General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho will be the first to tell me I'm indulging in paranoid fantasies?
Whenever the authorities want to stage an attack on civil rights, they do it by first demonizing some subgroup and then creating exceptions to the Bill of Rights that at first only apply to the despised target population. Then, having driven their wedge into the crack, they expand the scope of their rights violations over time.
Thus in the 1930s to 1950s it was Communists and first the Dies Committee and then the McCarthy HUAC Hearings, and Americans lost the right to belong to certain political groups with proscribed ideologies. (I remember that when I was drafted in 1967 they made me sign a form on which I swore that I was not/had never been a member of a whole list of organizations, of which the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was one).
People got used to having their freedom of speech and assembly shut down, and the populace as a whole went along quietly when the cops & National Guard were mobilized to put down the antiwar demonstrations.
Then in the 70s and 80s, the War on Drugs provided the excuse for a whole wave of incursions on our right to be free from unreasonable searches & seizures, and the militarization of the police began.
In the 90s, preventive detention began (albeit under the guise of treatment), with the universally reviled target of sex offenders. Now 20 states and the Federal Government have laws that permit them to civilly commit and detain sexually violent persons after they have served their full prison sentences and involuntarily sequester them in locked treatment facilities for indeterminate periods (which usually means for life). These treatment facilities generally employ a level of security equivalent to that of a medium-security prison. In 2 rulings, the Supreme Court has already given its stamp of approval to these policies as long as they are cloaked with some nominal pretense of treatment.
This preventive detention scheme disguised as a civil commitment procedure is too good to waste. I predict that within 5 or 10 years, preventive detention programs will be expanded to include other demonized groups such as eco-terrorists and anyone else who obstructs the interests of the 1% under the pretext that they have mental abnormalities that make them incredibly dangerous and require their being placed on ice for life--all for the safety of the community, of course.
Well, you have to know theyre going to find a means to fill those FEMA camps one way or another, and theyve already test-marketed the commitment approach and established all necessary legal precedent for it with the various Sexually Violent Person acts.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That's exactly what's happening. Only, there will be even less pretense of Due Process for commitment (preventative detention), rendition and summary execution for anyone who remotely supports whatever group gets branded as "terrorists", or just those who express their dislike of official policy.
Just wait until the Syria and Iran wars blow back on us. You thought the hysteria, fear and militarization of everyday life after 9/11 was bad?
kickysnana
(3,908 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I never understood that.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)the incarceration of violent sexual deviants is somehow a ploy by the 1%?
Paranoid fantasies is the least of your worries. I would assume paranoia in general is also a concern.
NOTE: Before some jackwang reports me and calls a jury on this post, I am making a legitimate concern of paranoia, and this is not some kind of insult.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I have no problem with sex offenders serving criminal sentences. It's the indeterminate post-prison commitments I'm writing about.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)And is proven to be psychologically damaged and deviant at the end of those 10 years, and will certainly assault another victim, we just let them go and say "Hey bud, you did your time, enjoy your next rape!"?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)There are no actuarial techniques that can identify with any reliability which people will be among that 5%. Do you want to commit 20 people for life in order to prevent 1 from reoffending?
Furthermore, very few adult-victim rapists continue to offend after age 45. Just give them sentences that extend to age 50 or something.
One of the problems I have with these laws is the notion that we have workable methods to prove anyone "to be psychologically damaged and deviant" such that they "will will certainly assault another victim." The art of behavioral prediction is not anywhere near that good. The best that instruments like the Static-99 can do is produce a hazard ratio of maybe 3.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)The point is that they have served the punishment required according to the decision reached by judge and jury. When you start tacking on additional time and punishment for one group of people after the trial and sentencing has concluded, it could become a slippery slope. Similar logic could be applied to other groups of people. Even sex crimes can be a bit of a gray scale. While few have a problem with a child rapist getting this sort of treatment, the sex offender scale could go all the way down the line to a guy who got drunk and accidentally exposed himself to a group of people or an underage teen who sent some naughty pictures to her boyfriend. Some states have really gone crazy with the sex offender label in the past.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)As an old friend I would highly suggest seeking professional help with these thoughts.
Really.
Good luck.
Don
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)...quit buying into RW bullshit.
FSogol
(45,355 posts)bonzotex
(865 posts)The developing police state needs dismantling, but buying into fringe conspiracy doesn't help.
