# Temp Debates#4



## Deleted User (Aug 25, 2010)

*"Now lasts 1 DAY each" (Or as long as it takes)*

*Debate IV* Media Censorship. Protective or Restrictive?​*How to debate*


Spoiler



We will be debating about a question, make your point heard.
If the question is: *Can we live without air?*

*A response can be:* No, because air sustains life.
*Another can be:* No, that point is wrong because we can live on Oxygen alone, not air.
*Another can be:* No, because plants need CO2 which is in air to live, and without plants, we would die.

and so on.
OK.

You will find today's debate title at the top of this post/in the topic description. Happy debating! I am impartial to this and will ignore the posts I have made to count the final score, as they were made *solely to get the debate up and running*. I will judge which side has won at the end, however will join the debate.

The debate will last ONE DAY






Previous Debates


Spoiler



Can we live without modern technology? The 'Temp says *we can*.
Will the world end in 2012? The 'Temp says '*fuck no*'.
Genetic/DNA Manipulation on humans. Should it be legal in the UK? The 'Temp thinks that *it should be legal*
Media Censorship? Protective or Restrictive. The 'temp believes media censorship is *restrictive*



Future Debates


Spoiler



5 Health and Safety laws. Protective or restrictive?
6  Equal Rights for Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals.
7  Marijuana should be legalized solely for medicinal use.
8 Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm?
9 Will Space be colonized? ~suggested by Scott-105
10 Should fascists be given a platform to speak? ~Suggested by TrolleyDave
...





*Description:*
Media Censorship. The censoring of innapropriate content and governmental secrets in the media. Is it protective to censor such things, or is it restrictive as to restrict the general public from hearing or reading certain texts and videos.


----------



## naglaro00 (Aug 25, 2010)

Depends on the situation.

If by censorship you mean censoring explicit videos (for example - a chopped up body) then it would be somewhat protective.

But if the media doesn't want us to see what's happening to our country and government, then it's restrictive.

But really, it depends on the situation.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

There are very few situations in which media censorship is warranted. The entire concept that adults need "protection" granted from our governments or corporations is laughable.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Aug 25, 2010)

As said before, depends on the situation. I don't exactly like the government keeping secrets from us but I don't think everyone wants to see a chopped up body.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Aug 25, 2010)

Restrictive. We don't need media censorship.
I'm not sure of the American version but in Canada, we have freedom of expression in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom and should be able to act upon that. It's absurd to allow the media to censor what we say unless it's hate speech.

The topics still aren't open long enough. Open them for a week, at least.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

In the US it is our first amendment to the Constitution. Theoretically we value freedom or speech, press, and religion more than anything else or anyone else as it is one of the most fundamental tenets of our government. Theoretically.


----------



## monkat (Aug 25, 2010)

This is touchy. It's not that censorship is important that our citizens can't hear it, it's that if it is made publicly available, it can become a national security threat.

I've never actually seen important media censorship (lol Aqua Teen Hunger Force dick episode), except for how our government was keeping national security secrets about statistics and things. I don't see that that really matters, though - it happened: no matter what we know, it's not going to change that. 

I would say that when it's used in the Western World, it's typically for protection, or for the success of various military missions. When it's used in, say, China, it's typically going to be restrictive, but as long as the citizens support it, that's fine.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

monkat said:
			
		

> I would say that when it's used in the Western World, it's typically for protection, or for the success of various military missions. When it's used in, say, China, it's typically going to be restrictive, but as long as the citizens support it, that's fine.


And why would you say that?


----------



## monkat (Aug 25, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> monkat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because, as far as I know, most of the Western world does have a set of regulations on the government to protect the media against censorship. The only time that it is every censored, or not let known to the media, is when it is important not to show it for one reason or another, as I said previously, usually for the success of military missions.

I would say that China is usually going to be restrictive because....it is.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 25, 2010)

So, so far it's agreed that it is...restrictive.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

You believe that, as a whole, the general population is too stupid and emotional to make rational decisions. It is therefore in our best interest to keep things hidden from us for our own good. That is truly frightening.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

We are not children. We do not need a government to act as a parent on our behalf, deciding what is too "harmful" for us to know about. I am honestly shocked that you just said China has the right idea as far as censorship of information.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

How, pray tell, would you know if I accepted the concept of free speech due solely to indoctrination or not?

