed.

Related TIME article: Will SCOTUS know indecency when it sees it? (http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/03/will_scotus_know_indecency_whe.html)

QuoteMarch 17, 2008 11:34

Will SCOTUS Know Indecency When It Sees It?

Posted by James Poniewozik

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSWAT00914320080317) the case of Fox network vs. the FCC, after the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the FCC could not fine the network for the use of "fleeting expletives" by Cher and Nicole Richie. I won't rehash my opinions on the case (see here (http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2007/06/dead_tree_alert_i_bush_vs_dece_1.html), here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630538,00.html) and here (http://time-blog.com/tuned_in/2007/06/the_decency_police_lose_their.html)) or the FCC's general nanny-statism.

But I will reiterate my constant reminder that the broadcast-decency issue is one of those controversies that don't break down along traditional liberal-conservative lines. Here, we're essentially seeing a cultural-conservative argument (that the government has a role in promoting public morals) against an economic-conservative one (that the government should stay out of the affairs of private business, not to mention out of viewers' living rooms). And you'll find "liberals" and "conservatives" lining up on both sides of the argument.

The big unknown--which I'm not legal scholar enough to guess at--is whether the case will prove the Court's pro-business leanings (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?ref=magazine), or something else. But it would be nice if the ruling provided some clarity in the muddled question of what Washington can and cannot police.

One thing that has not been mentioned in regards to the porn issue, be it drawn cartoon child porn, or real world porn (nice dodge from Jimmy B on the dominatrix issue and it's contradiction of his 'porn is misogyny' theme btw):

What ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?


I mean, John (I think) accidentally put forth some numbers earlier that would actually support this. You know, how possessers of child porn were actually THREE FUCKING TIMES as turned on as actual pedophiles!!!

As horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.  


This entire topic has the feeling of a wave of hysteria, the 'What of Societies Evils can we Stomp Out Next'.  They seem to come, lasting a few years, then move on, falling to the wayside. Each has been a legitimate problem in turn (glass ceilings, sexual harrassment, drunk driving... the list goes on...) leaving a wake of often shit law and potentially innocent victims of the lynch mob mentality in their wake...   and the problem remains.



My apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing. I'm tired, its early, and there is no coffee...

Quote from: SpikeWhat ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?

There are also plenty of other studies going back into the eighties showing that pornography, particularly the violent and misogynistic kind (which a great deal of Japanese pornography is), is harmful.  For every study there are questions about the sample size, methodology, and so on.  Like I said, the big problem is devising some sort of ethical way to evaluate what's going on and I don't think anyone from either side has managed that yet.

Quote from: SpikeI mean, John (I think) accidentally put forth some numbers earlier that would actually support this. You know, how possessers of child porn were actually THREE FUCKING TIMES as turned on as actual pedophiles!!!

The facts are what they are, whether they agree with me or not.  Facts are funny that way.  It's not the first time that I've posted facts that contradict or don't fully support my position.

That said, it's not entirely clear what that means.  Since the study was testing their response to pictures rather than real little children, does that mean that they are simply more turned on to pictures than people who have done the real thing?  Can we assume that they are correspondingly less attracted to real children or maybe the increased arousal carries over?  A lot is left unanswered there.

But, yes, it could support the idea that pornography can be used as an outlet.

Quote from: SpikeAs horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.

My concern is that I have heard of people and have even known people for whom their appetites for pornography are not static, which is why there is a market for pornography dealing with some really twisted fetishes out there.  People see a topless woman and then want to see her bottomless.  They see her bottomless and then they want to see her having sex.  They see her having sex then want to see her doing something more kinky, and so on.

Consider that despite the widespread availability of adult pornography around the world, the sex trade is huge ranging from strip clubs to prostitutes.  And despite the availability of soft core then hard core pornography, not only have the extremes been getting pushed but the mainstream has also been getting harder.  So the fear is that pornography will encourage an escalation that will go from animation to pictures of real children and then to the real children, themselves, in part because the investigation of almost all sexual criminals seem to show pornography in their lives and it doesn't seem to stop them.

Quote from: SpikeThis entire topic has the feeling of a wave of hysteria, the 'What of Societies Evils can we Stomp Out Next'.  They seem to come, lasting a few years, then move on, falling to the wayside. Each has been a legitimate problem in turn (glass ceilings, sexual harrassment, drunk driving... the list goes on...) leaving a wake of often shit law and potentially innocent victims of the lynch mob mentality in their wake...   and the problem remains.

When they deal with the root causes and become a real deterrence, they can work to a degree.  It's just as utopian to expect any law or policy to perfectly solve a problem or want to abandon it.

QuoteMy apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing.

I think there's a point there, Spike. And the point has already been made in this thread that Japan may have less actual abuse than eg the US or Australia.

Quote from: John MorrowSince the study was testing their response to pictures rather than real little children, does that mean that they are simply more turned on to pictures than people who have done the real thing?  Can we assume that they are correspondingly less attracted to real children or maybe the increased arousal carries over?  A lot is left unanswered there.

But, yes, it could support the idea that pornography can be used as an outlet.

Quote from: John MorrowConsider that despite the widespread availability of adult pornography around the world, the sex trade is huge ranging from strip clubs to prostitutes.  And despite the availability of soft core then hard core pornography, not only have the extremes been getting pushed but the mainstream has also been getting harder.  So the fear is that pornography will encourage an escalation that will go from animation to pictures of real children and then to the real children, themselves, in part because the investigation of almost all sexual criminals seem to show pornography in their lives and it doesn't seem to stop them.

Well, no one claimed that porn would totally stop crime.  However, as I recall you have complained about the spread of general porn during the Clinton administration.  However, during that same period the rate of rapes decreased from its peak in 1991. cf. the Department of Justice  Rape Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm)  There is some question about the connection around 1995, but in general the trend has been downward despite your concerns about the rising spread of porn.  

I haven't been able to find similar estimations of child molestation, though I did see a reference to an increase between 1987 and 1993.

Quote from: jhkimWell, no one claimed that porn would totally stop crime.  However, as I recall you have complained about the spread of general porn during the Clinton administration.  However, during that same period the rate of rapes decreased from its peak in 1991. cf. the Department of Justice  Rape Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm)  There is some question about the connection around 1995, but in general the trend has been downward despite your concerns about the rising spread of porn.

Given the number of variables involved, I think it's difficult to jump from correlation to causation in this case.  That's why I'm much more interested in studied of individual behavior here than in statistical analysis, though it seems difficult to find studies that don't seem to have an axe to grind either way.  But there does seem to be enough zero and negative connection data to warrant consideration of the idea that it's harmless or even helpful but doing so should also consider the full social implications (e.g., I found testimony on one page from a wife who was coerced by her husband into doing things he'd seen in pornography that she didn't want to do, which won't show up any sort of statistic).

Quote from: jhkimI haven't been able to find similar estimations of child molestation, though I did see a reference to an increase between 1987 and 1993.

I did find at least one (possibly unreliable) anti-pornography document that pointed out that the FBI's crime statistics specifically deal with forcible rape of girls and women 12 and older and thus may be hiding increases for earlier victims, not to mention the point I made earlier about the active cover-up that many older men engage in to hide their relationship with even very young teenagers.  Even if there is a statistical drop in child rape, how much of that is the result of parental reluctance to let their children just go outside for unsupervised play or because the Internet has made it easier for authorities to find and round up child molesters?

Anime is one of those things, you know? Not that it's exempt from the judgment of society, (I'd say it's seen in more contempt than most media, actually) but that the animated nature of it creates a much larger 'gray area' in regards to the legality of what it depicts.

Ignoring arguments about what art is (another thread, please), anime and generic animated films and drawings don't involve real people engaged in these actions of sex (normal consensual) or rape (violent non-consensual). This raises the question of who's harmed, and generally falls under pornography clauses and issues of free speech.

It's slightly less of a gray area when the ages of characters are well-defined (stated in print or audibly, for ex), and issues re: child pornography can be levied at that point, maybe. OTOH, we're all aware, I think, of characters who are reported to be at legal age for sexual congress but look younger. This is a really hazy area because we know what squicks us, and we know why, but when legislating, it's stated intent versus perception. If the character looks too young, and acts too young, but is given the listed age of 18+ (popular tactic is making someone hundreds of years old, but appear young) it's difficult to draw any kind of line you can legislate from without becoming draconian. And that's without getting into areas re: artistic expression, 'what is porn', and artistic style.

In the US, we don't get this as often. With cartoons being for children, sexualized animated/drawn images are fairly recent, or mostly relegated to being hidden/closeted. Not the same in Japan, whose minimum age for sexual relations is already lower then it is in the United States and has a different attitude towards sex than we do. And no, I'm not defending child porn. I'm just saying that there are things that make animated porn featuring minors difficult to legislate, and in Japan, it's already going to be harder to build up momentum.

So, I assume the logistical issues have created an atmosphere that makes dragging ones feet regarding legislation likely. I'm not surprised that without outside weight, nothing's gotten done. I'm not sure it'd be a good idea anyhow, since I agree with Pundit on that issue.

okay. Let's see much I can condense this one :

Child porn = BAD

Porn with adult women & men is Good.



- Ed C.

Quote from: SpikeWhat ever happened to those studies I heard about through the nineties that showed that pornography was an outlet valve, that repression of sexuality (including porn) actually increased instances of sexual assaults and rapes?

Were they discredited? Did they only exist in the rumormills of pop culture?

Discredited but still in vogue.    How did [Kinsey] get this data?

According to Kinsey, these conclusions were based on statistics gathered from mysterious sources such as "Mr. X" and other "trained observers" who sent him reports about their sexual activities with children. These "trained observers" were later discovered to be pedophiles. "Mr. X" turned out to be Rex King, a man known to have been responsible for the rapes of hundreds of children.

Another consort was the notorious former Nazi and pedophile Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck. Von Balluseck contributed data about his child abuse to Kinsey's research database during the twenty year period of 1936–1956. Von Balluseck was on trial in Germany for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl when correspondence from Kinsey was found in his possession. Kinsey's letters encouraged Von Balluseck to continue sending the results of his "research" on children and even warned him to "be careful."

Considering his sources, one hardly can wonder why Kinsey believed that the vast majority of adult-child sex is harmless. He claimed that adult hysteria over the matter was more harmful than the rape itself. The perpetuation of these outrageous myths has had an enormous impact on the lives of children. Not only has it fueled an ever-growing movement to legalize pedophilia, but it is also behind the graphic sex education allowed in classrooms for children as young as five years.
 Like John said, it's hard to find an unbiased study but if you'd like to see a quick summary look here. (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea1.asp) It's hosted by Catholic.com. (Can you guess which way the bias leans? :Catholic:  )

QuoteAs horrific as it is to contemplate, the idea that people can find themselves enjoying the imaginary sex more than real sex might keep them from actually attempting to have it is a potentially valid part of the discussion that has been neglected.   You know: Instead of banning all expression of child porn, we could make every effort to let those that are inclined actually get addicted to the shit so they don't feel as much pressure to live out their fantasies with real children.

Good thinking Spike. Build your kiddy porn clubs where they'll do the most good -- next to gradeschools and playgrounds. Build two or three inside Disneyland. :rolleyes:

QuoteMy apologies for any crap wording. Please attempt to read the gist of my arguement rather than the specific phrasing. I'm tired, its early, and there is no coffee...

I need coffee too! ;)

Quoteokay. Let's see much I can condense this one :

Child porn = BAD

Porn with adult women & men is Good.

On the face of it, that's basically the case (though I'd edit it, were it I, to say that porn between consenting adults probably isn't usually bad), but even that basically true statement, like I noted, probably needs some qualification.

And even though everyone here is on board with the "child porn = bad" diagnosis, there's still debate about legality, harm, free speech, artistic merit, animation vs. real-life, and, while I don't recall it coming up here (since it's basically muck up the intent without really helping a measured discussion), what defines 'child' or 'underage' since these are concepts that vary legally and conceptually between nations and cultures.

So, we're not experts, but it's still an involved discussion.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumDiscredited but still in vogue.    How did [Kinsey] get this data?

According to Kinsey, these conclusions were based on statistics gathered from mysterious sources such as "Mr. X" and other "trained observers" who sent him reports about their sexual activities with children. These "trained observers" were later discovered to be pedophiles. "Mr. X" turned out to be Rex King, a man known to have been responsible for the rapes of hundreds of children.

Another consort was the notorious former Nazi and pedophile Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck. Von Balluseck contributed data about his child abuse to Kinsey's research database during the twenty year period of 1936–1956. Von Balluseck was on trial in Germany for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl when correspondence from Kinsey was found in his possession. Kinsey's letters encouraged Von Balluseck to continue sending the results of his "research" on children and even warned him to "be careful."

Considering his sources, one hardly can wonder why Kinsey believed that the vast majority of adult-child sex is harmless. He claimed that adult hysteria over the matter was more harmful than the rape itself. The perpetuation of these outrageous myths has had an enormous impact on the lives of children. Not only has it fueled an ever-growing movement to legalize pedophilia, but it is also behind the graphic sex education allowed in classrooms for children as young as five years.
 Like John said, it's hard to find an unbiased study but if you'd like to see a quick summary look here. (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea1.asp) It's hosted by Catholic.com. (Can you guess which way the bias leans? :Catholic:  )

 

Jesus, you fucking papists sure hate Kinsey, huh? I guess it makes sense, since the guy was one of the prime movers in slowing down your ability to milk money and obedience out of sexual guilt.

In any case, I would think Catholics would be the last people to be "throwing stones" (pardon the pun) about child sexual abuse, and would be hardly qualified to pontificate about what constitutes sexual health.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumDiscredited but still in vogue.    How did [Kinsey] get this data?

According to Kinsey, these conclusions were based on statistics gathered from mysterious sources such as "Mr. X" and other "trained observers" who sent him reports about their sexual activities with children. These "trained observers" were later discovered to be pedophiles. "Mr. X" turned out to be Rex King, a man known to have been responsible for the rapes of hundreds of children.

Another consort was the notorious former Nazi and pedophile Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck. Von Balluseck contributed data about his child abuse to Kinsey's research database during the twenty year period of 1936–1956. Von Balluseck was on trial in Germany for the rape and murder of a ten-year-old girl when correspondence from Kinsey was found in his possession. Kinsey's letters encouraged Von Balluseck to continue sending the results of his "research" on children and even warned him to "be careful."

Considering his sources, one hardly can wonder why Kinsey believed that the vast majority of adult-child sex is harmless. He claimed that adult hysteria over the matter was more harmful than the rape itself. The perpetuation of these outrageous myths has had an enormous impact on the lives of children. Not only has it fueled an ever-growing movement to legalize pedophilia, but it is also behind the graphic sex education allowed in classrooms for children as young as five years.
 Like John said, it's hard to find an unbiased study but if you'd like to see a quick summary look here. (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea1.asp) It's hosted by Catholic.com. (Can you guess which way the bias leans? :Catholic:  )

 Good thinking Spike. Build your kiddy porn clubs where they'll do the most good -- next to gradeschools and playgrounds. Build two or three inside Disneyland. :rolleyes:

 I need coffee too! ;)

Wow, way to go with the personal attacks!  Show me where the bad priest touched you on the doll while you're at it.

First of all, the stuff I was referring to was not specific to 'child porn', merely that we could extrapolate mainstream porn, and its effect on viewers to child porn and its potential effects on pedophiles.

Related note:  Apparently there is a syndrome of men who, having watched so much porn, no longer find themselves aroused by real partners. Now, I'm hardly going to site this as a strong authority, like the previous studies (which, incidentally, you confirmed the existance of at least one source of such studies) I only know of it through anecdotal sources.

As for your attack: First of all, I don't advocate building anything of the sort. At MOST I suggest putting existing confisticated materials to use by the government, which incidentally, makes it easier to track those who are interested in that sort of thing, as part of a treatment program.  Where you got the idea of building parlors and schools and suchlike is the result of your own fevered imagination.

Is there such a thing as an Appeal to Hysteria?  

I know Kinsey is controversial, and I know he talked to reprehensible people, possibly even suggested morally questionable (or reprehensible) behaviors to them, as you suggest.  

That, however, does not necessarily mean that the data he collected is worthless.  We learned a great deal of things about the human body from the Nazi concentration camps, which created a minor moral quandry when it was discovered.  Destroy the data because the methods by which it was gain was inhuman, incidentally making the sacrifices of the victims mean even less than they already did, or keep it and put it to use regardless of the source so that no one else would feel the need to recreate those expirements to recapture the data later, and potentially saving lives in the process.


I'm not sure why I'm bothering with you. I already don't particularly like you. You don't seem to be here for the gaming, you blindly push your particular religious agenda with the smug certainty of the righteous... which certainly suggests to me that you don't have faith, you have belief... and I doubt you understand the difference.  

On the other hand, I am utterly certain that if we were to meet I could easily kill you and find you quite delicious. I find Catholics are quite tasty, a bit like pork veal if you can imagine such a thing, and go excellent with a little wine sauce, though raw isn't bad either. Keep an eye out for small yellow furballs, lunchmeat.

Quote from: SpikeThat, however, does not necessarily mean that the data he collected is worthless.

No, but he was biased and it does raise questions about the data and the motives behind his conclusions.  For example, Kinsey famously estimated the homosexuality rate at around 10% but marketing companies assume that gays and lesbians make up 5% of the population, and they don't have a bias to set the number to any particular value.  Other scientific studies also fali to reproduce Kinsey's numbers about various things.

Also, one should always be suspicious, whether it's the Kinxey Institute or anti-pornography Feminists or Christian researchers when they won't release their raw data for independent validation and analysis.  What are they hiding?

Quote from: SpikeWe learned a great deal of things about the human body from the Nazi concentration camps, which created a minor moral quandry when it was discovered.  Destroy the data because the methods by which it was gain was inhuman, incidentally making the sacrifices of the victims mean even less than they already did, or keep it and put it to use regardless of the source so that no one else would feel the need to recreate those expirements to recapture the data later, and potentially saving lives in the process.

I guess you missed the part about encouraging the subject to gather more data and to be careful.  I think that implies the researcher was an accessory to the crime.  When you are getting an ongoing stream of data about the sexuality of children, one should question where it's coming from and whether it's ongoing.  I suppose you could argue that, like Planned Parenthood, Kinsey's first priority was not stopping child abuse but something else like gathering data for his cause.

It's also important to remember that the Japanese doctors who performed similar experiments as part of Japanese biological warfare units used their data as a bargaining chip and many were apparently not prosecuted for any crimes and let go upon turning over their data.  From this site (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8k1r31367450677/):

   Abstract  Japanese microbiologists and other scientists, as early as the 1930s, used humans for test purposes in their quest for a viable offensive biological warfare system. Thousands of men, women and children were tested with a host of pathogens to determine the appropriate dose required to kill. Those who survived the initial tests were subjected to other experiments. No one left the test sites alive.  They were either killed in the experiments, or they were 'sacrificed" when they outlived their usefulness. Field tests in China unleashed plagues that killed tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands.

American intelligence in early 1942 discovered that Japan had a large biological warfare enterprise in Manchuria and China. By the end of the war, Intelligence was in possession of a comprehensive outline of Japanese operations. American scientists at Fort Detrick, Md., home of the American biological warfare program, learned of the Japanese research. They sent emissaries to Japan to negotiate with those scientists who escaped from Manchuria and returned home. After two years of negotiations, a deal was made. The Japanese would turn over to the Americans their research data. The Americans would not prosecute the scientists as war criminals. Not one Japanese scientist under American jurisdiction was ever prosecuted, but, instead, was permitted to live a normal life in post-war Japan.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the morality of that?  Utilitarianism is a harsh mistress.

John:  I'm no expert on Kinsey, though I am aware of his work, obviously.

Thus I'm poorly placed to argue the specific validity of his data. I'll agree that the arguements against him are damning of him as a human being if verifiable.  Then again, I think a difference between 5% and 10% between two groups of researchers on something as 'uncomfortable' and frankly nebulous as human sexuality is hardly horrible.  Kinsey's research is like ancient greek mathmatics (where Pi is 3.25 or so...) in that it was accurate for its level of refinement.

And I'll certainly account for Bias. I'd LOVE to see more rigorous research with more ethical views being used. I'm not likely to see it in my lifetime, but c'est le vie.

As for the Japansese biologists: yes I am aware of that.  If you feel its more relevant then by all means, lets us it rather than the contemporary Nazi example, though I don't see how it is more, or less relevant.  The use of it as a bargening chip is not relevant to Kinsey, and more to the point, the tradeoff was for weapons technology, not life saving or even just 'life improving' technology.

I can claim, comfortably, that I'd handle the situation similarly IF the technology was life saving, though I have never been in that situation. Revenge is a fine thing, but if their research has the potential to save lives, even many more lives, then revenge is a silly motive.  The IDEAL situation is to punish them in some way while still aquiring the data, though punishment again falls to revenge.  If we strip away the more beastial aspects of humanity, then punishment is a poor second choice to correction.

That's a high minded ideal to live up to, correction.  I didn't pick the path, nor do I necessarily approve of it.  But then, I also don't see much value in the punishment route either.

That's one reason I support the death penalty. Its not punishment, nor revenge (though it serves both those purposes), nor is it 'correction' for the offender...

But it fits my preferred mentality: if correction is not an option, removal of predatory members of the species is the only recourse.


To bring this back to the Japanese Scientists:  once removed from the Japanese military establishment you have corrected the situation, they are no longer threats to the people around them.  Obviously there is slightly more to it than that, and even the most high minded idealist would probably prefer to see an actual 'correction' than simply removing them from opportunity.. but our tools in this regard are incredibly primative, even rudimentary.  Short of sticking an icepick in their nose and ruining them as human beings (revenge again), not much is going to work as a corrective.

The gain, in this specific example, is not worth it.

Now, since revenge is still a valid point of view in my personal philosophy, if of limited value, simply deciding that biological weapons tech wasn't that valuable to us, killing them to make a point/satiate our animal bloodlust would have been equally valid.



But since the point was tossing data, not potentially saving/killing people who did things we don't like....  again, the relevance just isn't there for me.

Now, you finished with a 'utilitarian' jab, which is amusing as I've never claimed to be one.  I have not attempted to say 'they are just doing what nature intended them to do', which is what I assume the Utilitarian point of view is.    My concern is that we have two potential reactions to the continued existance of people sexually attracted to children (let us, for the moment, restrict Pedophiles to the segment of this group that is actually predatory. Not accurate but for the sake of discussion.).

Now: We can punish them, which makes us feel better but otherwise serves no inherent purpose. We can correct them, which is the 'high road', difficult, problematic and possibly not within our means, or we can dispose of them.

