You disgust me!usmarine wrote:
Whatever the law is I guess. However, if I had to make the law, it wouldn't be "child porn" past 15 yrs old.jord wrote:
Do you consider 15/16/17 olds children? Or rather the law there.usmarine wrote:
well maybe this is a good way to get people to think twice about having child porn eh?
And like I said, cleaning the streets. One Scum at a time.
how's that?ghettoperson wrote:
You disgust me!usmarine wrote:
Whatever the law is I guess. However, if I had to make the law, it wouldn't be "child porn" past 15 yrs old.jord wrote:
Do you consider 15/16/17 olds children? Or rather the law there.
And like I said, cleaning the streets. One Scum at a time.
youve never been to jail which is why I understand your lack of depth with this matter. I wish I never went to jail myself. wish we had some cops here to add to this.mikkel wrote:
What a nice way to totally avoid the topic at hand with an extreme dose of cynicism and disdain for justice. The day you start thinking two steps ahead of your knee-jerk reaction is the day that people may be able to have a sensible discussion with you.usmarine wrote:
if you dont look at kiddie porn, then you wont get arrested. then you wont get put in jail. then you might not get beat to death. simple concept really.No, that's in the real world. If all a prison had to do was provide a meal, then they could automate the whole thing. A big part of it is protection, which is obviously why guards intervene at assaults. Trying to argue against that is just stupid.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
in a perfect world. but, youre dealing with inmates. Jail guards are really there to babysit and feed, thats about it. I know plenty of county jail deputies in LA (Im in the army with them) as well as being arrested on one or two occasions in the past.mikkel wrote:
Part of a guard's duty is also keeping prisoners in their custody safe from assaults.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-04-09 12:16:11)
I've never been to jail either, but I've seen movies about it late night cinamax, and it seems like a pleasent place. All that girl on girl action.. Maybe that's why our Jail Rate went up..
He said 15 not 12, unless your were being sarcastic. Which lets face it, you can't really tell on the internet.ghettoperson wrote:
You disgust me!usmarine wrote:
Whatever the law is I guess. However, if I had to make the law, it wouldn't be "child porn" past 15 yrs old.jord wrote:
Do you consider 15/16/17 olds children? Or rather the law there.
And like I said, cleaning the streets. One Scum at a time.
haha. i've seen that movie.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I know an OC sheriffs deputy who got fired because of an incident that happened during her shift with an inmate. she has huge breasts.
No they don't.
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
hes a patriot
So if somebody is accused of something, that's all that matters. Cool..Sup wrote:
No they don't.
Not gonna read through all this again, but I'll shake my head and laugh if anyone here who said "tough shit" to this also called me a Nazi or otherwise in my thread about limiting who can have kids.
QFT, no exceptions.PureFodder wrote:
EVERYONE deserves a fair trial.
They're all vile.konfusion wrote:
My god, that is disgusting. Even if he was guilty, he does not deserve this. What the hell? You put a guy in possession of child pornography besides a rapist or murderer: I ask you, why the fuck do so many people think anything involved with children is SO much worse than rape or murder? How are the others any less bad?
Everyone involved in this should be criminally charged... this is truly disturbing...
-konfusion
It's just that child abuse fucks you up at a much more early age and that then effects you for the rest of your life that's why it's so abhorent.
Solution..
Complete segregation from other inmates until trial. After sentencing if convicted the same - no contact with any one apart prison staff or qualified medical staff.
Also
If convicted of possesion of child pornography then intensive counciling in prison until a psychiatric panel decides you are not a risk to children (minimum sentence decided by experts and no time limit to sentence. Also continual compulsory review to ensure no danger).
Actual molestation conviction
Rights to appeal to the highest courts applicable say three times ((each) ballpark I'm no legal expert)) then choice of chemical or surgical castration)
Problem solved
Why does the constitution fly out the door when children are involved?