That assumption aside, yes, I fully believe that censoring or otherwise withholding information from the public harms us as a whole. The more educated the public is the healthier society is, as we can all make more informed decisions.

People who believe that the public are too stupid to decide important issues for themselves and instead must guided by the hand of the government scare me a lot. Please, never run for office.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Aug 25, 2010)

Restrictive.

If you don't want to be exposed to it, don't access it.


----------



## jalaneme (Aug 25, 2010)

restrictive, there is a lot that the government keeps from our public eyes including hidden unlimited energy, technological advancements, and other unknown stuff, the government know they will loose money if they reveal these unlimited energy to the world that's why they hide them from us because coal and gas makes more than enough money for them and it's a way to control us.



			
				Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> People who believe that the public are too stupid to decide important issues for themselves and instead must guided by the hand of the government scare me a lot. Please, never run for office.



it's not that we are too stupid to decide for ourselves, it's the fact that we are being controlled in everything we do if we like it or not, we have no decide in the matter, we are treated like cattle.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:
			
		

> Well that depends what sort of information your with-holding does it not?  The reaction also depends on the people you are exposing the information to.  Again I don't support extreme censorship, but there are things the public don't or shouldn't need to know.
> 
> The thought of people making informed decision is laughable really.  There's a reason the people in the government are in the government, they have the experience and skills necessary to see things rationally rather than emotionally.  *Do you think every 18 year old who's earned the right to vote really has a clue about the world.*  They may throw out all the stats and all the information you need, but I doubt the average voter realizes what that means in say 10 years, they'll just vote for the guy who's less of a jerk or dresses nice.
> 
> Let's take a look at China.  They do many things the public aren't exactly happy about, but it is for the good of the country in the long run.  You build a dam that'll flood the houses of a couple hundred thousand people of course you'll get tough opposition.  You don't tell them a couple hundred thousand people are getting flooded but instead it is only your area and that you need to move, you'll get a dam that'll control the floods that does a lot more damage in the long run.


I see. People who are 18 are clueless fools that have no understanding of the complex relationships present in modern day society. You, however, are wise and understand the ways of the world because you are 24.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:
			
		

> And that people is logical fallacy #1, Ad Hominem, which is to ignore the argument at hand and attack the person instead.
> 
> That being said, I hardly see the connection.  I chose that particular example because I know for a fact that I voted without knowing enough.  Obviously I'm generalizing here in regards to most people, but I seriously doubt that a lot of voters truly do their research prior to voting.


You are incorrectly applying the ad hominem label. You stated people who are 18 are uninformed about the world due to their relatively young age. It follows logically that since you are relatively young your argument is rendered self-defeating. I hope that clears up the connection between those statements for you.

As for the main topic, you are falling into a fairly typical position of assuming you know what is best for everyone even if they do not realize it. I agree that there are quite a lot of voters who do not understand the issues or stances of the candidates. They vote down the line according to whatever party their parents/society is or for whichever candidate had the best commercials. How will you filter out these people? Administer an IQ test before allowing them to vote? Quiz them on current events? And who gets to decide if a person is "informed enough"? Everyone needs a voice in a healthy society or it fails to be a society.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 25, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:
			
		

> I figure the best way to approach elections is rather than telling people what your plan is, you simply lie to them, or talk about non-related issues that will gain you the vote.  In a way you filter the information, you don't talk about what people don't want to hear, and you get elected, THEN you do what you need to do.  As horrible as that may seem, I'm pretty sure that happens in real life at least once in a while.


This is not a "once in a while" occurrence. This is *the* standard operating procedure for practically every politician higher than small towns. I realize that may come off as unnecessarily cynical, but in the US at least it is virtually guaranteed that campaign promises will be broken.


----------



## N4RU70 FR34K (Aug 25, 2010)

No censorship sucks, the parents should be making sure their kids don't watch that.