Right now we continue to use the punishment model, despite its dubious ethics.  Punishing them is essentially masturbatory.

Correcting them MIGHT be possible. We have some research that suggests that their desires might be controllable, thus preventing them from engaging in predatory behavior. More research, which incidentally doesn't require dabbling in the inhuman end of the pool, might clear this up. Does prolonged exposure to pornography reduce the sex drive, even eliminate it as the fantasy life becomes more engaging than the real one?  Its a valid, and potentially solvable question.  Other corrective measures are equally 'squeamish' from an ethical standpoint, including surgical and chemical neutering, which might not prevent predatory behavior in some cases.

Disposing of them, as a whole, is the hardest one to swallow when you really think of it.  If even 1 percent of the population can be described as 'enjoys child porn' by your criterion you are calling for the execution of over three million human beings in America alone.

Now, for predatory pedophiles, the number is vastly smaller and we can argue that they are beyond correction. That leaves punishment, the current, unsatisfactory system and disposal which is my personal choice.  We have established that these predators do not meet the criterion of 'human being', they have regressed to an animal state by the act of predation, and are a threat to the existing community.  By all means, get rid of them. The numbers are much easier to take than simply rounding up all the described 'child lovers' and butchering them en masse, and you don't run the risk of straying into thought police territory, trying to determine which ones are the real sickos and which ones are the mostly ordinary folks whose tastes run into the not quite normal range.  Do we execute that nice young man from Georgia who made the mistake of continuing to fuck his girlfriend after his 19th birthday?  


I am not particularly inclined to maintain predators in a cage for eternity, or until parole when we release them to hunt again, be they pedophiles or serial killers, or just people who never learned not to kill human beings over trivial concerns like broken x-boxes or money.

I"m willing to entertain arguements for correction and I'm never ashamed to admit that I'm willing to put a bullet in their skull from close range and drop them in a hole somewhere.  

What I am increasingly uncomfortable with is the hidebound, even moribund method we have now. Ignoring it until its popular to be hysterical, then punishing everyone we can get our hands on to feel better about ourselves.

The thing is that I believe that many of the anti-research or anti-fiction arguments work against the safety of our children.  If you condemn confidential research on sexual behavior as immoral because the researcher doesn't condemn or turn his subjects in to the authorities, then you are making conclusions blindly or nearly so.  

For example, it is common to picture a child molester as a lonely deviant hanging around the playgrounds.  However, when you do the research, most child molesters are married or in a stable relationship.  They prey not on strangers, but on children who are known to them -- often in their family.  

Of course, you can just condemn certain sexual material as evil from a priori principles without research, and just force people to follow them.  For example, we should really listen to the Catholic church about managing people's sexuality, because it's had centuries of practice at it, and we can see their excellent results at stomping out child abuse.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeThus I'm poorly placed to argue the specific validity of his data. I'll agree that the arguements against him are damning of him as a human being if verifiable.  Then again, I think a difference between 5% and 10% between two groups of researchers on something as 'uncomfortable' and frankly nebulous as human sexuality is hardly horrible.  Kinsey's research is like ancient greek mathmatics (where Pi is 3.25 or so...) in that it was accurate for its level of refinement.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  I think that's just one example of a systematic bias.  Either a researcher is doing science or they are doing propaganda.  That there is so much propaganda in the social sciences (from all sides) is one reason why many people don't consider it real science.

Quote from: SpikeAs for the Japansese biologists: yes I am aware of that.  If you feel its more relevant then by all means, lets us it rather than the contemporary Nazi example, though I don't see how it is more, or less relevant.  The use of it as a bargening chip is not relevant to Kinsey, and more to the point, the tradeoff was for weapons technology, not life saving or even just 'life improving' technology.

Somehow, I can't think that Americans would have been willing to just let them go had the victims been a few thousand American POWs rather than Chinese prisoners, though it's possible some captured Americans were included in their experiments.

Quote from: SpikeIf we strip away the more beastial aspects of humanity, then punishment is a poor second choice to correction.

I disagree, because I think that while you acknowledge removing a criminal from society as a legitimate way to respond to a crime you are skipping over one of the primary purposes of harsh punishment, beyond simple revenge.  The objective is deterrence.  If you let people know that they can cut living people open without anesthesia to experiment on them in times of war and then they can cut a deal to live out their life in peace, you give people no reason not to do things like that to each other.  Basically, it sends the message that if you can give something useful to your enemies when they win, you can literally get away with murder.  No, mild punishments and a handful of executions years after the crime aren't much of a deterrence but serious corporal punishments can be, for example, Singapore.  In fact, this particular quote from the Wikipedia entry on Law in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore) is relevant to this discussion in more ways than one:

   The criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of common criminal offences such as homicide, theft and cheating, are set out in the Penal Code.[92] Other important offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act,[93] Kidnapping Act,[94] Misuse of Drugs Act[95] and Vandalism Act.[96]
In addition, there is a perception that Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalization of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use,[97] littering,[98] jaywalking,[99] the possession of pornography,[100] the sale of chewing gum,[101] and sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between men.[102] Nonetheless, Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low incidence of violent crimes.[103]
Singapore retains both corporal punishment (in the form of caning) and capital punishment (by hanging) as punishments for serious offences. For certain offences, the imposition of these penalties is mandatory.

Quote from: SpikeTo bring this back to the Japanese Scientists:  once removed from the Japanese military establishment you have corrected the situation, they are no longer threats to the people around them.  Obviously there is slightly more to it than that, and even the most high minded idealist would probably prefer to see an actual 'correction' than simply removing them from opportunity.. but our tools in this regard are incredibly primative, even rudimentary.  Short of sticking an icepick in their nose and ruining them as human beings (revenge again), not much is going to work as a corrective.

Do you think that John List should have been left alone after murdering his family since he had been living a crime free life for years and hurting nobody?  Are you fine with Mel Ignatow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow) walking the streets because of double jeopardy protections since the police found the pictures he had taken of Brenda Schaefer before he raped and murdered her after he had been acquitted because he's been a good boy and hasn't murdered anyone else?  Just how much can a person get away with and have society say, "Ooopsie!" and just let them go?  Do you, in general, agree with the idea of war crimes and punishing people for them, then?

The letters suggest that Kinsey collected "data" from a man who was actively abusing children, encouraging him to collect more data and to be careful.  If someone is reporting the details of the responses children have to sex, data that person couldn't possibly be collecting ethically, is asking for more data an ethical response?

Quote from: SpikeNow, you finished with a 'utilitarian' jab, which is amusing as I've never claimed to be one.

The jab was at Utilitarianism rather than you, in particular.  

Quote from: SpikeNow: We can punish them, which makes us feel better but otherwise serves no inherent purpose. We can correct them, which is the 'high road', difficult, problematic and possibly not within our means, or we can dispose of them.

Right now we continue to use the punishment model, despite its dubious ethics.  Punishing them is essentially masturbatory.

So your argument here is that a person can wrong others with reckless abandon and so long as they sin no more (repentance not required), they should just be let go to enjoy their lives?  The revenge reflex that you describe as "masturbatory" is part of the innate sense of fairness that's showing up as an emotional response on MRI scans and can be found in other primates and social animals.  The reason why it evolved (or God gave it to people, take your pick) was that presumably revenge serves some legitimate and useful survival purpose, even it's not obvious to you.

Game theorists who preach the merits of cooperation and forgiveness are amazed when, again and again, human beings and even chimpanzees would rather suffer themselves to take revenge out on others who have wronged them than to forgive and receive a small gain.  But when you look at people normally respond to each other, I think it's pretty clear just how useful revenge is in encouraging fairness and cooperation.  

For example, if I give one person $10 and tell them to divide the money between themselves and another person and that the other person will decide whether they both get to keep the money or give it back to me, people will naturally divide the amount roughly evenly.  Why?  Because they know that if they don't, the revenge instincts will kick in and the other person will reject the deal, even though game theorists argue that it would be better to take even $1 in an unfair trade because that's $1 that they didn't have before.  In fact, other experiments show that people are willing to lose money and hurt themselves to get revenge on others who have wronged them.

So like a game theorist, you are arguing that there is no value to revenge when the value is that it makes people think twice about wronging others, something that's a big plus when we talk about horrible crimes like rape and murder.  When people know that they can get away with something, they'll do it.  When they think they can't, they won't.  For example, I found one study that claims that 60% of Canadian college-aged men said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they would not get caught.  The value of retribution is not letting people get away with it, which makes them think twice about doing it in the first place.

Quote from: SpikeWhat I am increasingly uncomfortable with is the hidebound, even moribund method we have now. Ignoring it until its popular to be hysterical, then punishing everyone we can get our hands on to feel better about ourselves.

You seem to feel that the desire for revenge is some sort of psychological failing that people should try to fight.  I think the research shows that it's an evolutionary (or God-given, take your pick) response that has important positive social and survival value for social species like human beings.  Letting people get away with wrongs without punishment is like letting the first person in the $10 exercise get away with giving you $1 when asked to split the money.  What happens the next time they have the choice of treating you fairly or ripping you off?  Get ready for a life of getting the $1 because once people know they can get away with it, they'll shaft you up and down because they know you'll put up with it.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is that I believe that many of the anti-research or anti-fiction arguments work against the safety of our children.  If you condemn confidential research on sexual behavior as immoral because the researcher doesn't condemn or turn his subjects in to the authorities, then you are making conclusions blindly or nearly so.

So if you found out that your son was molested and some university researcher knew all about the perpetrator because they were studying the molester but didn't tell the authorities because they didn't want to scare the child molesters they were studying away, you'd have no hard feelings?  How would you feel if you found out that the university researcher had also been encouraging the molester to gather more data and to be careful?

I mean I know liberals are notoriously indifferent to victims and empathetic toward perpetrators but I'm sure you are a decent guy, John.  Can you really just ignore the trail of victims and destroyed lives that these guys leave in their wake and would you like someone else making that decision for you if your son were the victim?

ADDED: If it's not clear to you, that's essentially what Kinsey is being accused of.

Quote from: jhkimFor example, it is common to picture a child molester as a lonely deviant hanging around the playgrounds.  However, when you do the research, most child molesters are married or in a stable relationship.  They prey not on strangers, but on children who are known to them -- often in their family.

Sure.  And some are men who get involved in relationships with single women specifically to get access to their children.  And of course there are even fathers and women who engage in that sort of activity.  I really don't care who it is or who they are molesting.  If an adult knows that another adult is abusing children, I can think of very few reasons why they should not be obliged to let someone know and stop the abuse, and gathering more data for a sex study and not making young girls afraid to get an abortion are not among the exceptions that I have in mind.  In fact, that's why there are laws that require many adults including counselors, teachers, and those Planned Parenthood workers to report such abuse.  I was recently on the phone with a friend who is working as a social worker and while talking about my daughter, he jokingly informed me that he's a mandatory reporter.  If I tell him that I'm hurting my daughter, he's required to report it to the authorities.

Quote from: jhkimOf course, you can just condemn certain sexual material as evil from a priori principles without research, and just force people to follow them.  For example, we should really listen to the Catholic church about managing people's sexuality, because it's had centuries of practice at it, and we can see their excellent results at stomping out child abuse.  :rolleyes:

Do you really want to discuss the specifics of what was going on in the Catholic Church which involves more pederasty and homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Roman_Catholic_priesthood) rather than true pedophilia?  The problem with the Catholic Church is less one of celibacy than a shortage of people wanting to be priests, which has led to a lowering of standards.

I'm all for research but just as everyone (to my knowledge) here as agreed that child pornography using real children crosses the line because there is no ethical way to use children to create pornography, I think that the same applies to studying child molestation in progress.  There is no ethical way to do it.  And this is exactly why I said that Utilitarianism is a harsh mistress.  Once you start compromising morality for utilitarian reasons, it's not a big jump to excusing the enabling of child abuse to serve some apparently greater good.

More food for thought, now from TIME: (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722537,00.html)

QuoteDo Americans Care About Big Brother?

Friday, Mar. 14, 2008 By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON

Pity America's poor civil libertarians. In recent weeks, the papers have been full of stories about the warehousing of information on Americans by the National Security Agency, the interception of financial information by the CIA, the stripping of authority from a civilian intelligence oversight board by the White House, and the compilation of suspicious activity reports from banks by the Treasury Department. On Thursday, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine released a report documenting continuing misuse of Patriot Act powers by the FBI. And to judge from the reaction in the country, nobody cares.

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them.

Civil libertarians are in a state of despair. "People don't realize how damaging it is to a democratic society to allow the government to warehouse information about innocent Americans," says Mike German, national security counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or do they? In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. The Justice IG report released Thursday, for example, examined some 50,000 National Security Letters issued in 2006 to see whether the FBI misused that specialized kind of warrantless subpoena. The IG found some continuing abuse of the power, but blamed it for the most part on sloppiness and bad management, not nefarious intent. In a press release accompanying the report, Fine said, "The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems."

There may, nonetheless, be reasons to feel wary of the civil liberties vs. security trade-off into which Americans have bought. If the misuse documented in the Justice IG report stems from incompetence, Americans may not be getting the security they bargain for in sacrificing their civil liberties. It's also possible the Justice IG may yet find among the abused Patriot Act powers examples of an FBI agent stalking his girlfriend or doing a favor for a political operative friend. Fine is still preparing a report on the illegal use of "exigent letters" in unauthorized demands for records from business.

For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government's expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. "The government can collect information about the average citizen without any concern for their rights, but the citizen can't find out what the government is doing, and that's inimical to government of we the people," says the ACLU's German. So far, that argument hasn't convinced the people.

Quote from: John MorrowSo if you found out that your son was molested and some university researcher knew all about the perpetrator because they were studying the molester but didn't tell the authorities because they didn't want to scare the child molesters they were studying away, you'd have no hard feelings?  How would you feel if you found out that the university researcher had also been encouraging the molester to gather more data and to be careful?

I mean I know liberals are notoriously indifferent to victims and empathetic toward perpetrators but I'm sure you are a decent guy, John.

This is a bullshit argument.  John -- you're a believer in democracy and law and order.  How would you feel if someone who murdered your family went free because of some quirk of the law?  Would you have no hard feelings and welcome that person into your house simply because the law says so?  For any principle, one can invent a hypothetical scenario where sticking to that principle would be painful.  That doesn't make the principle wrong.  

Yes, having principles mean that there can be painful to stick to those principles.  I also am a firm believer in constitutional civil liberties.  That means that, at times, some people who are guilty are going to get away without punishment compared to a state where there are no limits on the government's power over the people.  I also believe that there are cases where war is justified, yet I wouldn't like to be bombed either.  

I don't think that condition of anonymity -- like lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients, or reporters talking to informants -- are fundamentally wrong.  If Kinsey had turned in people to be arrested for illegal sexual behavior they told him, then almost no one would have admitted anything to him.  So there would have been no gain.  It's not like people just randomly walked up to him and admitted such things on a whim.  The only reason why people admitted deviant and/or illegal sexual behavior to him was that he promised anonymity to them, and gave non-judgemental responses to everything said.  

Given the blatant bias in the rest of the article, I am not inclined to simply take the article's word for it that Kinsey encouraged child molesters rather than simply listening to them.  It does not jibe with other accounts that I have read of that issue.  If the letters were public, then I suppose I might read them and judge for myself, but in the meantime I am skeptical.

Quote from: John MorrowI mean I know liberals are notoriously indifferent to victims and empathetic toward perpetrators...

Pure class, man.

Quote from: jhkimThis is a bullshit argument.  John -- you're a believer in democracy and law and order.  How would you feel if someone who murdered your family went free because of some quirk of the law?  Would you have no hard feelings and welcome that person into your house simply because the law says so?  For any principle, one can invent a hypothetical scenario where sticking to that principle would be painful.  That doesn't make the principle wrong.

No, but it's fair game to ask whether the principle is worth the cost and to consider that cost personally.  Note, for example, that double jeopardy protections have been eliminated in the UK for many crimes because the cost is seen as being too high, and there are discussions about that in the United States.

Quote from: jhkimYes, having principles mean that there can be painful to stick to those principles.  I also am a firm believer in constitutional civil liberties.  That means that, at times, some people who are guilty are going to get away without punishment compared to a state where there are no limits on the government's power over the people.  I also believe that there are cases where war is justified, yet I wouldn't like to be bombed either.

What is the purpose of constitutional civil liberties to you?  

Quote from: jhkimI don't think that condition of anonymity -- like lawyers and their clients, doctors and their patients, or reporters talking to informants -- are fundamentally wrong.

I do, if it's used to cover up an ongoing crime and the law often agrees with me.  All 50 states have mandatory reporting laws for child abuse that for psychologists and these same laws generally cover social workers, physicians, nurses, police officers, and others.  Texas and Mississippi also require attorneys to report child abuse even when it's discovered in the course of their representation of their clients.  Several other states also require psychologists to report child abuse even when working in a legal capacity.  Constitutional protections are designed to protect the innocent from false conviction, not to help the guilty escape just conviction, and I can find no benefit toward that end in anyone covering up an ongoing crime.  Do you think that people should take it upon themselves to ignore these laws if they think they have a compelling reason to?  

Quote from: jhkimIf Kinsey had turned in people to be arrested for illegal sexual behavior they told him, then almost no one would have admitted anything to him.  So there would have been no gain.

My response here is, "So what?"  What was Kinsey doing that was so important as to justify the molestation of children?  When RPGPundit said that Planned Parenthood wasn't reporting statutory rape because he felt that one of their primary goals was to make sure that girls aren't afraid to come in for abortions, I don't agree with that at all but I can at least understand the thinking behind it.  I just don't see what Kinsey was doing that was so important as to justify his handling of pedophiles.  Even if you consider his research very important, it's not even as if the main points of his research hinged upon the data he collected about children.

Quote from: jhkimIt's not like people just randomly walked up to him and admitted such things on a whim.  The only reason why people admitted deviant and/or illegal sexual behavior to him was that he promised anonymity to them, and gave non-judgemental responses to everything said.  

And if he had been denied that information, how would society have suffered?  He still could have performed the research he performed on adults without crossing that line.

Quote from: jhkimGiven the blatant bias in the rest of the article, I am not inclined to simply take the article's word for it that Kinsey encouraged child molesters rather than simply listening to them.  It does not jibe with other accounts that I have read of that issue.  If the letters were public, then I suppose I might read them and judge for myself, but in the meantime I am skeptical.

You can find the Kinsey Institute's responses here (http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/about/controversy%202.htm).  While it addresses some of the more sensational charges, it doesn't entirely answer the questions about the letter in question nor does it go into any detail about 9 men that he interviewed who had sexual relations with children, one of which seems to be the source of data that appeared in his report.  Were they actively molesting children or describing past activity?  The Kinsey Institute doesn't say.  And just as the German Doctor was never actually used as part of his research, we have no way of knowing if there was other similar correspondence because the Kinsey Institute response seems to be carefully limited in scope.  So despite their response, some of the more critical questions remain, which I find curious.

Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n5_v56/ai_18640605/pg_1) is a more lengthy interview with a head of the Kinsey Institute  in 1996 that acknowledges that, "Yes, he did have an unrepresentative sample. Yes, he did over-sample--in particular, men in penal institutions.", that the commonly mentioned 10% homosexuality figure was more like 3% for exclusive homosexuality and 3% for bisexuality when the data was reanalyzed and the interview mentions another study that came up with a number just below 3% for men and below 2% for women).

The interview acknowledges, "It might certainly say that people made observations of children and, indeed, may have timed things" and that they observations were not made "by people in the Kinsey Institute", but doesn't say whether the timing (rather odd behavior) was encouraged by Kinsey's request for information, which comes back to the issue of whether he was talking to men about currently ongoing cases of abuse.  The interview also says, "Dr. Bancroft admits without hesitation that the man who provided the data for tables 31 through 34 undoubtedly sexually exploited the children whose behavior was chronicled. 'The question is,' Bancroft continued, 'why was Kinsey not totally open about his man being the only source for those tables? Obviously, I can't answer that.'"  And why was this man timing the children?  

Wikipedia claims, "Former and current directors of The Kinsey Institute confirmed that some of the information was gathered from nine pedophiles and that Kinsey chose not to report the pedophiles to the authorities, balancing what Kinsey saw as the need for their anonymity against the likelihood that their crimes would continue." but I don't have access to the other citation for that quote.  Given the recidivism rate for child molesters, the likelihood that one or more of them would continue to molest children was probably near 100% even if Kinsey was relying on past information, especially since the man he used gave him information about hundreds of children.  So we're back to Kinsey's "need for anonymity" to justify not reporting pedophiles to the authorities, something that current laws would make mandatory of any psychologist or doctor.  And for what?

Bancroft also makes the statement, "And, you know, everybody in the field has read that chapter and taken it entirely on face value. This is, of course, the reasonable approach."  Why is it reasonable to read detailed data about the sexual responses of children and not wonder how the data was gathered and whether it was gathered ethically?  In fact, it seems that it only came out in response to the criticism that some of that data was based on the reports of only one individual.  Yet nobody questioned it or noticed it.  I'm sorry but I don't find that reasonable.  I find it more than a bit creepy.

Apparently Abraham Maslow was also critical of Kinsey's sampling and use of volunteers, which apparently Kinsey didn't want to try to correct.  So I think that even if you exclude the more overblown claims made by Judith Reisman and others, Kinsey was pushing an agenda, his science was flawed, and I think serious ethical questions remain about his handling of child molesters.

Quote from: Thanatos02Pure class, man.

Sorry, but I know John is a decent guy and I'm finding his defense here a bit difficult to understand.  While the wording may have been a bit extreme, the focus here does seem to be on protecting child molesters and I'm not seeing a lot of regard for the victims or the possibility that their being protected could allow there to be many more victims.  And, yes, I do think liberals have historically been perceived as being weak on crime because they seem to care too much about the perpetrators of crime and too little about the victims.  In fact, if you haven't noticed, countries have been eroding the right to self-defense and charging people for hurting criminals even when the criminals were attacking them (e.g., here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=516702&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)).

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really want to discuss the specifics of what was going on in the Catholic Church which involves more pederasty and homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Roman_Catholic_priesthood) rather than true pedophilia?  The problem with the Catholic Church is less one of celibacy than a shortage of people wanting to be priests, which has led to a lowering of standards.

Oh my my... so apparently Kinsey and Planned Parenthood are utter bastards, but the Catholic Church gets a free pass in John Morrow´s world. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

And please.. "more a case of pederasty" than pedophilia? What the fuck does that even mean?!  Are you saying that those priests were engaged in some kind of "socratic relationship" with the kids, and thus it was ok for them to bugger the fuck out of little orphan boys for decades with impunity?!