He may not have known his life was in danger until the mob showed up.ATG wrote:
What about when the criminals cops lie about him wanting pc?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
it was a county jail. You wait for your court date or prison date. regardless, they always ask a person as they are being inprocessed if they feel as if their life was in danger and if they would like to go under protective custody. what happened to this guy is the exact reason why they ask you this in the first place.
He had a pulse. He knew.PureFodder wrote:
He may not have known his life was in danger until the mob showed up.ATG wrote:
What about when the criminals cops lie about him wanting pc?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I do not want this to turn into one of those 'debates', but...
And certain people on these forums have a problem with the way people of a certain faith deal with their criminals.
And certain people on these forums have a problem with the way people of a certain faith deal with their criminals.
If you have strong evidence then no trial needed. He might get a good lawyer and he can save him from going to jail.ATG wrote:
So if somebody is accused of something, that's all that matters. Cool..Sup wrote:
No they don't.
a guy that lives within 30 mins got caught with at least 5000 pictures and videos of child porn (it was on the radio)
Pictures of smooth tender skin isn't that bad.
Well he does LOOK like a child molester ...
But ducks and scales aside, the slope to determine how guilty you have to seem to be before a trial is forgone is a slippery one and dotted with many a white hood and I think maybe even ... yeah ... yeah, that's a swastika.wrote:
Burn the [child molester]!!!
How do you know [he] is a [child molester]?
[He] looks like one!
Last edited by PuckMercury (2008-04-11 08:24:01)
California seems to have an exceptionally bad prison system. Worse even than most other states.
The racial dynamics extant in the CA system is primarily due to the fact that all inmates are segregated by race upon arrival. That tends to create fucked up situations for the duration of a sentence.
EDIT: I find myself to have little sympathy for pederasts. The law is the law however, but I can't really say it's unfortunate. At best I think that generally prisoners should not be subject to this kind of violence. If this man was convicted of, say, assault or burglary then I'd be able to conjure some sympathy.
The racial dynamics extant in the CA system is primarily due to the fact that all inmates are segregated by race upon arrival. That tends to create fucked up situations for the duration of a sentence.
EDIT: I find myself to have little sympathy for pederasts. The law is the law however, but I can't really say it's unfortunate. At best I think that generally prisoners should not be subject to this kind of violence. If this man was convicted of, say, assault or burglary then I'd be able to conjure some sympathy.
Last edited by Masques (2008-04-11 09:13:37)
I would argue the cause and effect of the racial segregation. My thoughts are as follows:Masques wrote:
California seems to have an exceptionally bad prison system. Worse even than most other states.
The racial dynamics extant in the CA system is primarily due to the fact that all inmates are segregated by race upon arrival. That tends to create fucked up situations for the duration of a sentence.
EDIT: I find myself to have little sympathy for pederasts. The law is the law however, but I can't really say it's unfortunate. At best I think that generally prisoners should not be subject to this kind of violence. If this man was convicted of, say, assault or burglary then I'd be able to conjure some sympathy.
Violent crime is predominantly bourne from ignorance. The perpetrator can not conceive of a course of action other than violence due to the limitations of their mind as a function of nature, nurture, whatever. I'm not arguing that point. Prejudice is also predominantly bourne from ignorance. Ergo, I think it logical to assume that the majority of those who commit violent crimes are more likely to be subject to prejudice. Yes ... I realize that may be considered prejudicial ... but let's ignore that for now.
As such, I think it in the best interest to prevent violence in the prison system that some form of segregation be put into place. I would say that the segregation is a function of the violence which was present before it was instated. I would not say that the violence is a function of the segregation.
I fully acknowledge that there are potential points to be raised with this arguement and theory but will not pre-emptively address them.
Why dont they just make a separate prison for sex offenders
Although behaviour like this simply isn't funny...
Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-04-11 14:15:53)
Like a concentration camp?Sgt.Gene wrote:
Why dont they just make a separate prison for sex offenders
I agree.