----------



## Scott-105 (Aug 25, 2010)

I think it's a bit restrictive. It should just give a warning before the show starts so the viewer knows what they're watching.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

First, nicely done for picking such a good topic of debate JetKun!  I'd recommend keeping this one open longer than you have the others.  Let the debate run its course before closing it.

-----------------------

Anyway, on to the topic at hand.  Media censorship is a pretty tricky, in-depth and interesting subject.  Are there times when media censorship should be enforced?  Unfortunately yes, with the way society and people are there needs to be a certain amount of stepping in done by the government.  Are there times when it's done and wholly unjustified, bloody hell yes!  Sometimes regulation and censorship is a necessary evil though unfortunately, because not every human uses his free speech rights responsibly.

When is censorship justified?  That's a tricky one, as sometimes broad sweeping generalisations are acceptable, and others it's strictly a case by case judgement.  Regulation is obviously the better solution, it's what we use and to be honest it works fairly well, but sometimes the government does need to step in and say "Bollocks, you can't broadcast or print that".

Like take for example child porn.  I'm pretty sure we all agree that not only is it illegal but it's also something that shouldn't be allowed to be broadcast or published.  Only kiddy fiddlers want to see it, the rest of the people are quite rightly offended and outraged.  So we ban it.  Only the most militant and uneducated free speech advocate would argue otherwise.

Let's also take the far right political movements for an example.  Anybody who's ever followed their propaganda knows they rely on half-truths, and quite alot of the time just outright paranoid and emotion-centred bullshit lies.  Should they be allowed to publish their lies in a national newspaper and claim it as the truth?  Not as far as I'm concerned.  Free speech should never be allowed to justify hateful lies that could lead to persecution, violence or death.  For one, well let's face, it's just plain wrong.  Common sense tells you that.  It's also blatantly morally wrong.  Plus, it's dangerous.  And more importantly, defending the right to spread lies damages the integrity of what the right to free speech stands for.  Don't get me wrong, the should feel free to publish their own hate rags and other people should point and mock and expose the lies.  They should just however never be allowed to use a news publishing agency that the common person sees as trustable and would accept that anything presented or published by them with a relevant dispute is a fact.

When is it not justified.  Well that's alot less tricky.  It's never justified when somebody is publishing or broadcasting truthful information that's in the publics best interest to know.  It's never alright to censor the truth simply because it may offend a certain section of the population.  Those people who have been offended are more than welcome to complain and raise their feelings and opinions, but they should never have the right or power to censor it.  Basically what I'm trying to say is it should never be alright to censor the truth!

It should also never be alright to censor truthful criticism.  Criticism that relies on lies to justify itself is a different matter obviously.

Also, it should not be allowed simply because it might upset a religious sensibility that contrasts with our secular ones.  An example would be blasphemy laws.  Nothing like that should ever be allowed in our society again.


----------



## Scott-105 (Aug 26, 2010)

PharaohsVizier said:
			
		

> Scott-105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm, I don't know about that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Maybe a thing that pops up to tell you on cable or satellite?


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

I would say both describes Media Censorship. Seriously, it depends. They have the right to hide a fact to the citizens, I mean, what's the alternative? They freak out and do crazy stuff. Although, let's admit it. Nobody prefers not knowing, right?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

Fox News won the legal right to blatantly lie on air. They said, "There's no law that says we have to tell the truth," and won. So that's what you get.

It is just one giant confirmation-bias for the ignorant and hateful.


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
> 
> Fox News won the legal right to blatantly lie on air. They said, "There's no law that says we have to tell the truth," and won. So that's what you get.
> 
> It is just one giant confirmation-bias for the ignorant and hateful.


I dare say they've already done that countless times before.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

.psyched said:
			
		

> I would say both describes Media Censorship. Seriously, it depends. They have the right to hide a fact to the citizens, I mean, what's the alternative? They freak out and do crazy stuff. Although, let's admit it. Nobody prefers not knowing, right?


So your argument is that "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the people decide what they listen to or ignore? Or do you believe that it should be decided for us by those in power?