Your two-facedness is showing badly, John.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh my my... so apparently Kinsey and Planned Parenthood are utter bastards, but the Catholic Church gets a free pass in John Morrow´s world. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

Nope.  Not at all and I should have made that clear.  The Catholic Church's cover up of what the priests were doing is the exact same thing that I'm accusing Kinsey of doing and Planned Parenthood of doing -- individuals taking it upon themselves to not report the abuse of children because they think they are doing something more important.  You are absolutely correct to call me out on this and I should have said that from the start.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd please.. "more a case of pederasty" than pedophilia? What the fuck does that even mean?!  Are you saying that those priests were engaged in some kind of "socratic relationship" with the kids, and thus it was ok for them to bugger the fuck out of little orphan boys for decades with impunity?!

What I meant was this.  It's widely argued that adults attracted to very young children don't necessarily care what the sex is because pedophilia trumps sexual orientatoin and given that young children have few distinctive differences, I'm willing to buy that.  When when you start dealing with young teenagers, we're talking about kids who are starting to have gender specific traits and the offenders seem to pick victims that match their orientation.  So I see that can be more of a matter of picking a weak target than a specific attraction to the physique of children.  And, yes, heterosexuals do the same thing.  My point is that I think it's a different issue than pediophilia, though certainly quite awful, too.

Quote from: RPGPunditYour two-facedness is showing badly, John.

No, you just caught me not stating my position and were certainly justified in calling me out for it.

I'm not going to reply point by point, since you've stated some pretty basic disagreements -- (1) that morally rights are there only for those innocent of any wrongdoing, not for the guilty; and (2) that promised anonymity is morally irresponsible unless the results from the information outweigh the crime.  

I think the context of a reviled crime like child abuse make it easier to justify claims like this -- i.e. that the case of a child molester makes it clear that rights are a bad thing that should be tossed aside so that the guilty can be punished.  And if a molester, then what about a rapist or a murderer?  

Since you deny the morality of promised anonymity -- saying that it is not justified to cover up an ongoing crime -- where does that put the Catholic church?  It has made a policy of anonymous confession for centuries.  Do you believe that their policy is fundamentally immoral?

Quote from: John MorrowWe'll just have to agree to disagree on that.  I think that's just one example of a systematic bias.  Either a researcher is doing science or they are doing propaganda.  That there is so much propaganda in the social sciences (from all sides) is one reason why many people don't consider it real science.

I agree that social sciences are riddled with bias and even propaganda, though I don't reject them completely out of hand. As I said, the entire feild is still in its infancy, work with the tools you have, not the ones you'd like to have.

Quote from: John MorrowSomehow, I can't think that Americans would have been willing to just let them go had the victims been a few thousand American POWs rather than Chinese prisoners, though it's possible some captured Americans were included in their experiments.

I agree to that as well. Let me add that I think it shows a tragic failing in human psychology that people have to force themselves to think sympathetically (in this case) or potentially the reverse, to remove themselves.  To illustrate the later, the Nazis (who DID have lifesaving research... unlike the far less defenseable biowar technology of YOUR example), had they expiremented on Americans, would we have been as willing to keep the data?  I suspect that it would have been harder, which is a rather stupid time to let your instincts rule you.

Quote from: John MorrowI disagree, because I think that while you acknowledge removing a criminal from society as a legitimate way to respond to a crime you are skipping over one of the primary purposes of harsh punishment, beyond simple revenge.  The objective is deterrence.  If you let people know that they can cut living people open without anesthesia to experiment on them in times of war and then they can cut a deal to live out their life in peace, you give people no reason not to do things like that to each other.  Basically, it sends the message that if you can give something useful to your enemies when they win, you can literally get away with murder.  No, mild punishments and a handful of executions years after the crime aren't much of a deterrence but serious corporal punishments can be, for example, Singapore.  In fact, this particular quote from the Wikipedia entry on Law in Singapore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Singapore) is relevant to this discussion in more ways than one:

   The criminal law of Singapore is largely statutory in nature. The general principles of criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of common criminal offences such as homicide, theft and cheating, are set out in the Penal Code.[92] Other important offences are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act,[93] Kidnapping Act,[94] Misuse of Drugs Act[95] and Vandalism Act.[96]
In addition, there is a perception that Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalization of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use,[97] littering,[98] jaywalking,[99] the possession of pornography,[100] the sale of chewing gum,[101] and sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between men.[102] Nonetheless, Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low incidence of violent crimes.[103]
Singapore retains both corporal punishment (in the form of caning) and capital punishment (by hanging) as punishments for serious offences. For certain offences, the imposition of these penalties is mandatory.

I wanted to cut this down, but its relevant. Deterrence is a poor method of crime control in general. Yes, Singapore is safer than any other nation. They accomplish this through draconian control of the populace as evidenced by your own examples.   Is there 'no crime' in singapore? Of course not.  I am sure that there has been crime in Antarctica!  Despite being so safe, many people with our modern sensibilities consider signapore to be barbaric. There is a certain Orwellian tone to the above article as well. Is that where you want to go to 'stop crime'?  Even crimes like Pedophilia?

Its been shown, repeatedly, in captial punishment debates that it is not a deterrent in any meaningful way.   Threat of prision, loss of jobs, an a host of other punishments have not particularly impacted the likelihood of many people doing illegal drugs, or sleeping with 17 year old cheerleaders, or even hiring hookers for 2000 dollars an hour or sleeping with Interns.  

Quote from: John MorrowDo you think that John List should have been left alone after murdering his family since he had been living a crime free life for years and hurting nobody?  Are you fine with Mel Ignatow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow) walking the streets because of double jeopardy protections since the police found the pictures he had taken of Brenda Schaefer before he raped and murdered her after he had been acquitted because he's been a good boy and hasn't murdered anyone else?  Just how much can a person get away with and have society say, "Ooopsie!" and just let them go?  Do you, in general, agree with the idea of war crimes and punishing people for them, then?

I see that you are deliberately misreading me or I am failing to communicate my point here.  

Was anything done to correct John List? or Mel Ignatow? of course not.  When did I advocate simply ignoring a predator simply because they haven't done anything 'recently'?

Never.  

The CLOSEST I came to that was suggesting that by removing the Japanese Scientists from an instituition where they were allowed... nay, ENCOURAGED, to commit attrocities in the name of research and putting them into our supposedly more civilized control we have 'corrected' the situation, crudely at best.  We haven't corrected them, certainly.  I also said it was less than ideal.

But of course, I am not a proponent of corrective treatment by habit.  Once someone has proven incapable of remaining human by adopting predatory behaviors, I personaly advocate destroying them.  However, my own viewpoint is often at odds with the direction we, as a people, want our civilization to go.  

I generally hate to do it, but I'm afraid I must accuse you of propagandizing.  I bring up an ethical case involving useful 'good' data (the nazis 'research') and you would rather discuss someone elses failings over 'bad' data (the biowar research which in all probability can NOT be used to save, or even improve lives).

I suspect you REALLY want to focus on the Japanese Scientists because you'd rather Kinsey's data be automatically linked to biowar research.  There is no other reason to continue to focus on that particular set of atrocities. In both our sample cases the scientists used unethical methods to obtain their data.  We can agree easily that this parallels Kinsey's unethical methods of treating with sexual predators.   As neither one of us is in a position to either absolve or condemn Kinsey of his crimes, the fates of the scientists is not relevant to the examples, thus I can only conclude your fixation on the Japanese data has to do with the ultimate use the research was put to.  

Ditto your quoted examples above. I never advocated ignoring predators, yet you bring up to cases you seem to think are relevant and apparently ignored what I actually said in what I can only assume is an attempt to make people draw the conclusion that I somehow DO advocate just 'letting people go'.

Doubly so, since it was you who brought up 'letting people go' in the first place with your irrelevant insistance on using Japanese examples instead of Nazi examples, as covered above.

Quote from: John MorrowThe letters suggest that Kinsey collected "data" from a man who was actively abusing children, encouraging him to collect more data and to be careful.  If someone is reporting the details of the responses children have to sex, data that person couldn't possibly be collecting ethically, is asking for more data an ethical response?

No, but it is also utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand: Is the data that already exists rendered purposeless due to the method by which it was gained?

No.  The Data still has potential value.   The ethical and moral implications of Kinsey's methods only apply with what to do regarding the man himself, not the knowledge he gained.   If you really want to get into an arguement about the ethical value of knowledge I suggest you start a new thread.

Quote from: John MorrowThe jab was at Utilitarianism rather than you, in particular.  

Irrelevant then.

Quote from: John MorrowSo your argument here is that a person can wrong others with reckless abandon and so long as they sin no more (repentance not required), they should just be let go to enjoy their lives?

I've already covered this in detail above.  While I am certainly willing to entertain the idea that I've somehow miscommunicated something, in light of your deliberate propagandizing above I am far more willing to believe in this case that it is a deliberate misrepresentation of my point.

As an 'ethical civilization' of the type we seem hellbent on creating, correction of the criminal is to be viewed as an Ideal to be acheived, worth more than punishment and far less drastic than destroying them like the animals they often are.

Correction, however, is not simply going 'yeah, he seems to be acting normally now, so we'll let him be'.  Did I, or did I not mention the possibility of chemical and surgical castration of sex offenders as a possibility?  

I did.

Did I not mention that my original post that brought me into this thread was advocating using existing materials as a part of therapy and monitoring designed to allow the more marginal examples to continue to lead useful functional lives without being a threat to those around them?

I did.

Did I NOT mention, repeatedly, that I advocated the execution of predatory members of the species as a means of removing those who have chosen to exempt themselves from humanity?

I Did.

The only way you could have possibly read that as letting people go around doing whatever the fuck they please is to have simply NOT READ what I actually wrote; since I don't believe you are lax in your reading I can only conclude that you DELIBERATELY presented a false arguement on my behalf.

I call bullshit, John.  That's low and intellectually dishonest.



 

Quote from: John MorrowThe revenge reflex that you describe as "masturbatory" is part of the innate sense of fairness that's showing up as an emotional response on MRI scans and can be found in other primates and social animals.  The reason why it evolved (or God gave it to people, take your pick) was that presumably revenge serves some legitimate and useful survival purpose, even it's not obvious to you.

*snip for length*

You seem to feel that the desire for revenge is some sort of psychological failing that people should try to fight.  I think the research shows that it's an evolutionary (or God-given, take your pick) response that has important positive social and survival value for social species like human beings.  Letting people get away with wrongs without punishment is like letting the first person in the $10 exercise get away with giving you $1 when asked to split the money.  What happens the next time they have the choice of treating you fairly or ripping you off?  Get ready for a life of getting the $1 because once people know they can get away with it, they'll shaft you up and down because they know you'll put up with it.

This is a far more forgivably misunderstanding of my point than the ones above.

First of all its mostly tangental to the topic at hand, only coming into play in how we treat known predatory individuals.

Secondly, full understanding of my point requires a bit more solid an understanding of my personal philosophy than I've really wanted to get into here.  

On the individual basis, revenge, like any other instinctive behavior, is a good thing. In part for the reasons and studies you showed (and yes, I was aware of that), but mostly because I feel that our instinctive behaviors are a part of what makes us human, helps us survive.  

They must however, be weighed with a hefty dose of reason.  In relatively inconsequential moments (such as splitting ten dollars), the instinct can be blindly followed without serious consequence, but when you start talking about more serious things, such as murder, rape, or even just dealing with murderers and rapists, the more you have to apply reason and recognize the instinctive behaviors for what they are.

We cannot claim to be rational beings as long as we allow our instincts, our animal natures, continue to rule our behavior.  As a society, as a civilization, this is far more paramount than it ever is on an individual level. A single man can easily control his instincts, a mob however....

So: revenge on the societal level (Dealing with criminals) is bad, yes. Revenge on the personal level (governing our relations with other people) is good, as long as it is not unfettered.

However, I'd like to let the matter drop there as it is tangental to the matter being discussed.

Quote from: SpikeI agree to that as well. Let me add that I think it shows a tragic failing in human psychology that people have to force themselves to think sympathetically (in this case) or potentially the reverse, to remove themselves.  To illustrate the later, the Nazis (who DID have lifesaving research... unlike the far less defenseable biowar technology of YOUR example), had they expiremented on Americans, would we have been as willing to keep the data?  I suspect that it would have been harder, which is a rather stupid time to let your instincts rule you.

I think that part of our disagreement here is that you are talking only about whether we should keep the data or not and I'm primarily talking about what we should be willing to do to get the data, though I do see some connection between the two.  That's my fault, not yours.  

My main concern is that people give Kinsey a pass because his data was useful, just as the post WW2 Americans gave the Japanese a pass because their data was useful.  In other words, the methods for gathering the data are ignored because of the utility of the data.  That's why I find this analogy more appropriate than the Nazi analogy for what concerns me here.  But I do also think that the fact that the utility of the data encourages people to downplay or ignore the humanity involved with how the data was gathered or, in the case of the Japanese let go, let people us it as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card is a good reason to destroy it rather than tempting people to make a utilitarian decision that ignores the victims.  It's a cloud that should not have a silver lining.

Since John Kim raised a civil liberty argument, I think this compares well with how US courts treat rules of evidence.  If the police collect evidence illegally, it can be ruled inadmissible in court, even if it accurately proves the guild of a person.  Why ignore a useful piece of data?  Because it was gathered unethically.  Further, the utilitarian argument for why this is the right way to do things makes the very same sort of deterrence argument that I'm making.  By using illegally gathered evidence in court, the police are rewarded for breaking the law and may be encouraged to gather evidence illegally whenever they suspect guilt but can't prove it.  There is also a concern over the evidence being biased or tainted, a problem that can also be found in Kinsey's case.

Another argument can be made to destroy the data, regardless of how useful it is, for the same reason that we destroy child pornography  The records of what those molesters did are a recording of a child's suffering (there are apparently more detailed descriptions of what went on in the data gathered that was not included in the book), just as a picture of a child being molested is a recording of their suffering.  That the children who were abused are anonymous does not clear the data of that taint any more that the anonymity of a child in a pornographic picture and the fact that the act has already taken place doesn't clear the picture of the taint of that crime.

Quote from: SpikeI wanted to cut this down, but its relevant. Deterrence is a poor method of crime control in general. Yes, Singapore is safer than any other nation. They accomplish this through draconian control of the populace as evidenced by your own examples.   Is there 'no crime' in singapore? Of course not.  I am sure that there has been crime in Antarctica!  Despite being so safe, many people with our modern sensibilities consider signapore to be barbaric. There is a certain Orwellian tone to the above article as well. Is that where you want to go to 'stop crime'?  Even crimes like Pedophilia?

Have you taken a look at law enforcement techniques and the treatment of prisoners in Japan, also used as an example in this thread?  That there is crime everywhere is not the issue.  That the crime rate varies substantial from place to place and how that happens is.  And if you take a good look, there is already pretty draconian treatment of sex offenders in place (both officially and unofficially), when they are reported and caught.

Quote from: SpikeIts been shown, repeatedly, in capital punishment debates that it is not a deterrent in any meaningful way.   Threat of prision, loss of jobs, an a host of other punishments have not particularly impacted the likelihood of many people doing illegal drugs, or sleeping with 17 year old cheerleaders, or even hiring hookers for 2000 dollars an hour or sleeping with Interns.

I don't think that's really been shown.  I suppose I should point out that I oppose the death penalty because mistakes can be made, not because I think it can't be a deterrent.  But please note that I am not calling for the death penalty here.

There were well over 10,000 case of murder in 2005 and only 60 executions.  A risk rate of 0.6% is not going to deter anyone of anything.  And while the consequences of punishment do not stop every crime

I live near a town (I used to live in it) where the police aggressively enforce the speed limit.  While speed limit laws are widely ignored where I live, I've observed many cars suddenly slow down upon hitting the border of that particular town.  Why?  Because the risk of getting caught and punished was real enough to act as a deterrence.  In fact, one friend who lived in the area didn't initially change his behavior until he got enough tickets that he risked losing his license if he got another one.  Then he, too, slowed down and obeyed the speed limit when he entered that town.  So I'm not buying the idea that deterrence is a poor way to reduce crime or change behavior but making it effective requires more than casual or erratic enforcement.  A deterrent doesn't work unless people perceive it as a real risk.

And, yes, there are crimes of passion and insane people for whom normal incentives and deterrents won't work or won't work as well, though they might moderate the actions of someone acting out of passion.  I don't think that invalidates the value of deterrence.  

Quote from: SpikeI see that you are deliberately misreading me or I am failing to communicate my point here.

The problem is that I failed to draw the connection.  My replies below may help.

Quote from: SpikeWas anything done to correct John List? or Mel Ignatow? of course not.  When did I advocate simply ignoring a predator simply because they haven't done anything 'recently'?

Here is the leap I took that I didn't explain.  How do you "correct" someone who is already law abiding?  They are already corrected.  They weren't committing other crimes and, in the case of John List, he was leading a fairly productive life with a new wife.  What was the law supposed to do to correct John List and what needed to be corrected?

Quote from: SpikeThe CLOSEST I came to that was suggesting that by removing the Japanese Scientists from an instituition where they were allowed... nay, ENCOURAGED, to commit attrocities in the name of research and putting them into our supposedly more civilized control we have 'corrected' the situation, crudely at best.  We haven't corrected them, certainly.  I also said it was less than ideal.

How do you know that they weren't corrected?  They seem to have sinned no more after being let go.  What, exactly, do you mean by "correction", then?  

Quote from: SpikeBut of course, I am not a proponent of corrective treatment by habit.  Once someone has proven incapable of remaining human by adopting predatory behaviors, I personaly advocate destroying them.  However, my own viewpoint is often at odds with the direction we, as a people, want our civilization to go.

Why do you find destroying them preferable to confining them to a facility where they simply can't prey on others?  I'm fine with the idea of removing certain people from polite society forever, but death is not the only way to accomplish that.

Quote from: SpikeI generally hate to do it, but I'm afraid I must accuse you of propagandizing.  I bring up an ethical case involving useful 'good' data (the nazis 'research') and you would rather discuss someone elses failings over 'bad' data (the biowar research which in all probability can NOT be used to save, or even improve lives).

Please note that when I raised the Japanese example, my assumption was that the data was "good" (for example, some of it dealt with the extremes that humans could service, which certainly has value as biological and medical date).  To me, that was not a relevant difference between the two examples.  If you want to imagine that the data had been switched, my opinions about the situation would remain the same.  I ignored thee distinction because it was and is irrelevant to me.

Quote from: SpikeI suspect you REALLY want to focus on the Japanese Scientists because you'd rather Kinsey's data be automatically linked to biowar research.  There is no other reason to continue to focus on that particular set of atrocities. In both our sample cases the scientists used unethical methods to obtain their data.  We can agree easily that this parallels Kinsey's unethical methods of treating with sexual predators.   As neither one of us is in a position to either absolve or condemn Kinsey of his crimes, the fates of the scientists is not relevant to the examples, thus I can only conclude your fixation on the Japanese data has to do with the ultimate use the research was put to.

The ultimate use of the data is irrelevant to the moral point that I'm making.

Where I find the comparison the the Japanese more relevant was that the data was gathered and used while those who gathered it were still alive and that both the Japanese and Kinsey were left off of the hook for what they did.  In the case of the Nazi's, they were generally dead or tried for war crimes, would have been hunted by Nazi hunters had they escaped, and they weren't given a pass for what they did.  I don't see a shrug when people talk about people experimented on in concentration camps by Nazis.  I do see what looks like a shrug when the Japanese are discussed and when Kinsey is discussed.  In the case of the Japanese, I think it's because few if any Westerners were the victims.  In the case of Kinsey, I wonder why people are shrugging.

Quote from: SpikeDitto your quoted examples above. I never advocated ignoring predators, yet you bring up to cases you seem to think are relevant and apparently ignored what I actually said in what I can only assume is an attempt to make people draw the conclusion that I somehow DO advocate just 'letting people go'.

You advocate "correcting" people.  Explain what you mean by correcting people and, once they are "corrected", how you propose handling them.  Once you've reformed a criminal, you normally let them go, right?  If a criminal is already reformed before they are tried and imprisoned, why hold on to them?

Quote from: SpikeNo, but it is also utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand: Is the data that already exists rendered purposeless due to the method by which it was gained?

The method by which it was gained certainly tainted Kinsey's, data.  See the links to what current Kinsey Institute people have to say in an earlier reply.  But it also morally taints it, just as evidence illegally obtained by the police is morally tainted.  And the problem is that the apparent value of the data encourages people to defend Kinsey and his practices and shield him from scrutiny and criticism.  And in that way, the data continues to perpetuate the wrongs that were done.  Similarly, child pornography may have artistic merit but the law makes it illegal regardless, because the immorality for how it was made.  If people can agree that real child pornography be illegal, in part because permitting possession of it can create a market and encourage more abuse, why isn't the use of data collected under similar unethical circumstances considered harmful and worthy of destruction for the same reason?  

Quote from: SpikeNo.  The Data still has potential value.   The ethical and moral implications of Kinsey's methods only apply with what to do regarding the man himself, not the knowledge he gained.   If you really want to get into an arguement about the ethical value of knowledge I suggest you start a new thread.

They also relate to how the man is remembered by history.  But as I've pointed out, there are other cases where the methods of creation or collection is considered an inexcusable taint.  But I'm also curious about what exactly the value of this particular bit of data is that you and others seem to be assuming exists and is important.  Where are the benefits comparable to the valuable medical information that you point to in your preferred example of ethically tainted data from the Nazis?  What would be lost if this data were destroyed?

Quote from: SpikeAs an 'ethical civilization' of the type we seem hellbent on creating, correction of the criminal is to be viewed as an Ideal to be achieved, worth more than punishment and far less drastic than destroying them like the animals they often are.

I don't think that's universally true.

Quote from: SpikeCorrection, however, is not simply going 'yeah, he seems to be acting normally now, so we'll let him be'.  Did I, or did I not mention the possibility of chemical and surgical castration of sex offenders as a possibility?

And what if they don't need it?  As I said, John List, to the best of my knowledge, killed his family and then killed no more.  What needed correcting?  He had a family and a job and was leaving peacefully, bothering nobody.  What more needed to be done there?  Similarly, the Japanese scientists simply faded back in to Japanese society and killed no more.  What sort of correcting did they need?  And the same is true of plenty of Nazis who fled to South America to leave peaceful and prosperous lives.  Erich Priebke had been living peacefully in Bariloche, Argentina when Sam Donaldson tracked him down.  What sort of "correcting" did he need?

