Safety vs. Freedom

[NavyGuy7]

Exactly. But sadly, some use the whole "maybe this word really means this when it doesn't" tactic, just to throw us off the OP. So... get back on the OP guys! i wanna see where this is going.

 

[Darkhorse]

Then a child molester has a strong motive to kill any child he or she molests under age 13.

Actually, this is already an all-too-common problem. Many child molesters let their first victim go (alive), get identified and arrested, and resolve while in prison not to leave any live victims the next time. Then when they get out, they kill their next victim(s).

If you doubt this, check the child-abduction cases in Florida over the last 3-4 years.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I wouldn't doubt that... it's quite plausible. But that doesn't make it at all right, does it? I say they should never get out of prison, my opinion, sorry, but true.

 

[Washington]

Actually, this is already an all-too-common problem. Many child molesters let their first victim go (alive), get identified and arrested, and resolve while in prison not to leave any live victims the next time. Then when they get out, they kill their next victim(s).

If you doubt this, check the child-abduction cases in Florida over the last 3-4 years.

"Many" you say!
Well, because you equate child abduction with child molestation (not a true equality) let's see what the stats say.

First, the number of non-family child abductions

The U.S. Dept of Justice statistics of Kidnapping children in America estimates that 114,600 non-family abductions are attempted each year, with approximately 3,200 to 4,600 being successful.​

source


​

Next, the number of such child abductions that end up murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep

Each year there are about 3,000 to 5,000 non-family abductions reported to police, most of which are short term sexually-motivated cases. About 200 to 300 of these cases, or 6 percent, make up the most serious cases where the child was murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep.​

source


​

Finally, the number children abducted and murdered by strangers

Although neither the FBI, the Justice Department nor private groups keep data, a study by the Washington state attorney general's office found that [in 2000] about 100 children are abducted and murdered by strangers each year, most of them involving some form of sexual perversion.​

source​

So, approximately 2.5% of the 4,000 children abducted each year (100) wind up murdered. I don't know about you, but I don't call 2 1/2 % of anything, "many."

 

[NavyGuy7]

1% of that is too many in my opinion... but I digress. He has a point in the whole child abduction is not equal to child molestation theory.
I'd have to see all the other posts on this subject to totally know what was being argued... but I have a clearer picture now.

And I'm jumping between a buncha threads, too, lol.

 

[cantata]

No, legalising everything does not mean the crime goes away (For those of you who may be confused by that sentence). It would make, it so there was no crime RATE, sure, but it just means that there is no way to commit a crime, thus nothing has really changed, except in an actual increase in crime/detestable acts.

*sigh* Well no kidding, Sherlock...

My precise point was that when you legalise something it's not a crime any more, so that's the only way you can guarantee your rate for that crime will be 0%.

I would rather take that chance than none at all. I find our "penalties" to actually be fairly lax of late. Those who go to prison and get out a year or so later can often be a far more dangerous criminal than before.

Mm, and that says a lot more about your prison system than about the "criminal mind".

And there's no guarantee that "rehabilitation" will prevent them from committing the act again.

Right, of course. Anyone who does anything dangerous ever should be kept in prison permanently. I don't think so.

Sorry, but giving up on crime because it will never go away just seems a little... weak... to me. When we give up on that, we give up part of our freedom as well.

There is a point where we have to give up, because all reasonable measures are in place. I'm not suggesting we give up arresting and charging people for some-crime-or-other. I am suggesting that we stop trying to wheel out endless new and harsher punishments when the negative effects on society as a whole of living somewhere where people are treated that way is actually greater than the crimes perpetrated in the first place.

I would rather be at slightly greater risk of attack than live in a place where every violent criminal is incarcerated for life or executed.

I think we have a right to seek out justice. Not REVENGE, mind you, but justice.

What is this "justice" of which you speak? Can you define it without slipping in revenge under the net?

P.S. I also find the courts to be a little lax in the justice area lately, as well.

I can't comment on your country's courts.

No. It's because by definition a molestation is not enjoyed.

Which is, I take it, why he put the word in inverted commas. Lawtonfogle is suggesting that some acts which are legally defined as molestation should not practically be defined as molestation because no harm comes from them - in fact that the participants each enjoy themselves and do not suffer any ill effects. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Lawton!) You said that legally, minors are thought not to be able to give consent, so that having sexual contact with a minor constitutes molestation. But Lawtonfogle's point was that actually some minors may enjoy what the law incorrectly defines as a molestation.

???????????

I should think he meant that arguing in favour of something being illegal on the grounds that it is illegal is not a strong argument.

You seem to have implied that
- the law defines sexual contact with a minor as 'molestation'
- 'molestation', by definition, is not enjoyed
- therefore sexual contact with a minor is never enjoyed by the minor
- therefore sexual contact with a minor should remain illegal.

The problem is the third premiss there. The fact that the law has defined a certain set of acts as molestation, and that the world molestation means a particular thing, does not mean that the law was initially correct in defining those acts as molestation. So this is not a sound argument for sexual contact with a minor remaining illegal in all cases.

 

[cantata]

By the way, guys, my intention was not for this thread to be solely about child molestation or any other crime, but about the culture of demanding harsher punishments for no particular reason.

 

[Washington]

I should think he meant that arguing in favour of something being illegal on the grounds that it is illegal is not a strong argument.

Okay.

You seem to have implied that
- the law defines sexual contact with a minor as 'molestation'

Sorry. I didn't mean to.

- 'molestation', by definition, is not enjoyed

That's what it says.

- therefore sexual contact with a minor is never enjoyed by the minor

Incorrect. I'm sure quite a few such contacts are enjoyed by a minor; however, molestation is not the only reason sexual contact with a minor is prohibited.

therefore sexual contact with a minor should remain illegal.

This "therefore" does not follow.

The problem is the third premiss there. The fact that the law has defined a certain set of acts as molestation, and that the world molestation means a particular thing, does not mean that the law was initially correct in defining those acts as molestation. So this is not a sound argument for sexual contact with a minor remaining illegal in all cases.

And as I pointed out, it doesn't cover all cases. Molestation is only one of the circumstances.

 

[cantata]

I have no particular quibble with you, Washington I only wished to explain how I saw Lawtonfogle's argument and the way that your statements could have been read.

You are quite right that there are probably good reasons for sexual contact between adults and minors being illegal. I just wanted to point out that the fact that they are illegal currently does not count as one of those good reasons.