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> .psyched said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I clearly said: "Let's admit it, Nobody prefers not knowing."
What in that last sentence, states that to me, ignorance is bliss?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
> 
> Fox News won the legal right to blatantly lie on air. They said, "There's no law that says we have to tell the truth," and won. So that's what you get.
> 
> It is just one giant confirmation-bias for the ignorant and hateful.



That judgement is so wrong, and on so many levels as well. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  It damages free speech rights, and in a society where governments are becoming more and more totalitarian it only adds ammunition for them to further recede our rights.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

.psyched said:
			
		

> They have the right to hide a fact to the citizens, I mean, what's the alternative? They freak out and do crazy stuff.


You state that you believe the media has a right to hide facts from the public.


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> .psyched said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. I mean, what's the point of watching the news now? What were they even made for?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

Do you mean that the first part of your post, which was the complete opposite of the last sentence was sarcasm? If so then I apologize.

If it was not sarcasm then I don't follow what message you were trying to get across.


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> Do you mean that the first part of your post, which was the complete opposite of the last sentence was sarcasm? If so then I apologize.
> 
> If it was not sarcasm then I don't follow what message you were trying to get across.


Sarcasm that was badly put into words. I owe an apology myself too. But let's stop trolling.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

Peace.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

.psyched said:
			
		

> Agreed. I mean, what's the point of watching the news now? What were they even made for?



Couldn't agree more.  I really don't know what's scarier.  The fact that they're allowed to do it, the fact that they fought a legal battle in order to protect their right to lie or the fact that they did it and so many people still use them as a valid source of information!

Just throwing the whole "When is it ok to hold back information" idea back up.  How about this for example.  Say in a moment of stupidity plans for a military rescue of hostages get leaked to the press.  The rescue is due to happen in a couple of days, and the press releasing the information would only damage the operation and put hostages in danger.  Under a circumstance like that isn't it alright, and even sensible, for the government to censor that information and put a hold on the story until the operation has actually taken place?  In an ideal world of course the press would have enough sense and integrity to not do it, but unfortunately our society ain't quite there yet!


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

Troop movements are about the *only* thing that should legitimately be withheld (until after the fact). Unfortunately, the powers that be abuse this privilege to hide all kinds of information for reasons such as embarrassment or abuse. How do you keep the government and media accountable when there is a legitimate need for some secrecy?


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> Troop movements are about the *only* thing that should legitimately be withheld (until after the fact). Unfortunately, the powers that be abuse this privilege to hide all kinds of information for reasons such as embarrassment or abuse. How do you keep the government and media accountable when there is a legitimate need for some secrecy?



I agree totally.  As for how to keep the government and media accountable, that's a pretty tough one.  The media is obviously alot easier than the government.  That can be done through protests, boycotts and government lobbying.  The hard part there of course is finding a way of getting people to become more socially and politically aware and active, and also getting them to unite.  Social networking and speed of communication would make it easier, and would make it possible, but people are too apathetic these days.  We've become nations of "If it ain't happening to me it ain't my problem guv".  There's alot of causes for that obviously, but it's what's needed.

Same goes with governments.  They know we're in constant fear of things like losing our jobs, not being able to pay bills etc. and use that as a weapon against us.  It would be pretty easy to force governmental change, but again a united front would be needed but almost impossible to achieve.  Hell, with the way technology and communications is now we have the ability to affect worldwide governmental changes.  Unity is and always will be the problem though.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

I can surely see other cases which would require some degree of secrecy, but "politics" is a fairly broad category. If human lives are not put in immediate danger then I don't see why it should be hidden from the owners a country (the public).


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

I'm guessing we'd all agree that there are moments when temporary censorship is a must.  A little common sense and some good ethics would tell most people when it's necessary.  Of course you can't really apply both those words to most politicians, but you get what I mean!

What about an instance like this then.  How about the publishing of the fact that a newly released paedophile has moved into a local area?  It's not really in his best interest to have it published and could put him at risk.  They don't even have to name him or print his address, in a small enough place new faces are easily noticed.  On the other hand, isn't it really in the local areas best interest to know that a child sex offender has moved into the area?


