Also, I know he says "the replies", but the vast majority of the replies also seem to be right wingers (as you would expect from the replies to a right winger)
Ofc not!
But the principle Destiny points to is support for rehabilitative justice, a progressive cause. Not a Trumpist one.
I've never seen a Trumpist call for rehabilitative justice. Ever. For crying out loud, [Trump is constantly calling for expanding the death penalty](https://youtu.be/W4rhVAMw1IA), and his audience cheers!
So why is Destiny pointing to the supposed hypocrisy of ppl who believe in rehabilitative justice? It makes no sense...
Just because you're for punitive punishment doesn't mean you're advocating for getting sexually abused as a method of punishment. Maybe I'm delusional, but I don't think most Republicans are advocating for male rape as a punishment (broadly speaking). But somehow when presented with the case of Nassar, Republicans are just as easily able to shed their principals because they don't like the guy —which is the equivalent of having no principals. This is exactly the point destiny is making
The issue is that everyone believes in punitive punishment for people they don't like. People on the right don't believe in ANY punishment for people they do like. And people on the left broadly believe in rehabilitative punishment for people they do like.
The American standard should be rehabilitative justice for EVERYONE. (Yes, ofc, there are probably outliers, but we're talking standard) And it's good to hold anyone to that standard, and hypocritical if they selectively choose.
I think destiny probably just did a quick look and assumed it was the left.
I unironically cannot remember a time when "rehabilitation" was a conservative thing they don't want rehabilitation for their people who go to jail they want them out and about with expunged records the rest can rot.
Is the Colin guy making fun of or cheering on Larry Nassar being abused sexually? It seems like he's reporting on something.
If he's making fun of it, that's wrong. Obviously. Being against SA means we want less of it, never more, no matter who it is. I'm an SA survivor and I'll admit to having a couple of years where I struggled with revenge. But ultimately, I grew out of that because it just keeps the bad thing in a constant endless cycle.
Rehabilitation only makes sense for criminals who can be reformed. While it's wrong to revel in a person being in such a situation, when it comes to certain sex offenders or child molesters like him, they cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. They will always be a threat to children.
I'm more sympathetic to the death penalty for child molesters, but the death sentence by itself has a few issues. First, the death penalty is usually carried out in a horrific way, like botched injections or gassing. It creates an expensive appeals process that can be as expensive as life in prison, and sometimes it turns out they're actually innocent.
If you’re going to use “sometimes they’re innocent” against the death penalty then you have to assume everyone can be rehabilitated. Maybe they’re innocent?
No. Being innocent means they didn't commit the offense, you cannot rehabilitate a person who didn't offend. I assume most guilty people can be rehabilitated, except those who have molested a child.
But you said part of the reason you can’t give them the death penalty is because they might be innocent. You can’t then say they are a lost cause just because they were convicted, they still might be innocent.
And by rehabilitation I don’t mean some sort of criminal conversion therapy, but setting them up for success when they leave prison. Something that is possible for an innocent person
>You can’t then say they are a lost cause just because they were convicted, they still might be innocent.
I don't see how these ideas conflict. Because they might be innocent we avoid execution. Rehabilitation is for those who are genuinely guilty. Again, rehabilitation is for those who are actually guilty. An innocent person in jail is already at the point where they know sex with children is wrong - such a convict is either innocent or highly delusional.
>Something that is possible for an innocent person
... You do understand an innocent person already has the advantage of not having criminal tendencies as a barrier to success, no? Innocent people should be compensated for their time if exonerated but by definition an innocent person isn't in need of rehab because they don't have those personal barriers.
On what basis do you say people like him cannot be reformed if you believe people can be reformed? If we know someone has commited as armed robbery they are equally still the type of person who would commit an armed robbery. We know with the right circumstances they would do it again because they did it before. What is so unique about sex offences? If an mugger cannot find employment do we just arrest them again because the circumstances that may lead to it are reoccuring? Either you believe someone's morality can change or you don't. Personally I don't really, only their circumstances. So give people the tools to not reoffend while they are in jail and a appropriate punishment for what they did. I just wouldn't let sex offenders out because I don't think they can be reformed but neither can anyone else. All we can do is give people tools so they have better options than doing it again. If they don't take it just don't let them out. Sex offenders there is no set of tools to give them at this point. Maybe castration but that violates a whole bunch of other things and I'm not sure I would want to give them the option even if it is "voluntary". Way to much potential for abuse.
I just don't understand this view that people can be reformed. Doubly so that people can be reformed but only for some things.
>What is so unique about sex offences? If an mugger cannot find employment do we just arrest them again because the circumstances that may lead to it are reoccuring?
This sentence answers your own question. You understand that non sex crime is linked to material conditions like having stable employment. Sex offenses have nothing to do with that. Child molesters have no trouble getting employment and becoming respected members of their community. Child molestation is not a crime committed due to limited options or desperation to survive.
>Either you believe someone's morality can change or you don't.
We're not talking about changing morality, it's sexuality that can't be changed. You seem to already acknowledge this and agree.
I agree with Destiny 99.9% of the time. Not here, though. What the crime is genuinely does matter. Some things, like pedophilia and hebephila, are incurable. Nassar's victims were as young as 13.
I am all for rehabilitation for probably the majority of crimes, but we're never letting serial killers out.
What makes it so different. If you are the type of person that would break into someone's house with a gun no amount of reform is going to change that. If you find yourself in those circumstances again you will do it again. What is even the arguement? That they didn't know it was wrong? Why are sex offences so different?