Quote from: SpikeDid I not mention that my original post that brought me into this thread was advocating using existing materials as a part of therapy and monitoring designed to allow the more marginal examples to continue to lead useful functional lives without being a threat to those around them?

What I'm saying is that there are plenty of people who have done horrible things and then lived peaceful and productive lives for decades without ever harming anyone else.  Their lives prove that they are not a threat to those around them, especially when they are old men when they get tracked down.  So what do you suggest be done with those people and why?

Quote from: SpikeThe only way you could have possibly read that as letting people go around doing whatever the fuck they please is to have simply NOT READ what I actually wrote; since I don't believe you are lax in your reading I can only conclude that you DELIBERATELY presented a false arguement on my behalf.

And I don't think you are reading the examples I'm giving you.  There are people who have done horrible things who, for all intents and purposes, "self-correct" when they escape justice.  They fade into society and never hurt anyone ever again.  You mention "correction".  They apparently don't need correction.  What do you do with a person who is corrected?  I assume you let them go.  If there is a flaw in that train of logic, please point it out.

Quote from: SpikeOn the individual basis, revenge, like any other instinctive behavior, is a good thing. In part for the reasons and studies you showed (and yes, I was aware of that), but mostly because I feel that our instinctive behaviors are a part of what makes us human, helps us survive.

They must however, be weighed with a hefty dose of reason.  In relatively inconsequential moments (such as splitting ten dollars), the instinct can be blindly followed without serious consequence, but when you start talking about more serious things, such as murder, rape, or even just dealing with murderers and rapists, the more you have to apply reason and recognize the instinctive behaviors for what they are.

I don't think that's true.  Another paper that I posted in to some earlier discussions of morality points out that psychopaths are often highly intelligent and rational people who lack an innate moral instinct.  What they demonstrate is that reason does not inherently produce moral behavior and may be used to justify incredibly immoral behavior.  In fact, there is no shortage on the internet of people justifying all manner of horrible and immoral behavior on rational grounds.  In fact, I think the international reaction to Rwanda, Darfur, and other international tragedies that can be kept at an emotionally detached distance illustrate exactly what's wrong with ignoring the instinct.

Quote from: SpikeWe cannot claim to be rational beings as long as we allow our instincts, our animal natures, continue to rule our behavior.  As a society, as a civilization, this is far more paramount than it ever is on an individual level. A single man can easily control his instincts, a mob however....

I don't think we should try to be wholly rational beings.  Psychopaths, in many ways, are closer than non-psychopaths and I think they are step down, not a step up.  This is why I mentioned, in the thread about how aliens might see us, the importance of caring and emotion.  Without any emotional context, we are left with utilitarianism and utilitarianism can be used to justify chopping up your neighbor to use his organs to save a dozen other people.  That's a perfectly rational thing to do and what stops most of us from seriously considering doing things like that is the instinct, not the reasoning.  Similarly, I think the shrugs I'm seeing over Kinsey's research is due to the fact that the children who were abused have been reduced to some numbers on a few tables in a book, emotionally distanced enough, like the people in Darfur, that they can be ignored.

Quote from: SpikeSo: revenge on the societal level (Dealing with criminals) is bad, yes. Revenge on the personal level (governing our relations with other people) is good, as long as it is not unfettered.

Well, the instinct should always be fettered by the reason, and vice-versa.  That's why we have both.  I think it is a mistake to consider reason the superior component and offer psychopaths up as Exhibit A for that argument.

John, I'm not going to continue the multi-quote thing, as your singular post was as long as many 'page' of other given threads, and you seemed to be hung up on a few things that I feel comfortable attempting to address without recourse to exhaustive quoting.

First: Had Kinsey been alive and kicking to this day, with the information we have, I would fully be on board for investigating him, if necessary stopping him (leaving aside punishment/correction/etc debate for the moment). The If Necessary part is due to the presumption of innocence. I am not a judge, and I am not on the jury to convict him.

Ditto the Japanese Scientiests. The people made a call I probably would not have made. Probably, however.  If I knew or felt that what they had was worth it, I would have made a deal.  Do I feel they escaped 'Justice'? Certainly.  Do I think it was right, or that it set a good precedent? Of course not.

But if what they had learned was 'valuable'... beyond its potential for weapons research... and unobtainable through more ethical means would I make a different call?

I don't think so. Again, you seem a bit fixated on the ethical value of knowledge.  Knowledge, regardless of how it is obtained is not good or bad. I believe the more we know, the better off we are.  How it is gained doesn't actually affect IT however.  

So we're left with precedents. Precedents that we don't like hanging around because they say bad things about us and what we're willing to tolerate in the pursuit of knowledge.  Precedents that incidentally have little to do with how we theoretically move forward when dealing with pedophiles of all stripes.  


The second major hang up seems to be correction. Despite my restated examples.

For all I know there is a better technical term.

While we can all be relatively happy that your examples did not continue their predation after their singular attacks, that does not mean the underlying cause of their action has been fixed, nor that, given a long enough time, they will never repeat their crime.

Further, I did not suggest that moving to a purely corrective regimin for criminals was the 'only' way forward. I said it was how we were moving as a culture.  

I'll try to explain my reasoning in brief.

World wide we have a powerful movement away from Capital punishment. Exceptions exist, of course, and we are still far from a world wide cultural movement, but the trend exists.  Draconian punishments are extremely unpopular, and there is increasing interest in treating many formerly tolerable forms of incarceration as 'inhumane'.

Continuing in this line there is an increasing trend also to consider criminals victims of circumstances, their environment, inadequete socialization, what have you, instead of demonizing them.

Thus, I belive that the current trend is to treating criminals as victims of their own crimes, if you will.

Correction is a word I grabbed over 'rehabilitation', and having used it I think it covers a much wider spectrum of 'treatment' than simply 'rehabing' would.  Of course, we are torn as well.  Chemical and surgical neutering was rejected in California as inhumane as I recall. A clockwork orange is a stunning condemnation of aversion therapy.  

So we are horribly divided. The criminals aren't at fault, but taking away their free will to commit criminal acts is abominable.  At some point we will have to chose, and I rather suspect the choice will be to 'correction'.

In the 'on topic' case of people who enjoy child rape anime:  Once you have divided them into those who have rejected humanity to become predatory animals in the selfish gratification of lusts, and those who are merely content to fantsize:  in suggestion, removing predators from the population (execution) is the only logical recourse. No amount of correction we currently have can garauntee they won't continue to predate, not even surgically removing the 'goods'.  On the other hand, the larger second catagory can be 'salvaged' by therapy, of which PERHAPS monitored access to fantasy materials to gratify their lusts could be a valid PART of the method of preventing predation. They are being 'corrected', as best we are able.


Your two examples have proven incapable of controlling their violent impulses on their own (by virtue of their criminal acts) and unless we have a method in place to prevent future relapses, then they are, as the predatory pedophiles, uncorrectable animals fit only for landfills.

Lastly: You still seem to misunderstand. I EMBRACE the instinctive. That's why I dislike religious movements based around the idea that such basic things as lust are sinful.  As an individual choice, I'm also all for ascetism and celibacy, but when it is imposed under the idea that its wrong to have those feelings it is gone off the deep end.  

On a societal, cultural level, however, descisions should never be made without stepping back from instinctive responses.  

In the case of the Japanese Scientists, for example: The instinctive response is to take revenge on them for their crimes.  The rational choice, as painful as it might be, is to get lifesaving knowledge from them.  There is the point of moderation, where reason suggests that you are going too far: For example allowing people to continue such research for the sake of extra data.  There is a difference between accepting something as fait accompli and instituiting new atrocities for the same purpose, after all.

Note that I have not advocated making, or allowing the making of, new child porn for the sake of this theoretical therapy, merely using what already exists. Nor do I advocate NOT punishing those who make it as fully as they are now (more, really. As predatory animals they deserve the same bullet as others who have proven they don't deserve to be human).



As a side note, on your comments regarding child porn and art, It might shock you to know that I could go to the nearest major bookstore (borders around here) and find a book of artistic photographs made in the last decade (roughly) that includes nudes of small children.   It caused quite a stir when it came out, as I remember.   I'm tempted to research the name of the photog and the name of the specific book, but as your google fu is quite strong you can probably find it faster anyway.

Quote from: jhkimI'm not going to reply point by point, since you've stated some pretty basic disagreements -- (1) that morally rights are there only for those innocent of any wrongdoing, not for the guilty; and (2) that promised anonymity is morally irresponsible unless the results from the information outweigh the crime.

To your first point, I said "Constitutional protections are designed to protect the innocent from false conviction, not to help the guilty escape just conviction, and I can find no benefit toward that end in anyone covering up an ongoing crime."  That's not the same thing as saying that rights are not for the guilty nor does that mean that the courts shouldn't presume innocence nor require that guilt be proven.  What it means is that the purpose of those protections is not to get the guilty off the hook.

The protections against search and seizure in the Fourth Amendment are clearly not designed to help the guilty hide their crimes but to protect the innocent from abusing intrusion in their lives.  How can I say that with certainty?  The US Constitution explicitly provides a warrant mechanism that allows the government to perform searches and seizures when there is probable cause of a crime to warrant it.  If the rights against search and seizure were intended to apply equally to the guilty and innocent, then why have a warrant mechanism that allows for searches and seizures with probably cause of a crime having been committed?  Basically, the right can be suspended upon suspicion of guilt.  Why is that?  Yes, there are additional protections involved that require the intrusion to be specific, but that, again, is designed to protect the innocent from malicious fishing expeditions and vague accusations, not to protect the guilty.

So I don't cheer when someone gets off on a technicality because those rights are intended to be tricks to allow the guilty to avoid justice.  That's not the system working.  That's the system not working.  It's like when an otherwise good role-playing system produces a bad result that doesn't make sense.  That's not the system working.  It's the system not working.  That's going to happen from time to time and there may even be good reasons to tolerate it (I explain why illegally gathered evidence can get thrown out earlier) but it's not something to be celebrated or cheered or held up as an example of the system working.  Why would anyone cheer justice not being done and the guilty walking free?

As for the second point, my claim is that promised anonymity should not act as a shield to cover up hidden or especially ongoing crimes that could be stopped by breaking that anonymity, at least where the crimes involve injury to others and especially children.  No I'm not suggesting that people report their neighbors for every misdemeanor that they see but I do expect them to not look the other way when they can stop harm from being done to another, especially a child.

The law is with me on this point, as I pointed out earlier, and all states have laws making the reporting of child abuse mandatory for many professions including psychologists and doctors, which is roughly the capacity under which Kinsey was operating.  Several states have laws making it mandatory for anyone who knows about child abuse to report it.  So the expectation that people who are aware of child abuse are morally obliged to report it is hardly radical or out of the mainstream.

In addition, if I know that my neighbor is molesting their child and I don't report it, would you consider that morally reprehensible or not?  Doesn't that make me an accessory to the crime?  Why does that suddenly change if I'm holding a clipboard and taking a survey or doing research?  Because it's much more emotionally detached?  Because science justifies unethical behavior?  Are scientists, doctors, and psychologists not expected to exhibit common decency or obey the law?

Quote from: jhkimI think the context of a reviled crime like child abuse make it easier to justify claims like this -- i.e. that the case of a child molester makes it clear that rights are a bad thing that should be tossed aside so that the guilty can be punished.  And if a molester, then what about a rapist or a murderer?

Off hand, I would probably argue that any violent crime that has a victim and especially if it's ongoing should fall into that category.  But here you are ignoring the fact that many states already have laws specifying what can and can't be held confidential.  You make it sound like I'm saying something radically outside of the mainstream here but in the case of Kinsey's research, were it being done today, or the Planned Parenthood workers that I mentioned earlier, they would be or are in violation of the laws that make it mandatory to report the sexual abuse of children, including statutory rape.  In fact, that's why several states have been taking Planned Parenthood to court over those investigations.  They are breaking the law.

Quote from: jhkimSince you deny the morality of promised anonymity -- saying that it is not justified to cover up an ongoing crime -- where does that put the Catholic church?  It has made a policy of anonymous confession for centuries.  Do you believe that their policy is fundamentally immoral?

Well, anonymous confession, like anonymous surveys, make it difficult to identify the perpetrator.  It would also be difficult to hold Kinsey responsible for not reporting findings if he had gathered them from anonymous surveys, either.  That said, I do think it can be immoral when the confessor is know and confidentiality covers up an ongoing crime that victimizes someone else.  I can also imagine situations where I think a member of the clergy or a researchers would be warranted in purposely breaking the cloak of anonymity to stop a crime.  I'm willing to imagine that there might be some reason not to do so but as I've asked before, you'd have to tell me what's so important to protect here and what would be lost if it wasn't protected.

As I said to RPGPundit earlier, I think the cover-up of child molestation in the Catholic Church on the grounds that they could handle it internally is pretty much the same thing as what Kinsey apparently did and what Planned Parenthood employees apparently have done.  And I feel the same way about college administrators who cover up rapes on campus because they don't want to tarnish their school's reputation.  And the same way about police officers who cover up crimes committed by other officers against innocent civilians.  In all of these cases, the person feels that they are justified in covering up a crime for some more important purpose or cause.  In the case of violent crimes and the molestation of children at the very least, I think people have a higher responsibility to protect a victim than to provide aid and comfort to the villain who victimizes them.  

What do you think, for example, of the anti-abortion activists who are suspected of helping Eric Rudolph evade authorities because they personally felt his bombings were justified?  Do we really want to let each individual decide when it's OK or not to cover up for the crimes of others?

I'm not Catholic so maybe my theology is mistaken, but I thought that penance was an important part of Confession and I would think that telling perpetrators that their penance is to stop committing a crime and turn themselves in would be reasonable.  And if the person giving the confession fails to stop doing what they are doing or turn themselves in, I'm not sure why the Church should continue to protect them.

Quote from: SpikeJohn, I'm not going to continue the multi-quote thing, as your singular post was as long as many 'page' of other given threads, and you seemed to be hung up on a few things that I feel comfortable attempting to address without recourse to exhaustive quoting.

You are under no obligation to reply back to me in kind.  Reply however you want.  It doesn't really matter to me.  In fact, I find the criticism over how I reply a bit bizarre because it doesn't really matter to me (though I can understand the criticism of the volume).  I reply that way because it keeps me focused and reminds me of what I'm replying to, especially when my reply is long or I'm doing a revision pass.  There are things I don't like about the replies directed at me (ranging from tone and how my arguments are characterized to specificity and what the replies ignore), but I think it's a bit silly to complain about it or take offense over it.

Quote from: SpikeSo we're left with precedents. Precedents that we don't like hanging around because they say bad things about us and what we're willing to tolerate in the pursuit of knowledge.  Precedents that incidentally have little to do with how we theoretically move forward when dealing with pedophiles of all stripes.

While I think your identification of precedents is good here, I think you are missing the other purpose to which precedents are put.  When a legal case comes before a court, judges look at the way similar cases were decided in the past and thus precedence influences future legal decisions.  Similarly, the precedents left over from such moral trade-offs are used by people to assess how certain courses of action will play out.

That's one of the reasons why people fear amnesty programs that are used more than once.  Once people start expecting periodic amnesties, it greatly reduces their incentive to obey the law because the know that they'll be able to escape any consequences of not obeying the law.  And that's the problem seen in all of the practices I've mentioned as seeming similar to me (e.g., the Japanese scientists, Kinsey, Planned Parenthood, the Catholic Church, college administrators, police officers, etc.).  Maybe there are limits to how effectively deterrence can deter crime, but the absence of deterrence most certainly encourages that (as nicely illustrated by the looting that can occur during natural disasters).  

I think that just about any scientists working for a murderous regime now knows that they can cut a deal if the regime that they work for falls so long as they don't get their hands too dirty or kill the wrong people, thus there is no incentive for scientists not to work with murderous regimes.  Nobody was paying attention to the fact that Planned Parenthood employees were helping to cover up statutory rape so when a group checked out around 900 locations, over 90% of them were willing to help cover up statutory rape, even when it was in violation of the law.  The Catholic Church covered up priests molesting children and they kept doing it and it got worse.  And so on.

Quote from: SpikeThe second major hang up seems to be correction. Despite my restated examples.

Your examples still didn't seem specific enough for me, though I get the gist of what you are talking about.

Quote from: SpikeWhile we can all be relatively happy that your examples did not continue their predation after their singular attacks, that does not mean the underlying cause of their action has been fixed, nor that, given a long enough time, they will never repeat their crime.

OK.  So let's tie up that loose end, then.  Suppose that upon interviewing a John List or Erich Priebke and determined that they posed no more risk than any other person of repeating the crimes that they had committed in the past?  Suppose they are evaluated and judged corrected or reformed.  Then what?

Quote from: SpikeThus, I belive that the current trend is to treating criminals as victims of their own crimes, if you will.

Do you believe that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote from: SpikeCorrection is a word I grabbed over 'rehabilitation', and having used it I think it covers a much wider spectrum of 'treatment' than simply 'rehabing' would.  Of course, we are torn as well.  Chemical and surgical neutering was rejected in California as inhumane as I recall. A clockwork orange is a stunning condemnation of aversion therapy.  

So we are horribly divided. The criminals aren't at fault, but taking away their free will to commit criminal acts is abominable.  At some point we will have to chose, and I rather suspect the choice will be to 'correction'.

The detail that's missing is, How do we tell when a criminal is "corrected"?  What would differentiate a "corrected" criminal from an "uncorrected" criminal?  Surely we can't set the threshold at 100% certainty that they'll never commit a crime again, short of a Clockwork Orange scenario, since we can't expect that of the general populace.

The reason I'm asking this, and my point about the John List example and the Erich Priebke example (to a lesser extent, the Mel Ignatow example), is that I think some people can self-correct enough to effectively no longer be a threat to others.  I think there was basically no chance of Erich Priebke repeating his crimes (done during time of war under orders) and a very low chance of John List repeating his crimes (his life situation was different).  They already seem pretty "corrected" to me, at least with respect to recidivism, though not remorse (which is why I raised that -- is remorse required?).  And if a person is no longer a threat to others, would they need no punishment or rehabilitation at all?  Or would that simply amount to punishment and revenge?

Quote from: SpikeYour two examples have proven incapable of controlling their violent impulses on their own (by virtue of their criminal acts) and unless we have a method in place to prevent future relapses, then they are, as the predatory pedophiles, uncorrectable animals fit only for landfills.

I think that John List, for example, lived for almost 20 years without repeating his crime and the difficult family situations that might have led to his original crime were not in play in his new life.  Erich Priebke was free for about 50 years when Sam Donaldson caught up to him and he wasn't in any position to repeat his crimes.  The Erich Priebke is pretty interesting and worth reading about because he's been rattling around in courts in Europe, illustrating some of the points we've been discussing.

Quote from: SpikeLastly: You still seem to misunderstand. I EMBRACE the instinctive. That's why I dislike religious movements based around the idea that such basic things as lust are sinful.  As an individual choice, I'm also all for ascetism and celibacy, but when it is imposed under the idea that its wrong to have those feelings it is gone off the deep end.  

On a societal, cultural level, however, descisions should never be made without stepping back from instinctive responses.

And I think that can be a big mistake.  There is a good article here (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save) from Discover Magazine (I've posted links to it before) concerning moral decision making.  The jist of the article is that moral decisions are a combination of emotional gut feelings and rational utilitarian calculations and shifting a moral problem to more strongly engage one or the other can change a person's moral answers, even when the utilitarian calculus of the situation is identical (e.g., sacrificing one life for five).  And it's the elimination of empathy, emotional detachment, and so on that's not only the hallmark of psychopaths but how normal people are persuaded to engage in some of the worst atrocities.  What's left is utilitarianism (which is what Joshua Greene, one of the researchers in that article, actually advocates in an interesting book that he wrote) and as I've said, utilitarianism is a harsh mistress.  

The classic Star Trek episode The Conscience of the King deals with this issue.  Near the end, when Kodoss the Executioner has been caught, he asks Captain Kirk, "Who are you to say what harm was done?"  That's what pure utilitarianism and reason does.  It unhinges us from moral moorings.  And Kirk's response?  "Who do I have to be?"

Quote from: SpikeIn the case of the Japanese Scientists, for example: The instinctive response is to take revenge on them for their crimes.  The rational choice, as painful as it might be, is to get lifesaving knowledge from them.

But what makes you assume that the rational utilitarian choice is the superior one?

Quote from: SpikeThere is the point of moderation, where reason suggests that you are going too far: For example allowing people to continue such research for the sake of extra data.  There is a difference between accepting something as fait accompli and instituiting new atrocities for the same purpose, after all.

I agree about moderation, but moderation requires that one listen to both their emotional response and their rational response.  I think the required balance it to be able to look the emotional response in the face and say, yes, I'm willing to live with that, and not just turn it off.  That way, the moral calculus of decisions like whether to go to war or whether to report a crime are made with a full appreciation of what that choice is going to mean to those harmed by some of the options.  And there is also a point where accepting something as a fiat accompli with no repercussions is inviting it to happen again, by creating the precedent that certain crimes will not be punished.  

Quote from: SpikeAs a side note, on your comments regarding child porn and art, It might shock you to know that I could go to the nearest major bookstore (borders around here) and find a book of artistic photographs made in the last decade (roughly) that includes nudes of small children.   It caused quite a stir when it came out, as I remember.   I'm tempted to research the name of the photog and the name of the specific book, but as your google fu is quite strong you can probably find it faster anyway.

Yes, I'm aware of that and remember the controversy.  I suspect that the defense of the book is that it's not pornography and I don't, for example, want to lock up parents who take pictures of their children in the bathtub in the nude.  And while I think such pictures are a bit odd, myself, I think this goes back to the point about putting young girls in a hajib.  Not all nudity is pornography.

John: I wasn't condemning the style. I can, at times, find it hard to slog through, particularly when dealing with long and repeated instances, but I understand the value of it in presenting clear, point by point arguments. I simply felt responding in kind would continue to lengthen both our posts to the point of insanity, particularly since we were dealing with only to main points of contention.


I am vaguely annoyed that somehow this has shifted to almost exclusively a discussion of ethical vs. utilitarian decision making, if I may make that shorthand summation without confusion.  Discussing this stuff outside the specifics of a given situation (for example: child porn anime) gets rapidly less useful as both sides pull farther back and more and more the discussion takes place in a vacuum.   You cannot test a hypothesis in a vacuum... (leave aside the snark comments about "Unless vacuum conditions are part of testing the hypothesis... please)


As for your self correction: If we make the assumption that social sciences and technology progress far enough I can suppose that one day an 'enlightened' culture would be forced into the ethical quandry of dealing with a vicious criminal who has self corrected within a high degree of provability.