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 26, 2010)

"Sex offenders" are a huge can of worms. Why do rapists and murderers serve their time and get out, while "sex offenders" pay for their crime for life? I do not agree that a child molester should have his name, picture, etc posted publicly for life: ensuring they never escape their past or rehabilitate (also putting their life in danger). If you believe any criminal with a chance of recidivism should be put on a list for life, then every single criminal on Earth would be on lists.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 26, 2010)

*Poll put up*
A Lot of maybes, and really good points...I'll probably leave this topic open a bit longer than expected, if the mods will let me..


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 26, 2010)

You should start leaving them open for longer anyway.  You should allow the debates to come to their natural conclusion.  I'd say one a week would suffice.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 26, 2010)

And this, my friends, is why I don't watch TV anymore. I use the internet for knowing about what's happening in the world, as there are way more sources available and with a bit of logic, one can find out which are the most reliable, or piece everything together to find out the complete truth.

The fact that TV shows are 'allowed' to lie is plain stupid. There is absolutely no need to lie, yet Fox (and a great many other news broadcasters) constantly does it, just to attract more viewers.

Tsk tsk.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 26, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> And this, my friends, is why I don't watch TV anymore. I use the internet for knowing about what's happening in the world, as there are way more sources available and with a bit of logic, one can find out which are the *most reliable*, or piece everything together to find out the complete truth.
> 
> The fact that TV shows are 'allowed' to lie is plain stupid. There is absolutely no need to lie, yet Fox (and a great many other news broadcasters) constantly does it, just to attract more viewers.
> 
> Tsk tsk.


Such as Wikipedia for information and IGN for unbiased gaming reviews.

I see what you mean though. The BBC even lies once in a while, and rectifies their lie silently, on their site. A quick "Oh, and [insert topic] is what I meant to say, moving swiftly on..." explains their unintentional mistake.

(I had to post that.)


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Aug 26, 2010)

A more recent example of media censorship was when Pakistani then-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said Osama was dead.


Spoiler: Censored and Uncensored Video






BBC censored it removing what she said about Osama. Make of it what you wish.

First site is an interesting site regarding conspiracies and  has some informative articles on the left. Not everything on there is to be believed, though.
http://conspiracyculture.com/

The second site provides you with the raw story. Uncensored news.
http://rawstory.com/


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 26, 2010)

So that's BBC for you, and TV. Ellie was right. BBC=Restrictive.
Now, moving on...


----------



## .psyched (Aug 26, 2010)

Ellie said:
			
		

> And this, my friends, is why I don't watch TV anymore. I use the internet for knowing about what's happening in the world, as there are way more sources available and with a bit of logic, one can find out which are the most reliable, or piece everything together to find out the complete truth.
> 
> The fact that TV shows are 'allowed' to lie is plain stupid. There is absolutely no need to lie, yet Fox (and a great many other news broadcasters) constantly does it, just to attract more viewers.
> 
> Tsk tsk.


I totally agree. I usually go see the "news" on internet, rather than watching TV. Although no source really is reliable to me.


----------



## prowler (Aug 26, 2010)

JetKun said:
			
		

> Such as Wikipedia for information and IGN for unbiased gaming reviews.


Please be joking.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Aug 26, 2010)

.psyched said:
			
		

> Ellie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which is why I said I go to as many sources as possible and pick the parts that seem correct, to then mend all pieces together and find out 'the truth'.

I'm making it sound like my everyday life is some sort of B-rated detective film.


----------



## CCNaru (Aug 27, 2010)

For the sake of the argument, I'm going to say protective.

I'm from another country, and while the country's not as tightly regulated as China, it definitely is much more restricted than current US' stance on censorship. No passive advertisement (all names of stores are censored, even on the shows where the program tells about great restaurants, are censored and pretty much have no idea what that restaurant is, and so on.), and very, VERY overprotective - to the point of restrictive - on the topic of sex.

I'm going to say, though, it's on a borderline, but still on the protective side. while US is seen as a everything-goes, who-gives-a-sh#$-about-your-opinions country by other places, it still has good enough censorship laws and rules where the media, or people ultimately, won't expose young children to harmful content (sex, at least, and violence is pretty much self-regulated), and keep most of the public off of information that they have no business with. I like how everything is right at the moment, although I do flinch when I hear the word "bitch" on few channels, the whole thing is going good on the t.

