Re: Modern warlocks?
- From: "Jymn" <jymnat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:31:12 +0100
In urp, Halla wrote in response to Jymn:
<snip>
The people are a lot more than just their single behaviour.
Caught a recent debate on radio - a convicted child molester
was a music teacher, who has written the standard texts for
playing recorder. His step daughter (one of his victims,
along with a number of his pupils) is campaigning to have
the book removed from schools.
I can see why she'd want to, but of course not many people
would know why.
Hence her current media campaign.
Some of the issues in the debate; these books are regarded
as the best in the field should they be disregarded because
of the authors behaviour, the author continues to receive
royalties on his work,
Isn't there a case for seizing his earnings from such a
source? Then again, presumably he did not cause any suffering
from this work (except for recorder practice, which is
generally bad), so why shouldn't he receive money for
legitimate work?
He used music lessons to find and groom his victims.
Apparently he was first investigated in the 1980's but no prosecution was
brought. (Though there are victims from that period).
these books included a
number of exercises and pieces composed by the author -
should his victims be exposed to these reminders, possibly
for the rest of their lives.
I can't imagine that they would go anywhere near one of his
books again.
Hearing a child play one of the pieces he composed would likely be a potent
trigger.
He apparently has victims from the last thirty years, it dosen't seem too
much of a stretch to assume some of them are now parents of school age
children. Since recorder is the instrument that every school seems to try to
teach to every pupil, imagine having to hear the pieces your attacker
composed and made you play being practised by your children.
<snip>
It's inevitable that if someone has been charged with
committing a terrible crime that the crime will become the
whole picture, but only for a time. I'd agree that, if proven
guilty, the crime should remain part of the larger picture,
but after appropriate action has been taken against the
person it should not remain the whole of the picture.
I agree.
<snip>
Apparently she gave a press interview which compared family
values across the twentieth century and bemoaned the current
situation in Germany in comparison with the '30s.
Which could have been unfortunate historical timing rather
than a comment on any one party, but... <:-/
It wasn't, but ISWYM.
I haven't read the original interview, but press
coverage of her dismissal seems to hinge on expressing any
favourable opinion on things that happened during that time
is abhorrent.
Again, I can see why. It seems not enough time has passed for
them to be able to debate about these things, any apparent
show of support has to be quashed.
I'm having similar problems with some media coverage of a certain Mrs
Thatcher as a visionary and a positive benefit to the North East. Perhaps
I'm unable to be objective, perhaps I'm just not wearing the rose tinted
glasses the media and some politicians have been supplied with.
Strangely I
haven't noticed any condemnation or attempts to replace the
autobahn network that Germany seems quite proud of.
Seems all you'd have to do is go on telly in Germany and
loudly proclaim how wonderful the autobahns are and why. <eg>
Temptation ;~)
<snip>
<nods> If not rehabilitation though, at least abstinence
from abhorrent behaviour? As distasteful as some of them
may be, thoughts are still not crimes.
One argument is that there are only two methods of ensuring
abstinence.
Well yes, the ensuring part would be the difficult one.
But the necessary component.
We
don't do capital punishment in the UK so that only leaves
lifelong imprisonment of some form.
Or segregation at least.
Whether that's behind cell bars or unrestricted segragation on an articial
island of some type it would still be imprisonment.
There are plenty of examples
of people refraining from other behaviours which are seen as
damaging, to the individual or the wider group, why not this
one too? I acknowledge it'd be tricky to place such people
in jobs and lives where they were not meeting those who
previously they may have preyed upon, but is the only
alternative to hound them into hiding once they're found
out?
It isn't, currently it appears to be the most palatable one.
And have stupid media campagns that result in peadiatricians
houses being torched.
Which leads us on to the state of education in the
population... <sighy g>
And of elements of the media. I can't believe the elemens of the media who
decided to launch a deliberate witch hunt were ignorant of the possible
consequences.
<snip>
So what is the purpose of incarceration if we are not to
forgive people? (Trusting them again is a seperate issue, of
course, and I don't think forgiveness implies a resumption
of trust, only that the transgression is past and dealt
with)
Incarceration cannot lead to forgiveness. Society should
keep out of that sphere entirely.
As I said in another response I hit upon the wrong word there.