However, we luckily don't have to worry about that.  So, what can we prove about John List?  We can prove that given the right circumstance that he will murder people. Those right circumstances are not particularly 'mitigating', and that for twenty years those circumstances have not come back up.

There is no actual evidence of correction in there, self or otherwise.  Again, an 'enlightened' culture might decide that it is enough to simply force List from engaging in 'risky' activities.

I for one do not expect us to become that enlightened for a long, long time.

From my personal point of view, lacking the means to keep John List as a functional member of society while simultaniously removing his ability to kill again, he is best treated like a rabid dog.  Because while we can not prove wether or not he will kill again, we can, with some certainty, prove that John List can, and will, ignore the most fundamental rules of society and kill people.  Because he did so.   Ditto the others.


I will admit to overstating the case on Deterrents, of course.  Obviously laws without enforcement don't work, thus Deterrents have a value. Leaving aside my personal feeling that we've gotten a bit crazy with the lawmaking, note that I've never been excessively focused on a 'single solution' to crime either.  Removal of predatory people (those criminals that are beyond saving) coincidentally can serve as a deterrent as a pleasant side effect for serious crimes.  For minor crimes, you might view correction to fill the deterrent role. In no case did I suggest that crime never be 'handled', or punished as that is the accepted term, despite my desire to reinforce the position that a justice system based entirely around 'punishment' is revenge based and doomed to ineffectualness in the long run. Better than nothing, yes.  

By itself treating criminals as victims is neither good nor bad.  Personally, I feel it is more an outgrowth of a selfish society where there is little to know personal responsibility for one's own life.  THAT, I feel, is bad.  Even very bad.

If it were to be an outgrowth of an enlightened perspective that all human beings are inherently valuable and that we all deserve a chance to make something of ourselves (for example... this isn't really a philosophy I buy into even in part) then I suggest it would be good. If you will, a step towards actual 'enlightened' being, rather than merely mimicking the form of it.

While it may seem terribly 'utilitarian' of me, I don't view many things as objectively good or bad. Many things are just outside of such states (like knowledge.  By itself it is utterly neutral. What you do with it matters, and having 'more' of it is never a bad thing (though, of course, if it is likely to lead to 'bad things' happening more than good, than knowing that particular knowledge could be viewed as 'bad'... sort of the John Critton wormhole technology sort of deal). So to with paths societies take.   I don't agree with the 'enlightened' perspective, even as I acknowledge that it is the apparent ideal of the people around me.   I can see how many good things come from it.

I can see how the actual path we tread (the selfish irresponsible route) is a bad path to be on, because at the end of it lies the destruction of our culture.

I do try to take the long view, the very long view: what is more likely to help humanity grow and survive, even beyond the death of our star?  Naturally its a moot question if we never get off planet earth. And obviously, I don't spend every waking day worrying about if my next cup of coffee will doom us to die a few thousand years earlier than we might otherwise.  On the other hand, I can look at trends, even personal ones from that view. If I am fit and healthy, not only is it good for me, but I might help create or maintain a growing trend towards more fitness from other people. Fit and healthy people are more likely to survive and overcome hardships than unfit and unhealthy people, thus: Good.  


I don't think I have anything more I need to say in my 'rebuttal' here, so I guess I'll go ahead and weigh in on the civil liberties portion, in brief:

I may not have the exact quote, but I always understood that the founding fathers intended that

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison".

When I was FIVE I didn't get it, not quite.   But I was five then.  Since then I've come to understand both the absolute wisdom of it, at least as far as given the basic principles we hold dear, and the moral courage it takes to actually say it sincerely. To actually ACT upon it is very hard indeed.

Going against that basic principle, to overtly toss it out the door is one of those few things that would get me, literally, up in arms.  Since you've more or less rejected its validity, I feel we can come to no terms on it whatsoever.  

That said: I do not necessarily agree with how the judicial system has handled the situation.  

The 'No Double Jepardy' clause was instituited to prevent people from just retrying someone until they got the verdict they wanted.  Its that simple.  While it is a terrible thing that a criminal can get away with a crime that is only proveable after the trial, it is a far greater crime if we allow the judicial system to be abused by popular opinion rather than legally proveable fact.  It is that simple.  It is not a protection I am at all comfortable of monkeying with, be it by the expedient of retrying OJ as a civil case rather than a criminal case (guilty or not, legal or not, that was a gross perversion of the intent of the law), or allowing someone to be retried for a crime they were, unfortunately, aquitted of in the wake of new, lethally damning evidence.  

And yes, I will say that it does bother me, intensely that people DO get away with heinious shit from time to time. But I'd rather blame the DA for going to trial without enough evidence, in a hurry for whatever reason. The problems are solveable without the simple minded, and disasterous, blunt force solution of removing this right.

Tossing out cases on technicalities: I'm actually with you on this. Its stupid. Not so much the reasoning behind it (keeping the law enforcement establishment honest and under the rule of law) but ass backwards in implementation.  Criminals should not be rewarded by someone else's mistakes. Given the intent, the better thing to do would have been to instituite appropriate punishments, perhaps under civil law for offending officers.  That is: if a murderer goes to jail for life because a police officer searched his home without a warrent, the murderer could then have (and still does I believe) the legal right to charge the officer with breaking and entering. Fail to miradarize him? Probably a civil charge, worth a small claim...

I'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know why that was never implemented, or how we got the idea that people became less guilty if their rights were violated. Frankly, I don't care.


In conclusion: It was only a side note, after all.  A point of interest mildly relevant to the very rapidly dying OP

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not Catholic so maybe my theology is mistaken, but I thought that penance was an important part of Confession and I would think that telling perpetrators that their penance is to stop committing a crime and turn themselves in would be reasonable.  And if the person giving the confession fails to stop doing what they are doing or turn themselves in, I'm not sure why the Church should continue to protect them.

You are mistaken.  The anonymity of confession is absolute.  The following is from the Wikipedia "Confession" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession), and it matches my understanding of the sacrament.  

QuoteFor Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." Priests may not reveal what they have learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own death or that of others. This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. Many other forms of confidentiality, including in most states attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another.) For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Holy See (Code of Canon Law, 1388 §1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

The logic to this is that the assurance of anonymity encourages people to confess things that they never would otherwise.

Quote from: SpikeJohn: I wasn't condemning the style. I can, at times, find it hard to slog through, particularly when dealing with long and repeated instances, but I understand the value of it in presenting clear, point by point arguments.

I understand people find it hard to slog through, in part because I go on and on, too.  The important part of my reply is that it's fine with me for you to reply in whatever way works best for you.  You shouldn't feel obliged to quote and reply like I do.

Quote from: SpikeI am vaguely annoyed that somehow this has shifted to almost exclusively a discussion of ethical vs. utilitarian decision making, if I may make that shorthand summation without confusion.  Discussing this stuff outside the specifics of a given situation (for example: child porn anime) gets rapidly less useful as both sides pull farther back and more and more the discussion takes place in a vacuum.   You cannot test a hypothesis in a vacuum... (leave aside the snark comments about "Unless vacuum conditions are part of testing the hypothesis... please)

Well, that's one of the reasons why I've been trying to provide specific examples.  I guess my main point is that once you shift entirely to reason (which is what often happens in a vacuum because victims are hypothetical), it becomes possible to excuse just about anything, because the utility part of utilitarianism can be pretty slippery.  That's why I kept asking, early on, about what the value of Kinsey's research on children that was valuable enough to gather information the way he did?  What's really sitting on the other side of that scale from child abuse?

Quote from: SpikeI may not have the exact quote, but I always understood that the founding fathers intended that

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison".

When I was FIVE I didn't get it, not quite.   But I was five then.  Since then I've come to understand both the absolute wisdom of it, at least as far as given the basic principles we hold dear, and the moral courage it takes to actually say it sincerely. To actually ACT upon it is very hard indeed.

Yes, and I understand why the Founding Fathers put those safeguards in and I understand the wisdom in them.  But as I pointed out in another reply, the Constitutional protections against search and seizure can be bypassed when there is probable cause, so the protections are not designed to protect the guilty from justice, though they may accidentally do so from time to time.  I think some people see it as a game of "Can I beat the rap even if I'm guilty" but that's a twisting of why those rules are there.  

What bothers me is that following those principles blindly is not unlike the zero tolerance rules being implemented in many schools where young children get suspended for drawing a gun or pointing their finger at a classmate and saying, "Bang!"  At some point, they become zero common sense rules where the individuals and specifics of a situation are ignored.

When the UK overturned their double jeopardy protections, they required that "new and compelling evidence" be produced in order to trigger a new trial.  Given the police science now available, the possibility of finding recordings or DNA samples or other incontrovertible evidence of guilt is very real and I don't think the whole Constitution would collapse if the United States moved to a similar approach because I don't think it would increase the risk of the one innocent man going to jail while reducing the possibility of a dozen men to go free.  I think this sort of reform is something of a no-brainer.

But for the most part, I wasn't talking about civil rights protections.  The discussion was about confidentiality between a researcher and their subjects.  And as I pointed out, the law already requires them to report abuse in every state in the United States.  It's illegal not to.  

Quote from: SpikeGoing against that basic principle, to overtly toss it out the door is one of those few things that would get me, literally, up in arms.  Since you've more or less rejected its validity, I feel we can come to no terms on it whatsoever.

What I said did not disagree with that principle.  In fact, I said that I oppose the death penalty in large part because it might execute innocent people.

"It is better that a dozen guilty men go free than on innocent languish in prison."

What I said is that the purpose for those Constitutional protections is to keep the one innocent man out of prison, not to let the dozen guilty men to go free.  That a dozen guilty men may go free keeping that one innocent man out of prison is an unfortunate side effect of protecting the innocent, not a positive feature that should be cheered and lauded.  We should cheer the one innocent man going free, not the dozen guilty men going free, which is still an injustice.  From that perspective, there is nothing wrong with adjusting the rules so that fewer guilty people go free so long as more innocent people are not imprisoned.

Quote from: SpikeThe 'No Double Jepardy' clause was instituited to prevent people from just retrying someone until they got the verdict they wanted.  Its that simple.  While it is a terrible thing that a criminal can get away with a crime that is only proveable after the trial, it is a far greater crime if we allow the judicial system to be abused by popular opinion rather than legally proveable fact.  It is that simple.

Correct, but this isn't the 18th Century and given the ability to collect and find incontrovertible evidence, in the form of DNA strands, recordings, and so on, even years after a crime was committed, I think it's entirely possible to, as the UK law does, demand compelling new evidence before allowing another trial which would protect the innocent from vindictive trials while reducing the number of guilty who go free.

Quote from: SpikeIt is not a protection I am at all comfortable of monkeying with, be it by the expedient of retrying OJ as a civil case rather than a criminal case (guilty or not, legal or not, that was a gross perversion of the intent of the law), or allowing someone to be retried for a crime they were, unfortunately, aquitted of in the wake of new, lethally damning evidence.

I agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections.  And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial.  Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).  But in the case of Mel Ignatow, where pictures of him actually committing the crime he was acquitted of were found after he was acquitted, that would be compelling new evidence and thus warrant a new trial.  I don't see how that would subvert the intent of the founders or the principle that you stated earlier.

Quote from: SpikeAnd yes, I will say that it does bother me, intensely that people DO get away with heinious shit from time to time. But I'd rather blame the DA for going to trial without enough evidence, in a hurry for whatever reason. The problems are solveable without the simple minded, and disasterous, blunt force solution of removing this right.

Well, I think it's also sometimes possible to monkey with the right to make it work better.  If you read the Bill of Rights, many of the rights are qualified and have conditions under which they can be suspended (e.g., even the right to habeas corpus can be suspended "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.").  If the Founders could imagine a mechanism by which the government search someone's home and seize evidence in cases of probable cause (search warrants) and a grand jury system to govern indictments for serious crimes, I think an equally safe mechanism could be put into place to allow for a retrial when compelling new evidence is found pointing to an acquitted person's guilty.  And in fact the UK has enacted just such an approach.

Quote from: SpikeTossing out cases on technicalities: I'm actually with you on this. Its stupid. Not so much the reasoning behind it (keeping the law enforcement establishment honest and under the rule of law) but ass backwards in implementation.  Criminals should not be rewarded by someone else's mistakes. Given the intent, the better thing to do would have been to instituite appropriate punishments, perhaps under civil law for offending officers.  That is: if a murderer goes to jail for life because a police officer searched his home without a warrent, the murderer could then have (and still does I believe) the legal right to charge the officer with breaking and entering. Fail to miradarize him? Probably a civil charge, worth a small claim...

That's more or less exactly what I'm talking about when I say that those rights and protections are not there to protect the guilty.  

Quote from: SpikeI'm not a legal scholar, so I don't know why that was never implemented, or how we got the idea that people became less guilty if their rights were violated. Frankly, I don't care.

That's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.  Why is a person less guilty if there rights were violated?  Why do people applaud them for beating the rap.

Another saying that probably goes back to when you were five:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Quote from: jhkimYou are mistaken.  The anonymity of confession is absolute.  The following is from the Wikipedia "Confession" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession), and it matches my understanding of the sacrament.

The article says that it's confidential, not necessarily anonymous.  It also points out that the sacrament is really called Penance and says the following, which is relevant to this discussion:

   In order for the sacrament to be valid the penitent must do more than simply confess his known mortal sins to a priest. He must a) be truly sorry for each of the mortal sins he committed, b) have a firm intention never to commit them again, and c) perform the penance imposed by the priest. Also, in addition to confessing the types of mortal sins committed, the penitent must disclose how many times each sin was committed, to the best of his ability.

...and...

   In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to civil authorities himself.

Where I would disagree with Catholic Church (I'm not Catholic).  I would argue that the proper course of action for a priest, if confronted with a parishioner who confesses to child molestation should be to do what's mentioned above which should include "encourag[ing] the penitent to surrender to authorities" as their act of penance.  If, however, the parishioner doesn't willingly submit themselves to the authorities as evidence that they are truly sorry and intend never to repeat the sin, then I think the priest is dealing with a sinner who is not truly repenting and I would have no moral problem with them going to the authorities.

Again, I have to ask what the downside is.  If the priests aren't able to stop the molesters from molesting and the molesters aren't truly repentant, then what difference does it make if they scare them away?  I'm all for child molesters repenting and even going to heaven if their repentance is sincere, but the Catholic Church got itself into a whole heap of trouble covering up members of it's own clergy molesting children.  "If Woody had gone right to the police, this never would have happened."

Quote from: jhkimThe logic to this is that the assurance of anonymity encourages people to confess things that they never would otherwise.

Yes, the argument makes sense, especially when dealing with things like theft and adultery and so on.  But in the case of child molestation, not so much, since I find it difficult to imagine that giving them penance without requiring them to turn themselves in, given the recidivism rates for child molesters, is going to stop them from molesting again.

The thing is while I obviously agree with your sentiments in parts, I do not agree that tossing, or even monkeying with, the basic principles of our judicial system is something to be contemplated casually.

I know you haven't said casually, but you are certainly trending that way. 'Oh look the brits did it! If they can make it work, we can!'... they also have an Orwellian level of surviellance, as foolish as it turns out to be, which hardly inspires me to follow their footsteps regarding my basic rights.  They also seem to think I should not be allowed to defend myself against violent criminals or tyrannic governments (gun control).

We could use Singapore as a valid reason to tighten up our laws until smoking pot was an executable offence, that doesn't mean we should.


Here is the thing: One of your main (even strongest) arguements regarding Double Jeapordy is how our increasing technology makes it easier to prove or disprove cases than it was twenty years ago.

This is true. However, this is also a 'state of flux'. Twenty years from now it won't matter that FOURTY years ago DNA evidence didn't exist.   You don't toss a 200 year old tradition out because, for a twenty year span, new technologies are rendering older trials moot or finding criminals that once slipped through the cracks.  Our grandchildren won't care that some thug rapist slipped through the double jeapordy crack because he was tried without DNA evidence any more than you care that some back robber in the Twenties got off because they didn't fingerprint him.  They WILL care however, if lacking that protection they start finding themselves on trial again and again because someone disagrees with them, because the state thinks they are dangerous, because of all the ways that double jeapordy can be abused.

It is not worth it.

And what of Mel?

So what?

Two hundred years ago it was possible to try a man, find him not guilty due to a lack of evidence then have some impecabble witness arrive to 'solve' the case. Maybe they were abroad and didn't realize there was a trial.

Our founding fathers had to deal with the same situation we do. Maybe not with photographs, certainly, but with 'new evidence', yes.  They still made the descision they made.


Again: While I agree that having one's rights violated by the due process should not automatically be a 'get out of jail free card'... though certainly an option for less heinious crimes... trying to apply the same solution I offered up as my preferred alternative to letting them go (that is leaving the cops and lawyers open to punishment), seems unworkable for this.  How do you punish the judicial system?  There is no 'warrent' clause for double Jeapordy, no exemption, no 'if than', and frankly I don't see how you could put one in without hopelessly compromising the entire protection.  

You suggest in the face of new evidence. What's to stop DA's from holding back certain evidence on a 'just in case' basis?  Lets not interrogate Kato Kaelin right now. I don't think he's got much, but what if OJ beats the rap? We'll want a fall back for a new trial...

I simplify, but given how people use and abuse existing rule sets (the existing legal system, loophole fuckers in RPGs, shit like that) I KNOW someone will think of a way. Hell, even with the fairly absolute system we have no some twisted genius came up with 'wrongful death civil suits'. If that had failed maybe we would have seen a tort case on some obscure point.

And you want to weaken that? Make it easier?  So Mel can get his just deserts?

If it matters that much to you, go take the law into your own hands then. Obviously consequences aren't that important, only your own moral outrage.

I generally agree with Spike -- and I would add a personal note.  One of the assumptions made is that anyone accused is guilty -- i.e. applying protections like double jeopardy is just there to help the guilty escape.  

I would note that my father is a psychiatrist, and at one point one of his patients -- a teenage boy -- accused him of inappropriate touching.  I believe him that this was a disturbed boy who was lying, and he was not in the end found guilty of anything.  (This was not actually a criminal case, but it did go before a psychiatric board.  Still, the parallels to criminal cases are clear.)  His career was put through the wringer over that incident, and it caused him considerable personal grief.  I think the concern was justified, but it certainly gives me pause when thinking about rights of the accused.  

Allowing cases to be re-opened (i.e. double-jeopardy) means that anyone falsely accused can be repeatedly dragged through trial.  Either someone in the police or someone outside who has manufactured evidence can hold some back, and then release it later to re-open the case, thus subjecting the accused through arrest and trial repeatedly.

Quote from: jhkimI generally agree with Spike -- and I would add a personal note.  One of the assumptions made is that anyone accused is guilty -- i.e. applying protections like double jeopardy is just there to help the guilty escape.

John, you and others have whined a great deal about how I unfairly characterize your arguments.  If you are going to complain about that sort of thing, then please be more careful about doing it yourself.

I never said that the protections against double jeopardy are there just to help the guilty escape.  I said that it can be used by the guilty to escape and that it could be changed to make it less likely for the obviously guilty to escape in a way that would pose little or no risk to innocent people.

What I suggested was a bypass mechanism, to be available when there is compelling new evidence to be reviewed through some sort of mechanism like judicial review or a grand jury, just as there is a bypass mechanism in the protections against searches and seizures.  That's why the Fourth Amendment talks about unreasonable searches and seizures and allows them when there is probable cause and a judicial review to allow someone's property to be invaded and searched.  My proposal is to allow a bypass mechanism to the protections against double jeopardy in cases where new compelling evidence has been found and there is a judicial review.

But why I really can't understand why you are mischaracterizing my position is that I explicitly said, as a point of example:

Quote from: John MorrowI agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections. And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial. Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).

Doesn't that suggest to you that I'm not talking about throwing the whole thing out and that I think that there would still need to be sufficient protections in place to protect the innocent such that a man that almost everyone believes is guilty would not be retried under what I'm proposing?

But if you really want to turn this into an excluded middle argument, let's look at the flip side.  If the innocent are never to be falsely accused, though guilty, or inconvenienced, then should we make all police searches of private property illegal, regardless of whether there is probable cause or not?  Plenty of innocent people have their property searched by mistake, including some cases of no-knock raids performed on the wrong house by police.  

If it's really always better than a dozen guilty men go free than one innocent man be inconvenienced by a trial or search for something for which they are innocent, then perhaps we should just do away with searches.  And trials, too, since they ruin the lives of plenty of innocent people who spend their life's savings defending themselves from false charges.  And of course even with all of those protections, innocent people still wind up in prison.  Since the justice system is so easy to abuse and such a burden on the innocent, why don't we just abolish it entirely?

Quote from: jhkimI would note that my father is a psychiatrist, and at one point one of his patients -- a teenage boy -- accused him of inappropriate touching.  I believe him that this was a disturbed boy who was lying, and he was not in the end found guilty of anything.  (This was not actually a criminal case, but it did go before a psychiatric board.  Still, the parallels to criminal cases are clear.)  His career was put through the wringer over that incident, and it caused him considerable personal grief.  I think the concern was justified, but it certainly gives me pause when thinking about rights of the accused.

I am not saying that we should not be concerned about the rights of the accused nor am I saying that we should throw every protection out the window.  What I am saying is that there are cases where justice has clearly not been served.  There is a significant difference between an unsupported accusation (which may still warrant investigation) and pictures, videos, sound recordings, confessions, DNA evidence, and so on when it comes to proving guilt.

I invite you to read about the case of Mel Ignatow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow) and then tell me why a sufficiently high bar to bypass double jeopardy protections couldn't be set that would allow the evidence that was found after Ignatow was aquitted, which included pictures he took while committing the torture and murder of Brenda Schaefer, but not allow a bypass under the sort of circumstances that you are talking about.

Quote from: John MorrowAllowing cases to be re-opened (i.e. double-jeopardy) means that anyone falsely accused can be repeatedly dragged through trial.  Either someone in the police or someone outside who has manufactured evidence can hold some back, and then release it later to re-open the case, thus subjecting the accused through arrest and trial repeatedly.

Why would the police hold back compelling evidence and purposely lose a case?  Why would they prefer a series of trials rather than a conviction?

But assuming that there might be some reason for that, the criteria that the evidence be new and compelling (and vetted by, say, a grand jury or judicial review board) would provide as much or more protection to the innocent as grand juries and search warrante do.  If the evidence is found to have been purposely withheld, then it could be declared "not new" and excluded from consideration.  If the evidence is not compelling enough to convince a grand jury or panel of judges that a new trial would produce a different verdict, then they could deny the request for a new trial.  And, of course, if there is no new evidence, then no new trial.  There could even be limits place on the severity of the crime, limiting retrials only to violent crimes and abuse.