On the topic of hiding goverment secrets from people, I think the government is doing a good job of keeping it regulated at the moment. information, like everything else, is a free market - unless it's an information where it could do damage to foreign relations or national security or something, the secrets are revealed eventually to the public. My opinion is that revealing those secrets are for the select number of people: the news team, etc. normal people who have regular jobs won't be doing anything even if the government fed them all the information they could possibly want. It would probably create national fear more than anything (in the case of national debt, it's climbing and climbing, and people are saying Obama will have paid if he was elected - Republicans got us into this mess - but do they realize no country will ask straight up for the money right at the moment, because US is a very powerful force in international business, and the world's market would probably sink if US tried to pay those debt as much as they can and belly-up?). Following up on the info= free market idea, I think the gov't/press will control tehmselves, and they're doing exactly that, no matter how twisted and turned the results that people spout from their mouth, to the borderline point where people will be content with the information they get and start not to get rebellious from the notion that their politicians, leaders and the press might be hiding something omportant from them.

I also believe that the public, at least the majority anyway, will have no use even if the government fed everyone all of the protected/restricted information. Their daily job does not require them to know this, and it never will, that's why they have separate jobs as politicians, newscasters, and so on.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 27, 2010)

Blood Fetish said:
			
		

> "Sex offenders" are a huge can of worms. Why do rapists and murderers serve their time and get out, while "sex offenders" pay for their crime for life? I do not agree that a child molester should have his name, picture, etc posted publicly for life: ensuring they never escape their past or rehabilitate (also putting their life in danger). If you believe any criminal with a chance of recidivism should be put on a list for life, then every single criminal on Earth would be on lists.
> 
> Punishment of crime is one of the few cases my opinion would be considered "right leaning" politically.  Personally I believe that if a sex offender with a history of repeat offences is released into a community then the community should be warned.  This should of course only ever be on release and never for someone who has only committed the crime on a singular occasion.  Other conditions should be taken into account as well of course.
> 
> QUOTE(CCNaru @ Aug 27 2010, 04:12 AM) *very interesting post snipped for readability



Sorry to sound like a nosey parker but what country is that?  I'm guessing from the way described the censorship of sex that it's a country with a high amount of religion?


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Aug 27, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Punishment of crime is one of the few cases my opinion would be considered "right leaning" politically.  Personally I believe that if a sex offender with a history of repeat offences is released into a community then the community should be warned.  This should of course only ever be on release and never for someone who has only committed the crime on a singular occasion.  Other conditions should be taken into account as well of course.




I agree with this, but I also think it should be based on the severity of the offense. If they tortured the child first, I'd say he deserved it and shouldn't be released.
At the same time, I think rapists should get the same punishment as child molesters.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 27, 2010)

phoenixgoddess27 said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I lump all sex offenders together, so a rapist would be considered the same as a child molester.  Personally I also don't think there should be any segregation in prisons for sex offenders, they should be put in genpop along with all the other prisoners.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Aug 27, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> I lump all sex offenders together, so a rapist would be considered the same as a child molester.  Personally I also don't think there should be any segregation in prisons for sex offenders, they should be put in genpop along with all the other prisoners.



I agree, but when it comes to people in prison, they don't think any of their crimes are as bad as the crimes of a child molester, so to keep them alive, they get taken out of general pop.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 27, 2010)

phoenixgoddess27 said:
			
		

> I agree, but when it comes to people in prison, they don't think any of their crimes are as bad as the crimes of a child molester, so to keep them alive, they get taken out of general pop.



I know why they're segregated, I just don't believe they should be.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 27, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> I lump all sex offenders together



While I have not read the thread thus far and I see where you are coming from the person browbeaten into accepting a caution or pleading out against their best interests (I am sure you of all people I do not have to list examples of police underhandedness for) can land themselves on the register or worse as can a person taking a leak on the way back from the pub (which is surely not in the same league as other possibilities) and there are other ways to this end.