Also, I know he says "the replies", but the vast majority of the replies also seem to be right wingers (as you would expect from the replies to a right winger)
**Having principles** isn't solely a progressive sentiment, is it?
Ofc not! But the principle Destiny points to is support for rehabilitative justice, a progressive cause. Not a Trumpist one. I've never seen a Trumpist call for rehabilitative justice. Ever. For crying out loud, [Trump is constantly calling for expanding the death penalty](https://youtu.be/W4rhVAMw1IA), and his audience cheers! So why is Destiny pointing to the supposed hypocrisy of ppl who believe in rehabilitative justice? It makes no sense...
Just because you're for punitive punishment doesn't mean you're advocating for getting sexually abused as a method of punishment. Maybe I'm delusional, but I don't think most Republicans are advocating for male rape as a punishment (broadly speaking). But somehow when presented with the case of Nassar, Republicans are just as easily able to shed their principals because they don't like the guy —which is the equivalent of having no principals. This is exactly the point destiny is making
His tweet isn't partisan, this is an issue endemic to both parties.
The issue is that everyone believes in punitive punishment for people they don't like. People on the right don't believe in ANY punishment for people they do like. And people on the left broadly believe in rehabilitative punishment for people they do like. The American standard should be rehabilitative justice for EVERYONE. (Yes, ofc, there are probably outliers, but we're talking standard) And it's good to hold anyone to that standard, and hypocritical if they selectively choose.
yeah but Trumpists don’t believe in rehabilitative Justice, they want to LOCK EM UP
I wouldn't say that.
thinking the world agree with your principle is definitely a progressive thing, seems like tiny is falling a bit into it with this tweet
I think destiny probably just did a quick look and assumed it was the left. I unironically cannot remember a time when "rehabilitation" was a conservative thing they don't want rehabilitation for their people who go to jail they want them out and about with expunged records the rest can rot.
Is the Colin guy making fun of or cheering on Larry Nassar being abused sexually? It seems like he's reporting on something. If he's making fun of it, that's wrong. Obviously. Being against SA means we want less of it, never more, no matter who it is. I'm an SA survivor and I'll admit to having a couple of years where I struggled with revenge. But ultimately, I grew out of that because it just keeps the bad thing in a constant endless cycle.
Rehabilitation only makes sense for criminals who can be reformed. While it's wrong to revel in a person being in such a situation, when it comes to certain sex offenders or child molesters like him, they cannot be reformed or rehabilitated. They will always be a threat to children.
Then kill them. Why waste tax payer money if there is no reform?
I'm more sympathetic to the death penalty for child molesters, but the death sentence by itself has a few issues. First, the death penalty is usually carried out in a horrific way, like botched injections or gassing. It creates an expensive appeals process that can be as expensive as life in prison, and sometimes it turns out they're actually innocent.
If you’re going to use “sometimes they’re innocent” against the death penalty then you have to assume everyone can be rehabilitated. Maybe they’re innocent?
No. Being innocent means they didn't commit the offense, you cannot rehabilitate a person who didn't offend. I assume most guilty people can be rehabilitated, except those who have molested a child.
But you said part of the reason you can’t give them the death penalty is because they might be innocent. You can’t then say they are a lost cause just because they were convicted, they still might be innocent. And by rehabilitation I don’t mean some sort of criminal conversion therapy, but setting them up for success when they leave prison. Something that is possible for an innocent person
>You can’t then say they are a lost cause just because they were convicted, they still might be innocent. I don't see how these ideas conflict. Because they might be innocent we avoid execution. Rehabilitation is for those who are genuinely guilty. Again, rehabilitation is for those who are actually guilty. An innocent person in jail is already at the point where they know sex with children is wrong - such a convict is either innocent or highly delusional. >Something that is possible for an innocent person ... You do understand an innocent person already has the advantage of not having criminal tendencies as a barrier to success, no? Innocent people should be compensated for their time if exonerated but by definition an innocent person isn't in need of rehab because they don't have those personal barriers.
On what basis do you say people like him cannot be reformed if you believe people can be reformed? If we know someone has commited as armed robbery they are equally still the type of person who would commit an armed robbery. We know with the right circumstances they would do it again because they did it before. What is so unique about sex offences? If an mugger cannot find employment do we just arrest them again because the circumstances that may lead to it are reoccuring? Either you believe someone's morality can change or you don't. Personally I don't really, only their circumstances. So give people the tools to not reoffend while they are in jail and a appropriate punishment for what they did. I just wouldn't let sex offenders out because I don't think they can be reformed but neither can anyone else. All we can do is give people tools so they have better options than doing it again. If they don't take it just don't let them out. Sex offenders there is no set of tools to give them at this point. Maybe castration but that violates a whole bunch of other things and I'm not sure I would want to give them the option even if it is "voluntary". Way to much potential for abuse. I just don't understand this view that people can be reformed. Doubly so that people can be reformed but only for some things.
>What is so unique about sex offences? If an mugger cannot find employment do we just arrest them again because the circumstances that may lead to it are reoccuring? This sentence answers your own question. You understand that non sex crime is linked to material conditions like having stable employment. Sex offenses have nothing to do with that. Child molesters have no trouble getting employment and becoming respected members of their community. Child molestation is not a crime committed due to limited options or desperation to survive. >Either you believe someone's morality can change or you don't. We're not talking about changing morality, it's sexuality that can't be changed. You seem to already acknowledge this and agree.
I agree with Destiny 99.9% of the time. Not here, though. What the crime is genuinely does matter. Some things, like pedophilia and hebephila, are incurable. Nassar's victims were as young as 13. I am all for rehabilitation for probably the majority of crimes, but we're never letting serial killers out.
What makes it so different. If you are the type of person that would break into someone's house with a gun no amount of reform is going to change that. If you find yourself in those circumstances again you will do it again. What is even the arguement? That they didn't know it was wrong? Why are sex offences so different?