Actually, John, if you consider the 'OJ Book' compelling new evidence you either are under-informed about the specifics of the book, or your standards are just as low as the other John and I fear.

Recall: Normally I am more on your side of the political aisle than Mr. Kim's (wasn't he the 'Im now a communist' guy? I can't recall, sadly).

But as to the OJ thing: First it was not, despite the title, a confession by any reasonable standard. It was ghost written from interviews that presented a 'hypothetical' as in 'If you were guilty, how would you have done it' and then written to be specifically damning. I seem to recall OJ  actually being quite upset at it and the author (who was not, despite appearences, OJ himself).  

Which makes the Goldman's subsequent suit against it almost amusing, though I'm more inclined to say Damning. They didn't move to prevent sales but to ensure all profits went to them as I recall.

Not being a lawyer, I can't say how it follows with the protections against self incrimination other than to say we can not legally compel OJ to state that it was not actually hypothetical at all.  That is we can't say 'this is a confession OJ, we just need you to confirm it'.  

WHile it could be used as evidence in a trial, it would be most useful to show knowledge of the details of the actual crimes. However, as he had to sit through the trial the first time, undoubtedly he is intimately familiar with even those details that the murderer (himself or others) wouldn't have known from having been there... like where he left footprints or how many stabs each victim received (assuming a killer without OCD and a counting fetish)...

Your constant, strenuous, cries about 'what about this guy' are not unlike a victim's family, upset with the lack of viciousness in the punishment, crying 'what if it were your child'.  Its a great emotional appeal, but we've already covered, repetetively, that while it's tragic, it is one of those things you have to accept in order to prevent the possibility of worse tragedies.

In other words, we've acknowledged that its wrong, that it is sad, that we don't like it.  But we also point out that it is not worth making the change.

While there can certainly be debate, the constant repetition of a singular obvious case... one unlikely to be casually repeated does not make your arguement any stronger, only repetetive.

In fact the counter argument is simple enough, though I haven't gone in detail previously I did mention it: Why weren't the pictures found earlier in the investigation?  Why did the proscecutor go to trail with too weak a case? The weakness of the case obviously wasn't due to Mel being innocent, thus the fault lies in the investigation.

In other words, you are trying to break one system to correct the failings of another.

Quote from: SpikeThe thing is while I obviously agree with your sentiments in parts, I do not agree that tossing, or even monkeying with, the basic principles of our judicial system is something to be contemplated casually.

I've given it a great deal of thought and since I lack the power to implement my suggestions unilaterally, they would go through a great many more reviews before they ever became law.  Since they would require a Constitutional Amendment to implement in the United States, the reforms I suggest would have to get massive super-majority support to be implemented.  I think that's a sufficient check and balance (designed by the Founding Fathers, in fact) to ensure that monkeying around with the basic principles of our justice system is not done casually.

Quote from: SpikeThis is true. However, this is also a 'state of flux'. Twenty years from now it won't matter that FOURTY years ago DNA evidence didn't exist.   You don't toss a 200 year old tradition out because, for a twenty year span, new technologies are rendering older trials moot or finding criminals that once slipped through the cracks.

The point about the technolgy is that it can create situatoins where there is absolutely no question of guilt.  Mel Ignatow took pictures of himself raping and torturing his victim while he was committing the crime.  Absolutely no question of guilt.  Why is it impossible to figure out some way to evaluate a situation like that?  I'm not even talking about OJ Simpson, where there is some sliver of uncertainty in the evidence that we can't be 100% sure he did it.  I'm talking about pictures that clearly show a person doing the deed that they are accused of.

Quote from: SpikeOur grandchildren won't care that some thug rapist slipped through the double jeapordy crack because he was tried without DNA evidence any more than you care that some back robber in the Twenties got off because they didn't fingerprint him.

Are grandchildren might care if the rapist who slipped through the cracks killed their grandmother just as many African Americans still care today that their ancestors were enslaved and the Serbians and Albanians care about wrongs committed against each other hundreds of years ago.  And let's not forget that incidents like the Black Dahlia murder and even the Jack the Ripper murders (I can list plenty more) continue to be cared about precisely because the justice was never done and the killer was never brought to justice.

Quote from: SpikeThey WILL care however, if lacking that protection they start finding themselves on trial again and again because someone disagrees with them, because the state thinks they are dangerous, because of all the ways that double jeapordy can be abused.

It is not worth it.

So you think there is no middle ground between aboslute protection against double jeopardy and no protection that's workable despite the fact that the Constitution, on many matters including very seriously civil liberty issues, allows bypasses and tries to find a middle ground?

Quote from: SpikeAnd what of Mel?

So what?

Well, let me put it this way.  John Kim talked about his father being falsely accused.  Suppose he had been put on trial.  And without double jeopardy, put on trial again.  And again.

So what? (And before anyone takes that line seriously, that's not how I really feel.)

It's not happening to me, right?

It's an injustice to persecute or imprison an innocent man unjustly and it's an injustice for a guilty man to go free.  If we can casually ignore the rape, torture, and murder of Brenda Schaefer and let her murderer walk the streets, why can't we just as casually ignore the abuse of justice of a prosecutor trying an enemy again and again vindictively?  After all, in a hundred years, nobody will care, right?

Quote from: SpikeTwo hundred years ago it was possible to try a man, find him not guilty due to a lack of evidence then have some impecabble witness arrive to 'solve' the case. Maybe they were abroad and didn't realize there was a trial.

Our founding fathers had to deal with the same situation we do. Maybe not with photographs, certainly, but with 'new evidence', yes.  They still made the descision they made.

The Founding Fathers were not perfect.  They had assumed that the vice president should be the runner up in a Presidential election.  They did their best to prohibit a standing army because they didn't think that we'd need one (the Army has to be reauthorized every two years).  They tolerated slavery, didn't give women a vote, and left quite a few things so vague that people are still arguing over what they mean.  But they also provided a mechanism by which the Constitution could be amendended by super majorities because they knew they weren't perfect and knew there might need to be changes.  So the idea that the Constitution is a static document that must never be changes isn't borne out by the Constitution itself, even if I do personaly think that the 17th Amendment and possibly a few others were a mistake.

Quote from: SpikeAgain: While I agree that having one's rights violated by the due process should not automatically be a 'get out of jail free card'... though certainly an option for less heinious crimes... trying to apply the same solution I offered up as my preferred alternative to letting them go (that is leaving the cops and lawyers open to punishment), seems unworkable for this.  How do you punish the judicial system?  There is no 'warrent' clause for double Jeapordy, no exemption, no 'if than', and frankly I don't see how you could put one in without hopelessly compromising the entire protection.

Does the probably cause bypass in the Fourth Amendment compromise the entire protection in an unacceptable way?  Should we do away with warrants?

Quote from: SpikeYou suggest in the face of new evidence. What's to stop DA's from holding back certain evidence on a 'just in case' basis?  Lets not interrogate Kato Kaelin right now. I don't think he's got much, but what if OJ beats the rap? We'll want a fall back for a new trial...

Compelling new evidence.  How do you determine if the evidence is new or compelling?  The same way we determine if probable cause is sufficient for search and seizure.  Judicial review.  A grand jury.  All of these mechanism already exist because they are used elsewhere in the legal system without utterly compromising it.

Quote from: SpikeAnd you want to weaken that? Make it easier?  So Mel can get his just deserts?

Weaken it slightly, when the evidence is so compelling than nobody could possibly deny the person's guilt or that an injustice has been done?  Yes.  Absolutely.  

Quote from: SpikeIf it matters that much to you, go take the law into your own hands then. Obviously consequences aren't that important, only your own moral outrage.

Because then a person who is correcting an injustice will go to jail because the government doesn't tolerate competition in that area.  There are ways that problem could be addressed but they'd be even far riskier from a civil rights and protection of the innocent perspective than what I'm proposing.

John: Again, just because the new evidence is more damning, so too have the standards of evidence grown stricter. Two Hundred years ago a single citizen of good character could, as an eye witness, make or break a case.  Now it's DNA evidence and photographs.  That is the beauty of the jury, that the evidence has to be compelling based on what is possible.

Of course, photographs could be doctored, faked, or inconclusive (is Mel actually visible in the photographs? As he was the photog, that is hard to believe casually).

More to the point, you utter failed to address my rebuttal of this case you are so attached to. The failure is not the double jeapordy laws, it is in the investigation, in the proscesution for going to trial early. You are casually (for all your protestations that the checks and balances prevent it from being 'casual') discarding it because you are morally outraged that this guy got off scott free (despite spending almost the entirety of the interveneing two decades in prison for related charges...) on the murder rap.

Here is the thing:  The proscecutor failed miserably at ensuring his evidence was damning. He had a single recording of a sketchy conversation. His star witness was not vetted properly by any stretch, and despite having enough cause to get a through search warrent, they failed to adequetly search Mel's house, where the damning evidence was found.

The failure is not the 'double jeapordy' clause at all, yet you want to 'fix' it by going around the back end.

And what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?

When do you stop stripping away protections, John? When do you stop making new exceptions, new clauses? How far do you go? Mr. Kim's father is a powerful illustration of why those protections exist.  What happened to OJ and Micheal Jackson are evidence that sometimes they don't go far enough. When you can't get the conviction you want you hound them until they snap and start ignoring the law or treating it as an enemy (OJ) or flee the country wearing a Hajib (MJ).

We don't have perfect knowledge that they are guilty, only our beliefs.  We will probably NEVER have perfect knowledge of guilt.  Not even for Mel, as damnning as it is (he did incriminate himself willingly. Though of course, maybe he was covering for Ms Stone? Someone else?) Its not at all likely, mind you. But neither you nor I were at Nicole Browns the night of the murder, neither you nor I have spent a night at Neverland. Neither you nor I were on those juries either.

If you want to make sure injustices like this don't happen, get a job as a proscecutor and make sure you never go to trial until you are certain you'll get your conviction, until you are certain you've dug up ever scrap of evidence humanly possible.

Don't tear apart the foundations of our entire judicial system just to suit your moral outrage.

Quote from: SpikeActually, John, if you consider the 'OJ Book' compelling new evidence you either are under-informed about the specifics of the book, or your standards are just as low as the other John and I fear.

I already addressed that.  I know my replies are long but are people actually reading them?  I wrote:

Quote from: John MorrowI agree that the civil trial of OJ Simpson subverted the double jeopardy protections. And I'll also add that if OJ Simpson had not written his book (which he wouldn't have under different rules), there would be no new compelling evidence in his case to warrant another trial. Even under the rules enacted in the UK, OJ would likely not have been subjected to another criminal trial because there was no new evidence to justify it (except maybe his book, which he likely wouldn't have written if he didn't feel safe from double jeopardy).

Was that in some way unclear?

Quote from: SpikeYour constant, strenuous, cries about 'what about this guy' are not unlike a victim's family, upset with the lack of viciousness in the punishment, crying 'what if it were your child'.  Its a great emotional appeal, but we've already covered, repetetively, that while it's tragic, it is one of those things you have to accept in order to prevent the possibility of worse tragedies.

And I'v already covered repeatedly that I don't think we should ignore the tragedy nor do I think that we have to accept it or face a worse tragedy.  The flip side of the emotional appeals is your frequent assertion that it doesn't matter.  Do you really think that doesn't lead to worse tragedies?

Quote from: SpikeIn other words, we've acknowledged that its wrong, that it is sad, that we don't like it.  But we also point out that it is not worth making the change.

And I haven't agreed with your reasoning why.  I can also point out that despite the Constitutional protections against double jeopardy, not only are civil courts being used for a second round of lawsuits as with OJ Simpson, with a much lower threshold of proof than criminal courts, but there has also been the even more overt case of the police who beat Rodney King, essentially charged again for the same crime and in a different venue in order to get the desired verdict.  And why?  Because enough people were morally outraged by the verdict and injustice they felt was done to a stranger that they rioted.  

If the only argument that you'll accept is one that hinges upon endangering civil rights, then I think you should consider that the protections against double jeopardy are already being undermined.  What you and John fear is already happening and, for those who feel that the police in the Rodney King case should have be acquitted, has already punished the innocent.  That's despite the unqualified protections specified in the US Constitution.  Why?  Because while punishing the innocent is unjust, so is not punishing the guilty, and when people perceive the law as unjust, they stop respecting and obeying it.  In fact, the United States wsa founded on that very principle.

Quote from: SpikeWhile there can certainly be debate, the constant repetition of a singular obvious case... one unlikely to be casually repeated does not make your arguement any stronger, only repetetive.

I'm repeating a single case because it's clear and handly. There are other similar cases in the United States and several others led to the changes in the law in the UK.  How many examples do I need to give you?

Quote from: SpikeIn fact the counter argument is simple enough, though I haven't gone in detail previously I did mention it: Why weren't the pictures found earlier in the investigation?  Why did the proscecutor go to trail with too weak a case? The weakness of the case obviously wasn't due to Mel being innocent, thus the fault lies in the investigation.

Did you bother to read the Wikipedia page about Mel Ignatow?  Go do that and then let me know if it doesn't answer any of your questions.

Quote from: SpikeIn other words, you are trying to break one system to correct the failings of another.

I would be interested to hear how the specific changes that I've suggested would "break the system" , especially any worse than it's already broken.

John, I did read your post, otherwise OJ would not have appeared again in mine. We both agree that it was a perversion of the Double Jeapordy clause, the disagreement appears to be that you would rather they didn't have to pervert it, while I think it shouldn't have happened at all.


Obviously I read the wiki page, John. You would note, if you read my post as you claim all the specific details of the case I mentioned in pointing out the one thing I keep asking you to look at: The failure was not the double jeapordy clause but the failure of the investigators and proscecutors.

Do you need me to repeat, ad nauseaum the various details that support that explicitely?

The Proscecutor failed to vet his witness, who's choice of attire made her less credible to the jury. He went to trial solely on the strength of his witness and the recorded testemony of Mel gain by wire. The wire was sufficently sketchy that it was easily dismissed by the Jury.

The investigators either failed to obtain a warrent to search Mels premises, or simply neglected to do so adequetly, as the photos were found on the premesis by an unrelated individual.

There isn't even much outrage of miscarried justice. Mel hasn't even walked free since his orginal acquittal as he's spent the entire remainder of his time in jail on related Perjury charges.

Failing to see how removing the double jeapordy clause would change sloppy police work and overeager proscecutors or boneheaded juries that don't take their work seriously.

Your example is hideiously flawed, yet you would rather suggest I failed to read it than address it.

Quote from: SpikeJohn: Again, just because the new evidence is more damning, so too have the standards of evidence grown stricter. Two Hundred years ago a single citizen of good character could, as an eye witness, make or break a case.  Now it's DNA evidence and photographs.  That is the beauty of the jury, that the evidence has to be compelling based on what is possible.

Yes, but what you are missing is that it was far easier to convict the innocent on the bases of an eye witness and despite your protests that the law much protect the innocent at all costs, plenty of innocent people have gone to prison and plenty still do.  But the more incontrovertable and objective the evidence is, the less of a chance there is of making a mistake.  And, in fact, many men are being freed because modern examinations of the evidence are proving their innocense.  

Quote from: SpikeOf course, photographs could be doctored, faked, or inconclusive (is Mel actually visible in the photographs? As he was the photog, that is hard to believe casually).

Read the Wikipedia article in full.  He had an accomplice.  His body is visible in the pictures with distinctive marks sufficient to prove his guilt visible in the photos.

Quote from: SpikeMore to the point, you utter failed to address my rebuttal of this case you are so attached to. The failure is not the double jeapordy laws, it is in the investigation, in the proscesution for going to trial early. You are casually (for all your protestations that the checks and balances prevent it from being 'casual') discarding it because you are morally outraged that this guy got off scott free (despite spending almost the entirety of the interveneing two decades in prison for related charges...) on the murder rap.

Yes, I am morally outraged that this guy raped, tortured, and murdered a woman and wasn't convicted for it.  Why aren't you?  Since the though of an innocent person being unjustly persecuted without consequence seems to outrage you, surely you are able to feel outrage at injustices done to others, right?  

Let me put it this way for you.  Brenda Shaefer was an innovent woman.  Her rights were violated by Mel Ignatow.  I'm every bit as outraged by his violation fof her rights as I would be had she been picked up by a police officer, strip searched, beated, and had died in custody.

Quote from: SpikeHere is the thing:  The proscecutor failed miserably at ensuring his evidence was damning. He had a single recording of a sketchy conversation. His star witness was not vetted properly by any stretch, and despite having enough cause to get a through search warrent, they failed to adequetly search Mel's house, where the damning evidence was found.

And with 20/20 hindsight, that's all true.  Similarly, the police in the OJ Simpson case thought that their evidence, which included blood found in his vehicle, a slam dunk. The same thing happened with Billy Dunlop. the case that led the UK to change their law.

Quote from: SpikeThe failure is not the 'double jeapordy' clause at all, yet you want to 'fix' it by going around the back end.

The double jeopardy law prevents the failure from being properly corrected, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.

Quote from: SpikeAnd what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?

Do they keep finding new and compelling evidence of his guilt?  Would it help if the retrials were limited?  Do you really have any interest in trying to address your concerns or will you just keep raising new ones?

Quote from: SpikeWhen do you stop stripping away protections, John? When do you stop making new exceptions, new clauses? How far do you go?

How far does it go now?  I've asked you if you are concerned that the Constitution allows for the rights of innocent people to be violated upon probable cause.  Are you?  Because of that bypass, have we slid down into an oblivion of no civil rights?  

Quote from: SpikeMr. Kim's father is a powerful illustration of why those protections exist.  What happened to OJ and Micheal Jackson are evidence that sometimes they don't go far enough. When you can't get the conviction you want you hound them until they snap and start ignoring the law or treating it as an enemy (OJ) or flee the country wearing a Hajib (MJ).

And that is already happening without a single change to the law.

You aren't addressing my proposal but a general fear, a fear that you could just as easily apply to existing laws or any law that might possibly harm an innocent person.  And at every turn where you've tried to poke a hole in my proposal, you've given an example that wouldn't pass the test that I've proposed.  You raise issues of faking evidence and so on, yet that's a danger in our existing legal system.  Sure, people could abuse my proposal by ignoring the letter or spirit of it, but they are already doing that with the existing laws in an attempt to correct the sort of injustice that I'm suggesting that we correct.

Quote from: SpikeWe don't have perfect knowledge that they are guilty, only our beliefs.  We will probably NEVER have perfect knowledge of guilt.  Not even for Mel, as damnning as it is (he did incriminate himself willingly. Though of course, maybe he was covering for Ms Stone? Someone else?) Its not at all likely, mind you. But neither you nor I were at Nicole Browns the night of the murder, neither you nor I have spent a night at Neverland. Neither you nor I were on those juries either.

And you'll notice that I explicitly said that OJ would not be covered by my examples and I agree.  I don't have perfect knowledge of his guilt.  And if you really believe that evidence is so easy to fake and misunderstand and that we can never have perfect knowledge of guilt, are really as indifferent to what happens to the guilty as you claim, and you really believe that it's better to let the guilty go than risk punishing the innocent, then we really should do away with the entire legal system.  An incredible number of innocent people are bankrupted by lawsuits, sent to prison, and even executed and if that's the such a great injustice that we should never risk it happening in order to punish the guilty, then I really don't see how you can support any law enforcement.  If you aren't making claims as extreme as I'm characterizing here, then please explain to me how you square those various concerns and balance them against each other.

Quote from: SpikeIf you want to make sure injustices like this don't happen, get a job as a proscecutor and make sure you never go to trial until you are certain you'll get your conviction, until you are certain you've dug up ever scrap of evidence humanly possible.

Prosecutors will never be perfect.  The justice system will never be perfect.  If that's the measure you require the justice system to operate under, than it should be abolished.

Quote from: SpikeDon't tear apart the foundations of our entire judicial system just to suit your moral outrage.

I keep applying the principles you are espousing to the situation that we have no and I find it difficult to understand how you can find any legitimacy at all in our existing judicial system, nevermind my hypothetical reforms.  All of the abuses that you are complaining are already possible and, in fact, already happen.  And they are allowed precisely so that the law can get he bad guys.

Quote from: SpikeJohn, I did read your post, otherwise OJ would not have appeared again in mine. We both agree that it was a perversion of the Double Jeapordy clause, the disagreement appears to be that you would rather they didn't have to pervert it, while I think it shouldn't have happened at all.

You are still ignoring the fact that I've said that OJ Simpson would likely not have been able to be retried under the proposal I've made unless he was stupid enough to write a book about it anyway.  I doubt he would have if he had not felt he could do so with impunity.

Quote from: SpikeObviously I read the wiki page, John. You would note, if you read my post as you claim all the specific details of the case I mentioned in pointing out the one thing I keep asking you to look at: The failure was not the double jeapordy clause but the failure of the investigators and proscecutors.

The page mentions that the prosecutor thought that they had a solid case and, given the evidence that they had, I don't think they were foolish or incompetent to believe that.  But even if they were utterly incompetent, that does not change the fact that the acquittal was an injustice nor that later evidence would amost certainly get a conviction.

Quote from: SpikeDo you need me to repeat, ad nauseaum the various details that support that explicitely?

The Proscecutor failed to vet his witness, who's choice of attire made her less credible to the jury. He went to trial solely on the strength of his witness and the recorded testemony of Mel gain by wire. The wire was sufficently sketchy that it was easily dismissed by the Jury.

The investigators either failed to obtain a warrent to search Mels premises, or simply neglected to do so adequetly, as the photos were found on the premesis by an unrelated individual.

   In light of these considerations and their own desire to get the trial over with before the coming Christmas holiday, the jury acquitted Ignatow. Before giving their decision to the courtroom, laughter and loud talk was heard coming from the deliberation room.

Maybe the jury was also a little to blame, too?  

   The judge was so embarrassed by this verdict given, that he took the unusual step of writing a letter of apology to the Schaefer family.

Maybe the prosecutor's case wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be?

And, yes, they missed the pictures because they didn't know that they existed and didn't expect to find evidence like that?  Hindsight is conveniently 20/20.

Quote from: SpikeThere isn't even much outrage of miscarried justice. Mel hasn't even walked free since his orginal acquittal as he's spent the entire remainder of his time in jail on related Perjury charges.

He was released in 2006.  I suppose I should also point out that was sentenced to a total of 17 years (not all served) for purjury and have little doubt that was an attempt to correct the earlier injustice.  In fact, they prosecuted him for one purjury count and then, upon his release, another -- exatly the sort of abuse you claim to be concerned about.  Do you approve of that solution?