All of this was marginally tolerable until you danced off into FEMA camp-land.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)bonzotex
(865 posts)KBR had the previous 5 year contract for ICE detention centers too. I don't like KBR but somebody will get this contract. ICE actually has a mission it does involve housing and detaining lots of people. Whether that is good or not is it's own issue.
What I really see here is boatloads of conspiracist sites, many right wing libertarians, passing this around. This may seem incredibly relevant to you but it doesn't really support your original premise.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I have no idea whether there are such things, and appreciate your information.
bonzotex
(865 posts)Minus the FEMA camp detour, I agree with the ideas and theme of your post. Our liberties die by a thousand cuts when we turn a blind eye to expansion of the police state. Legal techniques justified to combat the worst offenders will be used later against lesser criminals and even the totally innocent. There's plenty of real-world examples
I believe we get more mileage by sticking with actual examples rather than creative speculation from the infowars swamp.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... out there, and there is much in what you say rings true. Food for thought, at a minimum. I tend to agree that the indeterminate jailing after completing their sentence, just doesn't sit well with me either. If we want to make sex offenses a category that means life without parole, fine. Do it up front.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)Especially since we already have pay-as-you-go prisons. I think the most critical question is why the PTB would want to stop the erosion of liberty any time soon. "Preventative detention" and "thought crimes" are not such very far-fetched ideas.
It certainly is a no-win to give even the appearence of defending sex offenders. I'd like to see some links to your data about recidivism, incidentally, since I have heard the opposite, that recidivism is a distinct problem of sex offenders, especially child rapists. (I refuse to use the word "pedophile," because I hardly think a child rapist can be defined as a "lover of children!" Be that as it may, it is easy to see how such sentencing opens the door to expanding the population of undesireables. But I have noted over the years that "thin edge of the wedge" arguments get shouted down loudly and immediately, likely because people want to stay in denial.
-- Mal
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)shows why this is such a good place from which to attack civil rights. If you dare to suggest that there is a problem with how we treat them, you wil be vilified, as I'm now experiencing (not unexpectedly). You can do anything to a sex offender & both liberals & conservatives will applaud. Then you just move on the the next group & the next, until you can do whatever you want to whomever you want.
As for the recidivism data, there are many sources for that.
On the topic of pedophilia, the following study isn interesting:
Drew A. Kingston · Philip Firestone · Heather M. Moulden · John M. Bradford
Arch Sex Behav (2007) 36:423436
Abstract
This study examined the utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia in a sample of extra-familial child molesters assessed at a university teaching hospital between 1982 and 1992. Pedophilia was defined in one of four ways: (1) DSM diagnosis made by a psychiatrist; (2) deviant phallometric profile; (3) DSM diagnosis and a deviant phallometric pro- file; and, (4) high scores based on the Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interest (Seto & Lalumie`re, 2001). Demographic data, psychological tests, and offence history were obtained and group differences were analyzed along with the ability of certain variables to contribute uniquely to the classification of pedophilia. Results indicated that few significant differ- ences existed on psychological measures between pedophilic and nonpedophilic extra-familial child molesters regardless of the classification system employed. Finally, results indi- cated that the procedures used to define pedophilia were not significantly related to one another. Results are discussed in terms of the utility of the diagnosis of pedophilia.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)They're actually crimes and as far as I know they live breath and walk among us everywhere, even after they 'served their time'.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)as a vehicle for attacking the rights of all of us.
I don't like dope dealers either, but I think our draconian measures taken in the name of suppressing them have done more harm to our society than the dealers themselves could possibly do.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)My argument is that you've used a very bad example to make your point. And look up convicted pedophiles online in your area. There are hundreds living among all of us.
Occulus
(20,599 posts)is now a sex offense.
It's called "mission creep", and it's dangerous to all of us.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I was being a little dramatic with the FEMA camp business, and truly wish I hadn't brought it up because of the sideshow it created here.
MineralMan
(146,189 posts)Taking it across the CT line spoils your otherwise interesting post.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)you butt out of this old man...
now i know why my radishes are all tops and no bulb...
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)And in what way are the legally convicted offenders fighting for any rights?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Wow, have you twisted what I said!
lunatica
(53,410 posts)If you want to make an argument about how we're all going to end up in FEMA camps and use an example, sexual predators are really a bad one. Use another one where it isn't convicted criminals, but just ordinary civil rights activists and your argument might have a leg to stand on.
