At the beginning of the article...
""The health and human services budget is growing at rates that are just absolutely unsustainable," Pawlenty stated."
Sometime later...
"In addition, Pawlenty ordered that no civilly committed sex offenders be released unless required by law or ordered to do so by the courts."
Yikes is right...
Castrations are way cheaper, and although they don't curtail sexually aggressive sorts, they would at least stop them from breeding more 'lil perverts'. We hybridize everything else on the planet, why not steer violent behavior out of our future generations through some genetic selections in ourselves.
It is a problem that can not be changed. Well
99.999999999% of the time ! So why are they out? A simular thing happens with sociopathic tendancys-very few make the choice to change.
Peace
Pawlenty is notoriously hostile to Health and Human services.
the doog, that is essentially called eugenics, and has a long and terrible history associated with it.
So why are they out?
Why are the drug addicts out?
Why are the alcoholics out?
Why are the bankrupt out?
Why are the wife-beaters out?
Why is anyone out?
Fact is, people can and do change, although, as Governor Pawlenty recognizes, government is ill-suited to bring it about.
um, fact is, these d-nozes rarely change. re-offending is rampant and can lead to death. do your research. the government need to lay off the pot "offences" and lock these fucks up forever.
Are you really comparing sociopaths to addicts? Their motivations are completely different. Sex offenders do not change, their surroundings do, and that is the only way they stop
I had a private and telling conversation with a well known advocate for victims rights a few years ago. The advocate said that the laws had ended up with misguided and occasionally counter productive results. The advocate said that essentially it had become political on all sides, with the dems wanting just to stand for "victims" and the republicans just on "crime and punishment" soap boxes talking aobut lock 'em up and throw away the key. Essentially both of these are squirrel wheels of political expediency. The truth of what is really best for people, or more importantly, what serves JUSTICE is something else else entirely, and no one quite has it down.
--
I was at Moose Lake a little while ago, in the prison side, and the place has grown exponentially over the last 50 years. As in from dozens of people at the start to a thousand or more today. It was at first a vocational work camp, now it's almost an industrial enterprise. Which type of operation do you think serves justice better? And whose idea of justice would that be? These are tough questions, not easily answered.
Again, the fact is, people can and do change.
No research needs to be done to prove that.
What the "studies" show, is that the government fails to change people- no surprise there.
And what island would be big enough to hold all the deserving of punishment?
Oh ... one solution on the growth issue would be to legalize and regulate more drugs. And keep non-violent offenders and addicts out of Jail (for drug offenses) so that there is more time and energy to deal with drug dealers, molesters, rapists, murderers and other truly dangerous people.
Oh ... not to mention preventing people from committing dangerous crimes in the first place.
In states such as Wisconsin, Washington and Texas, for instance, sex offenders have routinely been released from civil commitment programs and not committed additional crimes. The key to success: intensive supervision and continued treatment. If the offenders fail to follow through on any aspects of their therapy plan, they again lose their freedom.
"The research tells us that what really keeps these guys from sexually recidivating is being under intensive supervision," says Reitman. "In reality the treatment model is there for us to follow."
Unless I'm misreading it, the article suggests that the problem in Minnesota is not that sex offenders can never be released, but rather that the treatment program in Minnesota is ineffective, in part because no one wants to stick his/her neck for fear of a dramatic Alfonso Rodrigeuz-esque act of recidivism [1].
[1] Which particular act, incidentally, led to a quadrupling of the MSOP's budget and a tripling of its population in the six years following Dru Sjodin's murder.
Who wants to babysit sex offenders?? You would have to find a bunch of "natural helpers" whom could probably find that their abilities are best used elsewhere. How much are you going to pay a person to have consistent dyadic interactions with a sex offender? This is the best a society can do for any offender, consistent accountability, social support, the breakdown of structural barriers, and the decrease of social stigma which isolates them. It is a big undertaking, families break down from this, expectations from government to stand this test; good luck.
"...more time and energy to deal with drug dealers, molesters, rapists, murderers and other truly dangerous people."
So, lighten-up on drug users, but go heavy on drug-dealers?
And the truly dangerous people? They would be... the ones who, so far this year, have murdered 11,000 people via dui. So, shouldn't we deal with the alcohol dealers first?
And, the image of the warm-hearted drug-user is just
tired.
Plenty of kids out there, no doubt, who've had their spirits killed by a neglectful, stoned out 'rents.
15 Comments
BryGuy
about 15 years agothe doog
about 15 years agoTodd Gremmels
about 15 years agoedgeways
about 15 years agoragStalker
about 15 years agoc-freak
about 15 years agogingerbliss
about 15 years agohuitz
about 15 years agowildgoose
about 15 years agoragStalker
about 15 years agowildgoose
about 15 years agothe Big E
about 15 years agothe Big E
about 15 years agogingerbliss
about 15 years agoragStalker
about 15 years ago