Quote from: SpikeFailing to see how removing the double jeapordy clause would change sloppy police work and overeager proscecutors or boneheaded juries that don't take their work seriously.

It won't, and I never claimed it would.  What it would do is allow for the law to correct mistakes made by sloppy police work.

That said, I do think that if you wanted to argue that loosening the protections against double jeopardy would encourage sloppy police work and might encourage prosecutors to perform hunting expedition prosecutions against people with sketchy evidence because they assume that they could get a second shot at it, I might be pursuaded that's a legitimate enough concern to keep things the way that they are.

Quote from: SpikeYour example is hideiously flawed, yet you would rather suggest I failed to read it than address it.

I suggested that you failed to read it because your characterization of various aspects of the example seemed to ignore quite a few details in the case.  For example, you'd rather blame a sloppy prosecutor than a lazy jury for the acquittal.  And you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the photos that seemed to ignore details that were available.  If that was an honest mistake, that's fine.  I miss things, too.  But I'd appreciate you cutting me the same sort of slack when I make mistakes.

Quote from: John MorrowYou are still ignoring the fact that I've said that OJ Simpson would likely not have been able to be retried under the proposal I've made unless he was stupid enough to write a book about it anyway.  I doubt he would have if he had not felt he could do so with impunity.

No, you keep bringing up the book as if he has admitted his guilt incontrovertably, which he has not. So its speculation.

Quote from: John MorrowThe page mentions that the prosecutor thought that they had a solid case and, given the evidence that they had, I don't think they were foolish or incompetent to believe that.  But even if they were utterly incompetent, that does not change the fact that the acquittal was an injustice nor that later evidence would amost certainly get a conviction.

And if you asked me if I put in a hard days work today, I'd tell you I did. If you asked my boss, they'd tell you i didn't.  People don't admit to being lazy, sloppy or indifferent, John. Not often, and in something as public as this only if forced.  The simple fact that he let his witness, his STAR WITNESS, the accomplice, come to trial looking like a floosy picked up off the street (from the jury's perspective) is a sloppy.fucking.mistake. One covered in high school law classes, and mentioned in the very Wiki you seem to think I didn't read. What he SAYS about his case is directly controverted by the evidence readily to hand.

Quote from: John MorrowIn light of these considerations and their own desire to get the trial over with before the coming Christmas holiday, the jury acquitted Ignatow. Before giving their decision to the courtroom, laughter and loud talk was heard coming from the deliberation room.

Maybe the jury was also a little to blame, too?  

And I mentioned that. Remember when I asked you if your next step was to toss out jury trials to ensure proper convictions, John? I wasn't doing that because I thought it sounded cute.  

Quote from: John MorrowThe judge was so embarrassed by this verdict given, that he took the unusual step of writing a letter of apology to the Schaefer family.

Maybe the prosecutor's case wasn't as bad as you are making it out to be?

Really now? Part of a prosecutors job, in fact one might argue the most important part of a prosecutors job is to make the jury believe in his case. Building logical rational arguements that sway a judge who, in all likelihood is at least somewhat sympathetic to his message if only because they've seen it a thousand times before, is not the same, nor of the same import of convincing the fucking jury. And if the jury is in a hurry to get home for the holidays, then it is his fucking job to ensure that won't taint their decision. Moving for a mistrial so that another trial can be had, for example. Asking for a holiday break so the Jury comes back less distracted. I don't know the details, but I surely know that he has tools available to him to ensure the Jury doesn't just wiff the case 'because'.

And for the third or fourth fucking time: Yes, the jury is at fault too. Wanna get rid of the 'trial by jury' clause?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, yes, they missed the pictures because they didn't know that they existed and didn't expect to find evidence like that?  Hindsight is conveniently 20/20.

And why not? They had, as his star witness, his accomplice, after all. Why do you think I said they should have known he had evidence at his house, evidence they should have found? Because they fucking had his accomplise on tenterhooks!    And since we know that if the evidence they had was strong enough to get past the grand jury phase, then it was strong enough to get a warrent to tear his house appart looking for evidence.  They DO tear houses appart, you know. Checking under floorboards should have been a common practice even in the good ole days of 1988.

Quote from: John MorrowHe was released in 2006.  I suppose I should also point out that was sentenced to a total of 17 years (not all served) for purjury and have little doubt that was an attempt to correct the earlier injustice.  In fact, they prosecuted him for one purjury count and then, upon his release, another -- exatly the sort of abuse you claim to be concerned about.  Do you approve of that solution?

And how do you know that, had he been convicted of murder instead of Perjury, he wouldn't have been out in 2006 anyway?  No amount of retrials will change the fact that some convicted murderers get stupidly light sentances.  Yet, for some reason, you feel that this particular case is exceptional enough (despite the fact he served a long time) to justify it? Weak sauce.

Quote from: John MorrowIt won't, and I never claimed it would.  What it would do is allow for the law to correct mistakes made by sloppy police work.

Well peachy. Of course, you also seem to ignore that it would also allow harassment of people acquitted when prevaling opinion is that they are guilty. And since sloppy police work will always exist, there will always be more sloppy police and legal work to justify that harrassment.  We could even point out that, in the light of 'easy access' to retrials if 'needed' that they'd be MORE likely to try someone in the face of shoddy evidence on the hopes of a shoddy defense. See again Mr. Kim's father, who (as I recall) avoided actual trial. Presumably because there was not enough evidence for an actual trial (though, obviously enough for a review by his professional peers that was very trial like).  In your proposed change, prosecutors would be more willing to bring cases to trial on the off chance it was winnable, rather than waiting until they had enough facts.  

Quote from: John MorrowThat said, I do think that if you wanted to argue that loosening the protections against double jeopardy would encourage sloppy police work and might encourage prosecutors to perform hunting expedition prosecutions against people with sketchy evidence because they assume that they could get a second shot at it, I might be pursuaded that's a legitimate enough concern to keep things the way that they are.

Yup. And then some. See above.

Quote from: John MorrowI suggested that you failed to read it because your characterization of various aspects of the example seemed to ignore quite a few details in the case.  For example, you'd rather blame a sloppy prosecutor than a lazy jury for the acquittal.  And you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the photos that seemed to ignore details that were available.  If that was an honest mistake, that's fine.  I miss things, too.  But I'd appreciate you cutting me the same sort of slack when I make mistakes.

Yeah, thats it. I just dredged up memories of a trial that happened in 1988 and used those to come up with any old details that filled my brain.   In your prior post you actually cover what is in the photos, which I assure you is not available through wikipedia.  It seems to me that if the conclusions I reached after reading it don't match your own that there are quite a few possible reasons.

The least likely is that I simply failed to read it, yet here we are.

More likely: You read into it what you wanted to support your outraged moral dignity, I read into it what I wanted to support my sense that destroying the foundations of our legal system is unwarrented.  In other words, we read it through our own filters. Mine are no less functional than yours, so stop accusing me of shoddy reading for not.being.you.

Also likely: Given your apparent access to the photographs of the case (not available through the link you provided), you have read far more about it than I have. Doubly so since apparently this one, twenty year old case, is upsetting enough to you that you seem to think it justifies... well, you know.  Thus you seem to have some very strong feelings about this case.  Thus, you have access to other sources than the Wiki and simply assumed that if I didn't see what you saw, the fault was mine, not yours for providing the quick and dirty link rather than the full law library (which, I assure you I would not have read anyway, having better things to think about).

Of course, since I disagree with you, you naturally went for the most insulting, if least likely, possibility.


As far as I am concerned this matter was decided for me eons before I ever heard of Mel. I knew that there would be a day when I was confronted with some morally outrageous circumstances that challenged the conviction that the way we have it is the right way. And I realized that I was fine with that, that it was a price I was willing to bear.  

Amazingly enough, while I can understand your moral outrage, I actually don't sympathize with it nearly as much as you, or I, expect. Really, I don't. I will sleep no worse for Mel walking free. Its not because setting him free is the righteous choice of my viewpoint, but because, quite literally, I don't view the death of one woman, no matter how tragic or horrible, nor the freedom of one monster, even if he had escaped 17 years of prison, worth destroying the foundation of our entire culture.  

And while there is a hint of hyperbole in there, I agree with the guys that came up with all this stuff after years and years of debate over it all. Those protections are there to keep our nation free. And yes, they have weakened over the years, and yes our moral dignity has taken a few hits here and there.  Those, however, are not justification for simply tossing it all away, for opening the door to tyranny wide and saying 'come on by, have some tea and stay awhile'.

I don't TRUST your 'alternative controls', John. I see no reason to trust them. I see in them the potential for just as many, if not MORE miscarrages of justice.  I see them making things worse in the long run.  Without fail.  

I see all the nightmarish visions of our society crumbling coming to pass far faster than they ought, and I will not stand idly by and let that happen.

Quote from: SpikeNo, you keep bringing up the book as if he has admitted his guilt incontrovertably, which he has not. So its speculation.

Then the book is irrelevant.  I really don't care.  i was simply trying to exclude it being raised as "compelling new evidence".

Quote from: SpikeWhat he SAYS about his case is directly controverted by the evidence readily to hand.

As I mentioned, I think the incompetence of the prosecutor is irrelevant to the point I was making.  I'll acknowledge that the prosecutor made mistakes, including some pretty stupid ones.  Even if he was entirely incompetent, who pays for his mistakes?

Quote from: SpikeAnd I mentioned that. Remember when I asked you if your next step was to toss out jury trials to ensure proper convictions, John? I wasn't doing that because I thought it sounded cute.

No, it sounded like some more of the hyperbole you've been slinging throughout this conversation.  Your statement was, "And what happens when the next jury fails to convict him? What happens when they decide the photos aren't proof enough? Do we toss out the 'jury of peers' then and try for trial three?"  Maybe that tied back to the jury in this case in your mind but that certainly wasn't clear to me.  If you want to make it easier to tell when you are being cute and when you are being serious, spend less time being cute.

Quote from: SpikeReally now? Part of a prosecutors job, in fact one might argue the most important part of a prosecutors job is to make the jury believe in his case. Building logical rational arguements that sway a judge who, in all likelihood is at least somewhat sympathetic to his message if only because they've seen it a thousand times before, is not the same, nor of the same import of convincing the fucking jury. And if the jury is in a hurry to get home for the holidays, then it is his fucking job to ensure that won't taint their decision. Moving for a mistrial so that another trial can be had, for example. Asking for a holiday break so the Jury comes back less distracted. I don't know the details, but I surely know that he has tools available to him to ensure the Jury doesn't just wiff the case 'because'.

As far as I know, a judge can't properly call for a mistrial after the jury has reached a verdict.  If judges could do that, it would gut the double jeopardy protections far more than anything I've been discussing as judges could call mistrials whenever they didn't like the verdict.  Why didn't the judge call for a mistrial before the verdict?  Maybe because he couldn't imagine the jury acquitting him for the reasons that they did.

Quote from: SpikeAnd for the third or fourth fucking time: Yes, the jury is at fault too. Wanna get rid of the 'trial by jury' clause?

Well, gee, why don't you try answering some of the questions I ask three or four times, like why you are fine with all sorts of other legal mechanism such as warrants and grand juries and, yes, juries that do a pretty awful job in practice of keeping innocent people out of courtrooms and out of prisons?  Everyone seems to cherry pick the parts of my posts that they want to reply to and the questions that they want to answer and I don't constantly whine about it.

But to answer your question, I do think jury selection process is awful and, through peremptory challenges, jury doctoring, and the jury duty process, often guarantees that the people least qualified to make a fair judgment are selected.  As one comedian put it, when you sit in front of a jury you'll know that your fate is in the hands of twelve people too stupid to find a way out of jury duty.  Before you accuse me, yet again, of conspiring to undermine the foundations of Western civilization, bear in mind that bad juries are also responsible for putting innocent people behind bars.

Quote from: SpikeAnd why not? They had, as his star witness, his accomplice, after all. Why do you think I said they should have known he had evidence at his house, evidence they should have found? Because they fucking had his accomplise on tenterhooks!    And since we know that if the evidence they had was strong enough to get past the grand jury phase, then it was strong enough to get a warrent to tear his house appart looking for evidence.  They DO tear houses appart, you know. Checking under floorboards should have been a common practice even in the good ole days of 1988.

They searched the house twice and didn't find it.  But I did find comments on a web page suggesting some incompetence here.  Apparently the FBI profilers told them that he would have kept the pictures but they didn't tear the house apart.

But this also brings us back to the points I raised about warrants and how you feel about them.  The protection against search and seizure is that the police need to show probable cause (some evidence that a person might be guilty), explain the search that they want to do, and get a judge to sign off on it.  So here you are advocating literally tearing a person's house apart who may be innocent because the police have reason to believe that they might find evidence of a crime.  So you are all for literally tearing a person's house apart over probable cause and fine with running them through a trial the first time based on the assessment of a grand jury, both of which catch plenty of innocent people to the point of economic ruin and imprisonment, but what I'm proposing will shake the very foundations of our justice system?  Would you care to explain

Quote from: SpikeAnd how do you know that, had he been convicted of murder instead of Perjury, he wouldn't have been out in 2006 anyway?

Rape + Torture + Murder usually don't lead to a stupidly light sentence, though I suppose you could argue that Mary Ann Shore's sentence was stupidly light since she was there, too.

Quote from: SpikeNo amount of retrials will change the fact that some convicted murderers get stupidly light sentances.  Yet, for some reason, you feel that this particular case is exceptional enough (despite the fact he served a long time) to justify it? Weak sauce.

Yes, I do, for two reasons.  First, I don't believe his sentence would have been stupidly light -- certainly not if he were tried now with those pictures of the crime in progress as evidence.  Second, the sentences that he did receive for perjury were clearly an attempt by the prosecutors to do an end-run around the double jeopardy protections that you claim are the foundation of the American justice system.  As several articles about Ignatow point out, people regularly lie in their own defense and prosecutors almost never bring perjury charges against them.  Why in this case and why did he get 17 years for perjury?  Because they were trying to put him into jail for something -- anything.  You say you are concerned about prosecutors abusing their powers to negate jury verdicts and harass acquitted people yet that's exactly what the prosecutors did here.  Isn't using perjury charges to get a sentence comparable to what he would have gotten in a fair trial essentially the same thing as a second round of trials for the original crime?  Why do you apparently approve of this here?

Of course I should give you a pass for this since Ignatow seems to be exactly the kind of person you said you'd have put down.  Apparently he admitted his guilt in the killing as part of a plea bargain for the first perjury conviction and apparently showed little remorse for it.  

Quote from: SpikeWell peachy. Of course, you also seem to ignore that it would also allow harassment of people acquitted when prevaling opinion is that they are guilty.

That's happening already.  In fact, you just approved of the prosecutors in the Ignatow case using perjury charges to harass and jail Ignatow when they didn't like the verdict.  What's the substantive difference between the two?

Quote from: SpikeAnd since sloppy police work will always exist, there will always be more sloppy police and legal work to justify that harrassment.  We could even point out that, in the light of 'easy access' to retrials if 'needed' that they'd be MORE likely to try someone in the face of shoddy evidence on the hopes of a shoddy defense.

And all of that is available to sufficiently corrupt prosecutors now.  Instead of retrying people on the same charges, they creatively find new charges to try them on, like perjury or federal civil rights violations.  Maybe they could try Mel for violating Brenda Shaefer's federal civil rights or for a hate crime or for discrimination.  Would you approve of that like the perjury convictions?  Or maybe they could just retry him for the crime he actually committed because they have evidence that so effectively proves his guilt that they could get perjury convictions from it.  Beyond trials, we have such wonders a no-knock raids (that have been accidentally carried out on the wrong address), property forfeiture and confiscation laws, wage and tax rebate garnishing, children taken away from their parents without a trial because of accusations of abuse, and yet you are fine with all that but my suggestion will be the end of the justice system and invite unrestricted abuse of the innocent? :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeSee again Mr. Kim's father, who (as I recall) avoided actual trial. Presumably because there was not enough evidence for an actual trial (though, obviously enough for a review by his professional peers that was very trial like).  In your proposed change, prosecutors would be more willing to bring cases to trial on the off chance it was winnable, rather than waiting until they had enough facts.

I've acknowledged that's a legitimate concern but understanding the concern can allow it to be addressed.

Quote from: SpikeYeah, thats it. I just dredged up memories of a trial that happened in 1988 and used those to come up with any old details that filled my brain.   In your prior post you actually cover what is in the photos, which I assure you is not available through wikipedia.

Was, "When developed, the film showed Ignatow torturing and raping Schaefer, just as Shore had described. Ignatow's face was not in the pictures, but body hair patterns and moles matched him perfectly." somehow not clear to you?  It looks like a pretty plain English description of what's in the photos and why they implicate Ignatow to me.

Here, let me give you a longer excerpt with the text in question bolded to help you find it:

   New evidence

Six months after Ignatow's acquittal, however, a carpetlayer working in Ignatow's old house,which had been sold to fund his defense, pulled up a length of carpet in a hallway. Under it he found a floor vent had been carpeted over. Inside the vent, the carpet layer found a plastic bag, taped to hold it inside the vent. He handed it over to the new owners who knew who the previous owner was Ignatow. Inside the bag was the jewelry Schaefer had taken with her to return on the night of her disappearance and three rolls of undeveloped film. When developed, the film showed Ignatow torturing and raping Schaefer, just as Shore had described. Ignatow's face was not in the pictures, but body hair patterns and moles matched him perfectly.

Can you find it yet?  Maybe I should ask Wikipedia to put it inside of a set of "blink" tags for you?

Go ahead.  Tell me again how carefully you read the Wikipedia article and assure me again that the what's in the photos is not covered by the Wikipedia article. :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeIt seems to me that if the conclusions I reached after reading it don't match your own that there are quite a few possible reasons.

The least likely is that I simply failed to read it, yet here we are.

It has nothing to do with the fact you are drawing different conclusions.  It has to do with the fact that, for example, you assure me above that the Wikipedia article doesn't contain information about what's in the photos that it clearly does contain.  I sometimes get careless skimming articles, too, but when someone tells me that it looks like I'm missing something important, I make sure I'm actually, you know, not missing something important before I get all indignant about it.

Quote from: SpikeMore likely: You read into it what you wanted to support your outraged moral dignity, I read into it what I wanted to support my sense that destroying the foundations of our legal system is unwarrented.  In other words, we read it through our own filters. Mine are no less functional than yours, so stop accusing me of shoddy reading for not.being.you.

I'm not accusing you of shoddy reading  for not.being.me.  I'm accusing you of shoddy reading for not only knowing the answer to a question you asked that's clearly answered in the Wikipedia article.  And then you compound the problem by assuring me that the information isn't in the article which means that you either missed it a second time or you didn't bother to double-check.  And that's all somehow my fault?

Quote from: SpikeAlso likely: Given your apparent access to the photographs of the case (not available through the link you provided), you have read far more about it than I have.

:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeDoubly so since apparently this one, twenty year old case, is upsetting enough to you that you seem to think it justifies... well, you know.  Thus you seem to have some very strong feelings about this case.

Yes, I have strong feelings about a woman being raped, tortured, and murdered and the perpetrators going free, whether they are Nazi concentration camp guards, police officers, or a lone psychopath.  Especially when the guilty party is known.

Earlier, you stated that you were concerned about people committing other crimes and even argued that such people should be put down (with seemingly little concern that innocent people might be "removed from society" permanently, too).  You expressed so much concern that John List might kill again even though he hadn't in nearly two decades yet seem quite unconcerned that Mel Ignatow, who apparently exhibits traits ever bit as psychopathic as John List based on the articles I've seen on both of them, walks the streets a free man.  Why no concern over the threat that Mel Ignatow posed to others?

Quote from: SpikeThus, you have access to other sources than the Wiki and simply assumed that if I didn't see what you saw, the fault was mine, not yours for providing the quick and dirty link rather than the full law library (which, I assure you I would not have read anyway, having better things to think about).

:rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeOf course, since I disagree with you, you naturally went for the most insulting, if least likely, possibility.

Naturally.  Lead likely?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: SpikeAs far as I am concerned this matter was decided for me eons before I ever heard of Mel. I knew that there would be a day when I was confronted with some morally outrageous circumstances that challenged the conviction that the way we have it is the right way. And I realized that I was fine with that, that it was a price I was willing to bear.

Yet you also seem willing to tolerate people being wrongly punished by the law in other ways.  You said that you support the death penalty, apparently unconcerned about the possibility of innocent people being executed, something that has most certainly happened before and will happen again.  You recommend that the police tear the houses of accused murders apart on the basis of probable cause in order the be thorough and not be accused of incompetence, even though the person might turn out to be innocent if the police make a mistake.  Are you really concerned about protecting the innocent from abuse?  Are you really concerned concerned about the authorities abusing their powers?  It seems like that depends on the issue you are discussing.

Quote from: SpikeAmazingly enough, while I can understand your moral outrage, I actually don't sympathize with it nearly as much as you, or I, expect. Really, I don't. I will sleep no worse for Mel walking free. Its not because setting him free is the righteous choice of my viewpoint, but because, quite literally, I don't view the death of one woman, no matter how tragic or horrible, nor the freedom of one monster, even if he had escaped 17 years of prison, worth destroying the foundation of our entire culture.

I don't think it will destroy the foundation of our entire culture.  Do you think that England has destroyed the foundation of their entire culture by weakening double jeopardy protections?

This page (http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-05/02-double-jeopardy.html) says, "Madison's version of the guarantee as introduced in the House of Representatives read: 'No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.' Opposition in the House proceeded on the proposition that the language could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant and would therefore either constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty or, more likely, result in a detriment to defendants because appellate courts would be loath to reverse convictions if no new trial could follow, but a motion to strike "or trial" from the clause failed. As approved by the Senate, however, and accepted by the House for referral to the States, the present language of the clause was inserted."   So at least some of those who ratified the Bill of Rights did have at least some concern over freeing the guilty).  

And while there is a hint of hyperbole in there, I agree with the guys that came up with all this stuff after years and years of debate over it all. Those protections are there to keep our nation free. And yes, they have weakened over the years, and yes our moral dignity has taken a few hits here and there.  Those, however, are not justification for simply tossing it all away, for opening the door to tyranny wide and saying 'come on by, have some tea and stay awhile'.

Quote from: SpikeI don't TRUST your 'alternative controls', John. I see no reason to trust them. I see in them the potential for just as many, if not MORE miscarrages of justice.  I see them making things worse in the long run.  Without fail.

