They may have left something, but it may not have been discovered. If you think the authorities find something every time, you're sorely mistaken.

Who wants to start a poll? The question: Should Sidhe reopen her forum?

There is nothing wrong with a simplistic view of things when it IS simple.

And the eye for an eye civilization didn't fail; we got rid of it because we wanted to be more sympathetic to the criminals, rather than the victims. If we still had forms of public humiliation, I'll bet we wouldn't have as many repeat offenders. But noooo....we don't want to give them low self-esteem....

I'm also not advocating sterilization per se...however, I see nothing wrong with enforced birth control for child molesters, child abusers, and drug abusers who have a history of giving birth to addicted children.


And there's no need to namecall merely because I don't agree with your opinion. I thought you had more class than that.

Nope, I didn't say that. However, authorities generally don't close their eyes, spin around, and point to pick out a suspect, either. There's usually something to cause them to look at a particular person, or people.

Fair enough. But you did make a rather unusual claim. You honestly have never heard of a case where no physical evidence was left? Because it does happen.

Yes, I've heard of a few cases in which no DNA evidence was found. Not to say that it wasn't there, but it just wasn't found. However, other evidence was found that helped the police to focus on a small group of people.

For instance, Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker. He was hard to catch merely because he was a serial killer who did not have any particular preference in victims; there was other evidence that helped to find him, though. Not the least of which was that he couldn't keep his mouth shut. That's more common than people think.

Back to the subject of the thread, though, for those who don't agree with enforced birth control, what DO you think should be done with reference to child abusers, child molesters, and drug addicts who have a history of giving birth to addicted babies?

Just keep on letting them have kids? I don't understand what you feel should be done to protect these children.

Many have expressed (in the death penalty thread) that we should start with the children to prevent crime. But if we continue to allow abusers and molesters to have children, then we'll continue to have criminals who were abused or molested as children and use this as an excuse to avoid culpability. And the drug-addicted babies--they'll have mental and physical problems for the rest of their lives...what about them?


Sdihe

firstly, it was a howard stern reference. i forget that while he's a lot of places, you may not listen to him.

secondly, i wasn't calling you a moron because you disagree. i was calling you a moron because you are a moron.

thirdly, if you had any clue, you'd know that i am not above name calling, and have very little class.

seventh, you know as well as I do that you frustrate me because you open up discussions about random shit, preach about it, and refuse to listen when the things you have obviously overlooked or discounted are brought to yuor attention. I enjoy a good argument, but trying to talk to you is like berating my cat.

( i left out 4th, 5th, and 6th to make you wonder about the things that are going unsaid here.)

I listen. Doesn't mean I have to change my original opinion, though. Merely because people disagree doesn't mean that the reasons behind that disagreement are strong enough to change my original opinion.

I'm not for indiscriminately throwing people in prison or enforcing birth control. But when someone confesses to a crime, or are caught on videotape, or are otherwise nailed to the wall, I believe they should be punished. When people have histories of abusing, molesting, or exposing to drugs innocent children, I believe they should not be able to have kids. That doesn't make me a moron.

All I ever hear about are the rights of the prisoners, as if they're all innocent. Very rarely does anyone stand up for the rights of the victims. Whenever I put up something like the death penalty thread, the victims are thrown out the window in favor of the criminals. And the title of that thread, btw, is "Why the death penalty should be enforced," not why it shouldn't be enforced, and therefore I place comments and information there upholding that opinion. I'm not forcing anyone to read or agree or uphold my opinion, merely stating it and bringing reasons for that opinion to the attention of others.

In a criminal case the victim has no rights with regard to the accused. The state is the absolute proxy. The victims aren't at the mercy of the state, so their rights aren't relevant.

What she motherfucking said! :D

I was thinking the same thing. They have all these programs out there that shows how far crime solving has come in the last...what 20-30 some odd years and how they can pick up a "fingerprint" of some sort from just about any crime scene, even when it may appear that no evidence can be found. *shrugs*

Now hon, in all fairness, how many times have we watched something like "Forensic Files" and they manage to find something in the most unlikely of places? I know you are not saying just because nothing was found that nothing CAN be found...right?

XOXO :D

It's people like LadySyc who daily renew my faith that the human race will not degenerate into a "what else can we do for the criminal to make jail a warmer, fuzzier place" society.

:beer:


Sidhe

Ah, once again, television comes to rebut the troublesome cold-hard facts.