Anyhow off I go to read the thread.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 27, 2010)

FAST6191 said:
			
		

> TrolleyDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very true, but in this case it's just a representation of my own personal definition.  I lump rapists and child molesters together.  I also personally don't think anyone should be put on the register until they've committed a couple of serious offences and show no sign of rehabilitation or intent to.  Although when people in positions of power and automatic trust (teachers, judges and cops) get lifted they should immediately be put on the register.


----------



## CCNaru (Aug 27, 2010)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> CCNaru said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



South Korea. There is a high amount of religion, yes, but religion does not impact censorship at all here, surprisingly. I guess it's general, overall mentality of older generation passed down to force harsh censorship on most importantly, fun, like entertainment and stuff (couldn't have english names in an artist (singers, etc) at one point, curfew, couldn't show tattoos (still happening), it's toned down but it was still prevalent 20-30 years ago.)

I currently live in US so it's definitely a change, but since I was raised that way I do have a little bit of a different viewpoint than say, someone who was raised here or moved from another country.

Also I don't mind offenders being registered for first offense, myself. Maybe the news highlights that it's always the repeat offenders who commit these crimes, I'm certainly buying that these offenders have a different mindset... I don't think they'll change immediately, give or take 10-20 years at least... it's veryp lausible that they'll commit these crimes again when given the chance.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 27, 2010)

TrolleyDave said:
			
		

> Punishment of crime is one of the few cases my opinion would be considered "right leaning" politically.  Personally I believe that if a sex offender with a history of repeat offences is released into a community then the community should be warned.  This should of course only ever be on release and never for someone who has only committed the crime on a singular occasion.  Other conditions should be taken into account as well of course.


There is a balance to be struck between the public's bloodlust for vengeance and what is best for society as a whole. Harsh punishments such as serious jail time result in *higher* rates of recidivism than lesser sentences which focus on actual rehabilitation. Every time we punish someone unnecessarily we are making all of us a little bit less safe.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 27, 2010)

There are quite a lot of studies regarding different aspects of recidivism.

Here is a good one for example:
http://dpscs.md.gov/publicinfo/publication...udy-summary.pdf

If you Google "studies on recidivism" you'll find more PDFs than you can shake a stick at. The TL;DR of most of them is that money spent on education and rehabilitation is considerably more effective at avoiding recidivism and lowering crime rates, and that harsh punishment (including the death penalty) does not serve as a deterrent to others.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Aug 28, 2010)

CCNaru said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can only really speak for Britain here so it might not relate to the US.  Over here though the justice system has become a real joke.  Teenagers getting caught committing crime can get up to 30 cautions before they see the inside of a courtroom, and sometimes even an interview room.  I believe that some kind of punishment should be dispensed on the first offence.  It doesn't have to be incarceration.  I'm more thinking along the lines of fines for both the kid and the parents, plus a punishment fitting the crime.  So say a kid gets caught committing vandalism the kid would then be sentence to a couple of hundred hours of community service like cleaning graffiti off walls, painting houses etc.

And harsher prison sentences doesn't necessarily mean longer bird.  Over here prisoners are allowed tellies and radios in their cell, if your sentence is long enough you're allowed games consoles and other liberties.  Personally I don't think any of that should be allowed.  All the prisoner should have access to for entertainment is books.  I'm also all for education while in prison.  It's all they should really be entitled to.  I'm not even that keen on them having access to exercise equipment like weights.  I'm all for exercise, but it should be an hour in the yard in a similar way to how gym is in school.  Like a giant aerobics class type thing.  Basically the should be deprived any of the "extras" we get on the outside.

I know lots of ex-offenders and current offenders, and they all agree on one thing - the UK prison system, and justice system in general, has become a joke and "overly liberal".

Although this all kind of takes the thread off topic it's an interesting discussion.  Maybe JetKun could add "The prison and reform system" as a debate topic.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Aug 28, 2010)

If there's one thing the US leads the way on (besides defense spending) it is imprisoning people. We have less than 5% of the world population, but over 25% of all the prisoners. Prisons are privatized, and it is a huge industry.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2010)

someone please lock! thanks!


----------