Yet you apparently trust much weaker controls to warrant searches and seizures and endorse their use to tear a persons house apart, apparently to the studs.  You trust the grand jury system to act as a gatekeeper to indictments for serious federal crimes.  You trust the courts to determine guilt accurately enough that you endorse the death penalty.  And you apparently approve of the use of rarely used perjury prosecutions of a man after he's been acquitted of the charges against him when new evidence is found yet argue that allowing an actual criminal trial for the same crime that would almost certainly convict him would destroy the foundations of our entire culture.  I'm looking for some consistent philosophy or value here and I'm honestly having trouble finding one.

Quote from: SpikeI see all the nightmarish visions of our society crumbling coming to pass far faster than they ought, and I will not stand idly by and let that happen.

Unless you are actively doing something to fight what's already happening, which includes nearly everything that you say you fear about my proposal,
you (like me and most others) actually are standing idly by while it happens.

John, I am going to go out on a limb and assume you are utterly unaware that it takes a good fifeteen minutes to fully read, in detail, every line of one of your posts, particularly if I plan to respond in kind.   On top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

Again. You are upset because the parts of the article that I paid the most attention to are not the parts of the article you paid attention to.

I'm going to go further out on the limb and suggest you have a lot more time and energy to put into your posts, including all the research and linking and quote chopping.

I already waste enough time on the internet as it is without attempting to match your herculean efforts. Given that I am not paid to surf the web reading up on 20 year old murders, nor is my future career in academia linked to the throughness of my research.  At best this is a diversion for me.

In other words: Stop being a dick.  Its one line out of a good couple dozen... no its two phrases in one sentence out of a good couple dozen pages (that's 8.5x11 inch pages, not internet pages) worth of posts/links from you.  On a forum I read for my own amusement. Get off the hobby horse and realize that your word, especially your borrowed word, is not the fucking gospel I need to hang off of or burn forever.

That said: On warrents, you originally adressed that to Mr. Kim as I recall. As such it has been of a vastly lower priority for me to address it, as the interloper in the entire 'civil liberties' discussion to begin with. However, since you apparently won't feel properly validated until I do address it:


Obviously warrents for searches were held by the framers as a valid exemption to the 'Search and Seizure' clause to begin with.  Double Jeapardy did not justify, or rather was probably deemed to dangerous to allow for that sort of exemption, thus it was left out.

Moving beyond that incredibly self evident distinction, which boils down to trusting that the foundation of our system is sound (my perspective) it really doesn't address why and how that decision might have come to be, and thus can continue to stand.

There is the entire aspect of 'unreasonable' searches. You know, since Searches alone are not forbidden.   the process of determining which searches are reasonable or not is up to the judges, not the people who want to do the searching (checks and balances, seperation of powers, whatever you want to call it) which limits the abuses.

That isn't even beginning to address the differences between searching for evidence of the crime (necessary to even consider having trials), which have to be regulated, and protecting the citizenry from a potentially overzealous prosecution, which is a defense, which can only be weakened by reduction of scope.  The language I'm using there is awkward, for which I can only apologize: But I know you, you're going to tear apart the language and pretend you missed the intent.

Its late, and as I said, this is a hobby for me, so I'm going to call this post off rather than continue to constantly recheck volume eight of John Morrow's posts on this subject to make sure I'm addressing ever niggling point you made.

In fact, I'll conceed the field. Not because you 'won the debate'. Its just that I don't have any desire to continue wading through your long, and ultimately repetitive posts.  I find that your moral outrage, particularly over this one case is such that you will not stop until you feel your sense of justice has been slaked. 17 years in prison isn't enough, doubly jeapardy protections being trashed isn't enough.  When you can't get juries to play ball you'll start moving against them.  Its blind, John, mindless.  You either fail to notice that, or you're single minded determination to write an entire encyclopedia in this thread about it has made you present your case as such against your intent.

Either way, my ability to amuse myself by poking a fanatic with sticks is long since satiated.  You've grown tedious, again.  You smother active debate under the weight of your vomitous posts and your insistent focus on the minutae of whatever tangent catches your fancy.  

If you had some other argument other than your singular appeal to emotion, to exception, there might have been some actual dialog here.

Quote from: SpikeOn top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

No.  I'm actually not offended at all.  You're the one who spent a substantial part of your last reply taking me to task and accusing me of purposely insulting you... for nothing because the information I was talking about was actually in the Wikipedia after all.  If you want me to be more forgiving of honest mistakes, you might want to try it yourself, too, and stop jumping to the conclusion that I'm purposely trying to misrepresent you or insult you.

Quote from: SpikeObviously warrents for searches were held by the framers as a valid exemption to the 'Search and Seizure' clause to begin with.  Double Jeapardy did not justify, or rather was probably deemed to dangerous to allow for that sort of exemption, thus it was left out.

Moving beyond that incredibly self evident distinction, which boils down to trusting that the foundation of our system is sound (my perspective) it really doesn't address why and how that decision might have come to be, and thus can continue to stand.

While I think the foundation of our system is generally sound, I don't think it's necessarily perfect and changes have been made since the founded (e.g., the 14th Amendment which extended Constitutional protections to the states).  There is an interesting quote on this page (http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-05/02-double-jeopardy.html) concerning the details of the double jeopardy clause:

   In this country, the common-law rule was in some cases limited to this rule and in other cases extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction. The rule's elevation to fundamental status by its inclusion in several state bills of rights following the Revolution continued the differing approaches. Madison's version of the guarantee as introduced in the House of Representatives read: "No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense." Opposition in the House proceeded on the proposition that the language could be construed to prohibit a second trial after a successful appeal by a defendant and would therefore either constitute a hazard to the public by freeing the guilty or, more likely, result in a detriment to defendants because appellate courts would be loath to reverse convictions if no new trial could follow, but a motion to strike "or trial" from the clause failed. As approved by the Senate, however, and accepted by the House for referral to the States, the present language of the clause was inserted.

That suggests that the details of the provision in the Bill of Rights were just one possible way of dealing with the issue out of several and that even as the Bill of Rights was being ratified that at least some of the Founding Fathers shared my concern that it might free the guilty.

Quote from: SpikeOn top of that you are horrifically offended because one line of an entire, reasonably brief, wiki article didn't leap out at me as it did you.

No.  I'm actually not offended at all.  You are the one who spent a substantial part of your last reply taking me to task and accusing me of purposely insulting you... for nothing because the information I was talking about was in the Wikipedia after all.  And if you want me to be more forgiving of honest mistakes, you might want to try it yourself, too, and stop jumping to the conclusion that I'm purposely trying to misrepresent you or insult you.

Quote from: SpikeThere is the entire aspect of 'unreasonable' searches. You know, since Searches alone are not forbidden.   the process of determining which searches are reasonable or not is up to the judges, not the people who want to do the searching (checks and balances, seperation of powers, whatever you want to call it) which limits the abuses.

Correct.  And my claim is that there are times when suspending the the protections against double jeopardy would make sense when it's very likely that the acquittal was in error.  I never suggested that the prosecutor who wants to retry a case have unilateral authority to do so.  I suggested a mechanism not unlike that used by warrants (a judge or panel of judges) or grand juries, with a particular set of criteria.  My question is that if you are willing to trust a judge to determine which searches and seizures are reasonable, why aren't you willing to trust a judge (or panel of judges) to determine if new evidence warrants another trial even if a person has already been acquitted.  And, yes, I know you start addressing that later in this reply.

Quote from: SpikeThat isn't even beginning to address the differences between searching for evidence of the crime (necessary to even consider having trials), which have to be regulated, and protecting the citizenry from a potentially overzealous prosecution, which is a defense, which can only be weakened by reduction of scope.  The language I'm using there is awkward, for which I can only apologize: But I know you, you're going to tear apart the language and pretend you missed the intent.

Searching for evidence can be quite abusive, especially when property is confiscated.  The US Secret Service nearly ran Steve Jackson Games out of business when they confiscated their office computers because they confused a game book with real hacking.  You mentioned tearing a person's house apart to look for evidence.  Imagine coming home to that, especially if you were innocent.  Several innocent people have had no-knock raids performed on their homes by mistake (the police had the wrong house) and pets have been shot and killed by the police, too, in the process of serving warrants.  My point here is that we tolerate that searches and seizures might sometimes be abused in order to get the bad guys.  

Now, to your point, yes it weakens the protections that are there.  But I don't think that weakening that protection is going to make much of a difference to innocent people in practice.  There are already so many ways that an overzealous prosecutor can abuse someone and even ways in which prosecutors and essentially retry acquitted people when they get creative (e.g., the Rodney King police tried a second time for Federal charges, OJ being tried in civil court, Mel Ignatow being tossed in prison for lying about his guilt, etc.).  And I have little doubt that if OJ Simpson is convicted of his escapades in Las Vegas that his sentence will be be about as harsh as allowed in order to compensate for his earlier acquittal.  So I don't find the argument that it will encourage rogue prosecutions or in some generally way undermine justice very compelling.  Clearly you do.

Now I have acknowledged that allowing do overs could encourage prosecutors to be lazy and to charge people with crimes before they have a solid case.  I do find that argument much more compelling and would want any reform of the double standard protections to address that concern.

Quote from: SpikeIn fact, I'll conceed the field. Not because you 'won the debate'. Its just that I don't have any desire to continue wading through your long, and ultimately repetitive posts.

That's fine.  We're also blowing the memory limit of the server when this thread is looked at with the 100 messages per page limit.  I've had to dial down the limit to 40 to even read this anymore.  I've been spending a lot of time on this because I found it interesting, and I use it to test my own ideas to see if I think they stand up or not.

Quote from: SpikeI find that your moral outrage, particularly over this one case is such that you will not stop until you feel your sense of justice has been slaked. 17 years in prison isn't enough, doubly jeapardy protections being trashed isn't enough.  When you can't get juries to play ball you'll start moving against them.  Its blind, John, mindless.  You either fail to notice that, or you're single minded determination to write an entire encyclopedia in this thread about it has made you present your case as such against your intent.

The beginning of this tangent was my claim that the purpose of the justice system is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.  As part of that, I claimed that the purpose of civil rights protections are not to help criminals evade justice.  They do that as an unfortunate side effect of protecting the innocent.  Given all of that, I do not think it's reasonable to consider changes to those parts of any justice system where it makes mistakes, whether it's letting the guilty go free or punishing the innocent.  

Quote from: SpikeEither way, my ability to amuse myself by poking a fanatic with sticks is long since satiated.  You've grown tedious, again.  You smother active debate under the weight of your vomitous posts and your insistent focus on the minutae of whatever tangent catches your fancy.

If I had to spend less time responding to accusations about my motives, my replies would be shorter.  

Quote from: SpikeIf you had some other argument other than your singular appeal to emotion, to exception, there might have been some actual dialog here.

I've made several other arguments.  I tried to discuss the specific risks inherent in the sort of reform I was talking about and I largely was giving a heaping serving of generic FUD -- if you change anything, it will all come crashing down.  Instead, I wound up figuring out some of the risks myself (they may have seemed self-evidently part of your position but they were not clear to me).  

I tried to engage in a discussion of costs and benefits and risks and despite your protests that I'm merely appealing to emotion, I was given a heaping serving of hyperbole about undermining Western civilization, told that my views are blind rage, and given personal examples such as John Kim's father.  And let's not forget all of the whining that impugned my motives ever few response cycles.  

Heck, you're not even big enough to acknowledge that you were wrong when you not only assured me that information about the photos was not in the Wikipedia article but used your certainty to accuse me of purposely and unjustly insulting you.  Instead, you not only make excuses but blame me for your mistake.  

Still I'm not offended.  Simply amazed.

Quote from: John MorrowStill I'm not offended.  Simply amazed.

Well, this is therpgsite. Which is basically the same political enviroment (mostly left, with some crazy left) that rpgnet is- but without the moderation to silence you. I wouldn't have expected more that what you just encountered, but you're ever the optimist John. I hope someday you're more correct in your rose-shaded outlook than I am in mine.


I've browsed through some of the thread, and noted that they've started attacking you over your posting style, as if that alone proves you wrong.

Maybe your optimism has a point. If that's what they've been reduced to, you've hit something soft and they are flailing in pain to make whatever response they can. It's possible that someone on the fence will see this for what it is, or maybe someday recall it as one of a series of planted doubts.

It's happened before: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full

Good luck John.

Mmhmm. Those crazy lefties. Ayup.

As if it hasn't just been the same two people for the last couple of pages, at length, anyhow. Just blame it on the left-wing.

Quote from: Thanatos02Mmhmm. Those crazy lefties. Ayup.

As if it hasn't just been the same two people for the last couple of pages, at length, anyhow. Just blame it on the left-wing.

But, but, the communists!  Won't somebody please think of the COMMUNISTS!

Postmodernism (http://brantai.googlepages.com/shakefist.gif)

Nothing would solve the issue of child porn like self-referential humor and socialized medicine!

Quote from: Thanatos02Nothing would solve the issue of child porn like self-referential humor and socialized medicine!

And Internet forum sarcasm!  That's the greatest force for good in the world!

Hey, I typed it with a straight face. That's almost like being serious.

But, hey. I was all meaningfully contributing until the 'let's blame the liberals' call. And, actually, we could work a discussion of post-modernism in here if we wanted to, but it'd be a mistake.

Quote from: Thanatos02But, hey. I was all meaningfully contributing until the 'let's blame the liberals' call. And, actually, we could work a discussion of post-modernism in here if we wanted to, but it'd be a mistake.

I'm sure I'll be seeing your straight-faced contribution to the "let's blame the conservatives" treads, since you obviously aren't making a partisan political point yourself, right?

At the end of the day, folks, there are lots of nasty things that the right thingking among us would like to see go away, but sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

Live-action child porn?  Something aweful clearly happened to some actual kids.  This needs to be banned.  Twice.  In the ear.  With Fire.

Lolli or what have you is fucking creepy.  Ditto "beauty pageants" for little girls.  Ditto again, with context, little girls wearing a hijab.  There are maybe all sorts of bad things that come crawling in from arround the edges because of these things.  Now what can we do about it?  What are the unintended consequences of whatever we do about it?  Are the unintended consequences worth whatever the benefit is?  Whatever means we use to stop this horrid crap, can they be subverted to bad ends?  Is that a risk worth taking?  

And as for Planned Parenthood Sting opperations, what kind of fucked up bullshit is that?  Clearly sometimes someone is going to make the in the field decission that it is better that the scarred 15 year old get an abortion/information/whatever than some 22 year old go to jail.

Which is another tough question.  We don't generally want 22 year olds having sex with 14 year olds, but is it more important to catch that fucker right this second than it is to get a scarred kid something they maybe need.

Lots of context there to sort through.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyAnd as for Planned Parenthood Sting opperations, what kind of fucked up bullshit is that?  Clearly sometimes someone is going to make the in the field decission that it is better that the scarred 15 year old get an abortion/information/whatever than some 22 year old go to jail.

The sting in question claimed that the girl was 13, not 15.  Yes, someone has to make that decision but the law for the places in question requires Planned Parenthood to report it, which is why they were telling the girl on the call how to help them evade the law.  Should Planned Parenthood be given a pass on obeying the law?

What about the woman suing Planned Parenthood in Ohio because they returned her to the father who was molesting her with reporting it, even after she told them her father was molesting her?  How about the 14 year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by her 21 year-old soccer coach who paid for her abortion and they didn't report it?  Or what about the 11 year-olds apparently given abortions in Michigan without any report being filed as required by law?  Should they still have had discretion to break the law in all of those cases and not report what was going on?

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyWhich is another tough question.  We don't generally want 22 year olds having sex with 14 year olds, but is it more important to catch that fucker right this second than it is to get a scarred kid something they maybe need.

So when exactly are they going to catch him?  When he finally brings a pair of 11 year-old in for an abortion a year later and the decide that crosses the line?  Do you think he's automatically going to stop molesting underage girls after his current girlfriend has an abortion?  And what if he's not a girlfriend but just an older guy molesting her and trying to cover it up?  Maybe part of the reason why she's scared is some guy nearly twice her age is pushing her to have an abortion to cover up a sexual encounter the girl didn't agree to?  How is Planned Parenthood supposed to tell the difference?

Quote from: John MorrowI'm sure I'll be seeing your straight-faced contribution to the "let's blame the conservatives" treads, since you obviously aren't making a partisan political point yourself, right?

What, seriously?

Quote from: John MorrowSnip

So, did they have an honest-to-Jesus pregnant 13 year old and get her an abortion to catch planned parenthood out?  Because that is pretty sick in and of itself.

Is this Planned Parenthood policy?  Did someone act on there own?  What are all the facts?

To me it sort of looks like someone was trying to solve an immediate problem in whatever way they could and hoping the big one in the background would solve itself, or be solved when it can.

Putting out the house fire rather than looking for termites and such.

Could have been the wrong decision.  Neither you nor I no all the facts on the matter.

And, once again.  Bad things happen.  What is the cure?  Charge the individuals responsible with a crime?  Sure, if you can find evidence they committed one.

Ban abortion?  We've been down that road.  The result is worse than the disease. Let some states ban it?  OK, so then some states get a worse problem than they had.  Put in extra little legal stops?  Same issue.  If you are talking about abortion, you are talking about a limited time window, and courts take a long time to go about there business.  The longer you make people wait, the less likely they are to be able to get an abortion, particularly since late term abortions are more or less illegal, and we probably don't want folks having those as a matter of course anyway.

To be clear, the worse situation we are discussing, is that limiting abortion by law doesn't do a whole lot to prevent abortions.  Wealthy women bribe a medical professional, less well off women stick coathangers up themselves.

You don't actually do a lot to stop abortions, or prevent crime, or whatever.  You end up with desperate young women dieing ugly, painful deaths.  Full stop.  It even happens today in states where girls can't get an abortion without parental permission.  Pregnant 15 year olds are afraid to tell their parents and either give birth in a bathroom stall (often killing the infant due to lack of medical care or out of fear) or go the back ally abortion rout and end up dead.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeySo, did they have an honest-to-Jesus pregnant 13 year old and get her an abortion to catch planned parenthood out?  Because that is pretty sick in and of itself.

They had an person pose as a 13 year-old and call Planned Parenthood.  They had her clearly explain that she was pregnant by her 22 year-old boyfriend.  At that point, over 90% of the Planned Parenthood locations called (over 900) advised the caller to hide the age of her boyfriend or otherwise help them avoid the legal requirement that they report a relationship like that.

Of course there were real girls who went to Planned Parenthood actually looking for help, like the Ohio girl being molested by her father and the 14 year-old molested by her soccer coach that wasn't reported but those weren't stings.  The claims there are that it really happened.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyIs this Planned Parenthood policy?  Did someone act on there own?  What are all the facts?

Planned Parenthood claims that it's not their policy and I'm willing to believe that.  However, something is seriously wrong with their organizatoin when over 90% of them, when called, seek to evade reporting laws, including explaining to the caller why she shouldn't mention her boyfriend's age when she comes in.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyTo me it sort of looks like someone was trying to solve an immediate problem in whatever way they could and hoping the big one in the background would solve itself, or be solved when it can.

And it's not their place to decide that.  And what if it doesn't work itself out?  What if she's back in a few months wanting another abortion or the boyfriend brings his next 13 year-old girlfriend in for an abortion?  Are they going to notice?

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyPutting out the house fire rather than looking for termites and such.

Putting out the house fire by purposely covering up for the arsonist, you mean?  The pregnancy and desire for abortion ore not unconnected to the statutory rape the way termites are unconnected to a fire.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyCould have been the wrong decision.  Neither you nor I no all the facts on the matter.

Neither did the Planned Parenthood employees who were on the phone advising the caller how to break the law.  That's why the law requires them to report it, so that someone qualified to get all of the facts can do an investigation and get them.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyAnd, once again.  Bad things happen.  What is the cure?  Charge the individuals responsible with a crime?  Sure, if you can find evidence they committed one.

Uh, the abortion, itself, contains evidence of a crime in the form of a paternity test -- that is unless the evidence gets disposed of.

The rest of your reply basically deals with whether abortion should be legal or not, which is irrelevant to my points.  All I'll say is that if you really care about knowing what you are talking about on that issue, take a good look at what things were really like before Roe v. Wade and what the abortion laws are like in various other countries, including European countries widely praised for their liberal attitudes toward sex.

Quote from: John MorrowThe rest of your reply basically deals with whether abortion should be legal or not, which is irrelevant to my points.  All I'll say is that if you really care about knowing what you are talking about on that issue, take a good look at what things were really like before Roe v. Wade and what the abortion laws are like in various other countries, including European countries widely praised for their liberal attitudes toward sex.

There's a map of abortion policies in European countries at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Quote from: jhkimThere's a map of abortion policies in European countries at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Very nice summary, but read the detailed summaries and don't just look at the map (not directed specifically to you, John).  Many of those countries colored "on demand" on the map have a 12 week limit, counseling and waiting periods, require parental notification for minors, allow conscientious objection, and so on -- all things that are considered "extremist" or unacceptable when proposed in the United States but the way things look when they are worked out democratically because even liberal European countries consider them reasonable limits.  Since that's half of the story I was talking about, you can find the main historical issue to consider with respect to possible consequences of changing abortion laws in the US here (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040528.html).

Quote from: John MorrowThey had an person pose as a 13 year-old and call Planned Parenthood.  They had her clearly explain that she was pregnant by her 22 year-old boyfriend.  At that point, over 90% of the Planned Parenthood locations called (over 900) advised the caller to hide the age of her boyfriend or otherwise help them avoid the legal requirement that they report a relationship like that.

Snip Rest

I don't think I'd be uncomfortable with the cops doing that.

A private organization?  I think that is probably wrong.  I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the person posing as a 13 year old made the story skew as far as possible toward "the right thing here is to help this girl get an abortion ASAP."

I could craft you a scenario, but that will have to wait, due to me being tired and unwilling to send my brain into territory that skeve worthy right this second.

I'm sure you understand that the law and morality are not always on the same side.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyI don't think I'd be uncomfortable with the cops doing that.

Thank you.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyA private organization?  I think that is probably wrong.  I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that the person posing as a 13 year old made the story skew as far as possible toward "the right thing here is to help this girl get an abortion ASAP."

The calls weren't that way at all, in my opinion.  You can actually listen to some of them in the TV report I provided a link to earlier in the thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlmbcbqrK5Y). They sound pretty natural to me except maybe that the caller went out of her way to point out she was 13 and her boyfriend was 22 (necessary to see what the response would be).  I suggest that you listen to them and you can make up your own mind whether you think they were skewing their test or not.

Quote from: NotYourMonkeyI'm sure you understand that the law and morality are not always on the same side.

Correct, but one of the reasons why the law has mandatory reporting is because the morality of the situation is going to be difficult to assess without a real investigation.