|
|
<hbkta@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115471026.900877.144510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I am the first to admit that I am no mathmatician, no statistician, but
> having graduated on the deans honours list with a degree in Social
> Development Studies with a minor in Sexuality, Marriage and Family, and
> being the only one in my class to pass the final statistics exam with
> 100%, it would seem that I do know something.
But not as much as you think you know.
> with regards to child molesters,
> last I checked 52% was more than 12.7%
> last time I checked 52% constituted a majority.
Last time I looked 52% was not all. When we're talking about locking up
*all* of them and throwing away the key, 52% recidivism (even if it's an
accurate figure, given that other studies come up with different numbers) is
not enough to justify it.
> when plotted on a graph the 12.7% at 4 years with 52% at 25 years sure
> looks like an increase over time. and if the line is extrapolated
> reaches 100% at about 50 years.
When you said you didn't know anything about math and statistics, you were
right. You cannot extrapolate these statistics this way. It's nonsense.
Stick to parrotting your social development philosophers and pundits. Leave
science to the scientists.
>
> I am not imagining anything.
Yes, you are. You're imagining that all child molesters are compelled to
continue to molest all their lives, which is not a belief supported by any
studies of actual people whatsoever.
> take my father for example,
This is part of your problem. Your emotional bias makes you unfit to render
a fair and impartial judgement on this issue.
> that is right. hold them responsible for what they have done.
But not what you're afraid they might do.
>
> Seems you are imagining something here. your statement seems to be
> based on some sort of assumption. care to elaborate.
It's not an assumption to say you have been seriously emotionally unbalanced
by a criminal act perpetrated against you. You have admitted as much. It
is not an assumption to note that people with serious emotional baggage are
not impartial regarding decisions in which their bias comes into play. Your
classes in social development should have taught you this.
You resent having had someone disrupt your life due to twists in his
personality for which you were not responsible. Yet, you don't seem to
think that it's a bad thing for *you* to disrupt other people's lives due to
a twist of *your* personality for which *they* are not responsible.
When an honorable judge perceives that his personal biases are likely to
influence the fairness of his decisions, he recuses himself from cases where
that bias may affect his judgement. So should you.
|
|