Sorry, wasn't attacking your wording, the rest of your paragraph makes it
clear that you'd hit on the wrong word. Just making a point that there are
spheres that I really think society should keep out of.
It may lead to rehabilitation.
Which is supposed to be the idea.
It appears to be one of the objectives of the Prison Service:
To protect the public and provide what commissioners want to purchase by:
Holding prisoners securely
Reducing the risk of prisoners re-offending
Providing safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners
humanely, decently and lawfully.
Source:
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservice/statementofpurpose/
In that I presume the second objective is about rehabilitation.
The primary purpose of incarceration is to protect society
from the actions of individuals who have shown they are
dangerous to society.
In which case why are there prison terms, why aren't
dangerous people kept confined for the duration of their
lives?
They are.
The severity of the threat to society is supposedly what dictates the length
of sentence. The most dangerous crimes being rewarded with the longest
sentences.
<quote>
For those offenders assessed as 'dangerous' and serving indeterminate or
extended sentences for public protection release arrangements are different.
These new sentences ensure that dangerous sexual and violent offenders are
subject to assessment by the Parole Board and are not released from prison
until and unless their level of risk to the public is assessed by the Parole
Board as manageable in the community. If the risk is not reduced to a safe
level, they may never be released.
</quote> source: http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/offender/prison/index.html
However, we may not agree with the Government on what constiutes a danger to
society.
<snip>
But there are no lines drawn for them to agree on. If there
were some immutable standards then perhaps we could see some
agreement over approaches.
Surely there are some standards? Sexual abuse is wrong, how's
that for one? Do they not even agree on that? :-(
Define sexual abuse, I suspect all parties would agree sexual abuse of
children was wrong, but where they stand on marital rape is an unknown.
Part of the issue being we can refer to brigades, but the reality there are
no such defined groups. There are specific groups with agreed agendas such
as political parties but even these tend to have sub groupings with
differing agenda
Currently the two brigades you mention have little
commonality
in there own groups about what is acceptable and where to
draw the line. So the lack of any agreement between the
brigades is hardly unexpected. personally I'drather live in
a society where the liberals dominate the thinking than a
Stepford oriented ordered structure.
As long as their liberals with a little structure about them,
couldn't be doing with having a vote every time someone had
to go and fetch the bread and milk. <g>
*G. That's anachists
<snip>
There is no social contract. Its a bit of politico speak
that sounds good but is meaningless.
More the unspoken sort, the internal rules people have not to
go out and kill each other and so on - those can loosely be
termed a social contract, surely, even though it's one that
most people would not be aware of having signed up to.
Sorry I'm being a pendant again.
I think it would be quite useful to have a "Rights and Responsibilities of a
Crown Subject" type document.
What we have is custom and practise, an amorphous, improvable and changeable
beast.
I'm
not concerned with whatever the politicians have decided to
call their latest attempt to rebadge common sense and impose
some sort of village mentality on a collection of large
groups of people.
If common sense were common, would we need so many attemps to promote it.
The problem with custom and practise and with common law is that they are
not enforceable. Attempts at enforcing them are likely to lead to breaches
of criminal law which is enforcable and therefore the original transgressors
not only get away with thier actions, they achieve a sense of
invunerability.
<snip>
So this is one that a healthy society should have absolutely
in black and white?
If so, I don't want to live in a healthy society.
Oh I dunno. If something is grey in a black and white society
then it would only take a suitably determined person to
declare that it is black or white for it to be so, since
there are no other options... which doesn't seem all that
helpful, now I think about it. <g>
*G, you've spotted on of the major flaws.
The other being there can be no allowance made for exceptional
circumstances.
Though that may be the only way to have something that could
be oath bound. Since laws are mutable, swearing an oath to
uphold the laws of the country could potentially be writing
a blank cheque.
That's quite a scary thought.
I do wonder if people swearing such oaths think them through.
Jymn
.
- References:
- Re: Modern warlocks?
- From: Jymn
- Re: Modern warlocks?
- From: Jymn
- Re: Modern warlocks?
- Prev by Date: Re: Request for help
- Next by Date: Re: Superstition or omen?
- Previous by thread: Re: Modern warlocks?
- Next by thread: Fluff post: webcomics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
