| hbkta@aol.com 2005-05-07, 11:55 am |
| Tom wrote:
> <hbkta@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1115471026.900877.144510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
but[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> But not as much as you think you know.
>
>
> 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.
>
sure[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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.
nice to see that you snip the portion of my reply in which I say " Sure
more studies are needed to see the curve and slope of the line." if you
are going to reply please reply in context, not just the parts that
suite your seemingly prefab retorts.
>
> Stick to parrotting your social development philosophers and pundits.
Leave
> science to the scientists.
>
who[vbcol=seagreen]
crimes.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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.
>
where did I say that. I just do not hold the rights of the individual
who has already offended to be greater that the society against which
he has offended and see nothing wrong with keeping mad dogs off the
streets.
>
> This is part of your problem. Your emotional bias makes you unfit to
render
> a fair and impartial judgement on this issue.
>
another nice snip
>
> But not what you're afraid they might do.
I am not afraid of what they might do, I am just not so stupid to think
they can or should be treated as innocents after they have been found
guilty. I think offenders must prove they can be trusted. when you come
up with the tests that are scientifically acurrate 100% in determining
which of them will and will not offend again, then talk about treating
offenders as innocents. After all the most accurate predictor of future
behaviour is past behaviour.
>
facts[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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 sure is an assumption, try reading the posts before you reply.
I admitted no such thing.
I commented that my father was a convicted peodophile.
Not the same thing at all.
As far as I know he kept all such activites outside the immediate
family.
I was 35 when he was caught.
> 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.
>
got any studies to prove 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.
reality check. I do not think it is a bad thing to disrupt someones
life if that someone has proven that they cannot be trusted. That is
what the justice systm are about. If an offenders life is disrupted, it
is a consequence of his/her actions and personaltity twists. Only an
idiot treats a dog that has perpetrated unprovoked attacks, as if it
had never bitten anyone: usually these idiots are the owners who have
some emotional or vested interest in imagining the dog to be a lovable
harmless puppy.
"take me in oh tender woman
take me in for goodness sake
take me in oh tender woman,"
sighed the snake. ....
>
> 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.
|