As it stands your use of pedophiles and rapists as victims of government abuse is a bad example. There are plenty of them who have served their time who are free and living among us. Whether you mean to or not you sound like you're defending them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)ananda
(28,780 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)CT sites have been pushing FEMA camps for a very long time - don't you think by now someone would have actually found one?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)bonzotex
(865 posts)Popular mechanics periodically takes on the thankless task of debunking.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850
Of course, they are probably in on the real plan and this is just clever disinformation and Psyops!
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)Lawlbringer
(550 posts)until Alex Jones' bare ass wiggled it's way into my mind's eye with your FEMA camps bit.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)Time to Occupy your local FEMA camp, put this issue to bed so to speak.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)What?
Swede
(33,139 posts)white_wolf
(6,238 posts)It's perfectly clear that you aren't saying we shouldn't punish them, but that after they served their sentence, as given by a judge and jury, they shouldn't be detained any longer. I agree. What's the point in having law and sentences if we can arbitrary extend it for one group of people. Now, if they want to sentence sex offenders to longer sentences up front, that's fine. Provided we are talking about actual crimes and not bullshit like some 19 year old sleeping with their 16 or 17 year old girlfriend or boyfriend, which is a problem in some states. They define sexual crimes far too broadly.
You are also correct it could be used to extend it to other segments of the population.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I can think of a number of cases in which the appropriate treatment is to place people with severe pathologies in settings where they can't harm others. But these cases are ones in which the protective placement follows a finding of Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect under an ALI standard. That is, the respondent would be subjected to this procedure rather than to a prison sentence.
Instead, the way the SVP laws work, offenders are judged competent and responsible for their behavior at the time of the criminal trial and receive the appropriate sentence, and then at the end of their confinement, the state suddenly decides that they are not able to refrain from acts of sexual violence and initiates the commitment process.
Time for change
(13,714 posts)I'm indulging in the same paranoid fantasies.
It will continue to get worse until enough people realize what's happening.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,934 posts)You know they will go to about any length to dig up a distraction and you already had a tough row to hoe to overcome visceral knee-jerking when the sex offender subject is an important jumping off point to have this discussion and to bust out FEMA camps when you are trying to have an attempt at a serious topic is post suicide.
These tactics are stunningly familiar and it is a shame you can't feel at home and put your feet up but it isn't really like that, is it? It is what it is but it is sad to have to be in hammer meets nail mode all the time instead of free flowing but you have important things to bring to the table that will stir some thoughts and it does no good to go off the rails and allow the meat to be ignored.
You are fuckin' A right about the building of a consensus of exceptions from the rule of law based on the accusation of the crime and/or because of the type of crime and you are deadly on target when you identify sex crimes as a powerful tool to build a beachhead to implement "preventative detention" policies. Of course now we have extended or even doubled down as a standard operating procedure in regards to terrorism where the accusation or even proximity to an accused can buy you all the hellfire missiles you can eat.
I think we have been wrongheaded in this broad area a long time, one a person has served out or finished probation then it should be finished. All rights restored, no having to check felon on applications, no nothing but rejoining society which would go a long way as a carrot to do just that rather than going back into the system, returning to crime, or even just quietly failing in a life of poverty.
The penalty should have ALWAYS been the penalty. If people think penalties are to lenient then argue that instead of all the extra judicial crap and the pseudo judicial monkey business you have brought to the table.
I guess forty years of slick, tough guy cop shows and a fake cowboy President or two have degraded justice into vengeance and reaction to instincts.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I appreciate the fact that you were able to see past that to my real point. I also agree that the sentence should be the sentence, and in some cases I can see the desirability of fairly long sentences. Rapists "age out" of doing rapes at about age 45; maybe we should confine them until then.
Child molesters (I avoid the term "pedophiles" because the issue of diagnosing pedophilia is very controversial & some recent studies show that we can't do it reliably) have a substantially lower recidivism rate than rapists, but their risk curve falls somewhat more slowly as they age. It is the "mixed" offenders--those with both child and adult victims--who are most problematic. Considerable thought should be given to how to deal with them.
And while I'm at it, juveniles who commit sexual offenses are quite unlikely (in actuarial terms) to persist in committing sex offenses in adulthood.