Wide spead abuse

It pains me to read this and even post it, but, just as in the case with Priests, the light is where these things should be:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/ny...pagewanted=all

And exerpt:
A New York Times investigation over the past year has found widespread problems in the more than 2,000 state-run homes. In hundreds of cases reviewed by The Times, employees who sexually abused, beat or taunted residents were rarely fired, even after repeated offenses, and in many cases, were simply transferred to other group homes run by the state.

And, despite a state law requiring that incidents in which a crime may have been committed be reported to law enforcement, such referrals are rare: State records show that of some 13,000 allegations of abuse in 2009 within state-operated and licensed homes, fewer than 5 percent were referred to law enforcement. The hundreds of files examined by The Times contained shocking examples of abuse of residents with conditions like Down syndrome, autism and cerebral palsy.

Anyone who abuses people disabled like that should be skinned alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue

Anyone who abuses people disabled like that should be skinned alive.

---

you can't stop abuse with more abuse.

that's a disconnect.

In my opinion there should be a higher standard for teachers and care givers than there is for police, fire or medics.

But it is regarded as a nuisance job much like daycare and you have people working with people for low dollar and not much in the way of incentive to be not only a great care giver, but a great employee.

Because costs are virtually always in place as a factor, there will be people who will suffer. If you look at a person as anything other than a person, the failure and breakdown will occur.

the state doesn't regard people as human beings. They are citizens and they are numbered and they are either legal or not.

Most businesses are this way.

People need to care more about each other. Even caring about the bad people and seeking ways to reform them.

It is a greater work to turn a man around than to put him in the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Jamieson

you can't stop abuse with more abuse.

---

How would a abuser continue abusing if he was skinned alive following his first offence???

Think before you speak, man!:D

For nasty crimes such as this you need short, sharp and heavy deterents for the short term. For the longer term you can improve education and staff screening and so on, but you need the Yang with the Yin!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardwork108

How would a abuser continue abusing if he was skinned alive following his first offence???

Think before you speak, man!:D

---

WTF???

you get hit in the head lately???








all group homes have problems... everyone i have ever known that spent any time at any group home was either abused in some way or they were the ones gettin over on the house... not nice places, at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn7

WTF???

you get hit in the head lately???

---

Just saying that if you punish a criminal harshly, then he will not commit the crime again, specially if he is skinned alive.

Hey, I am just trying to talk some sense into David Jamieson....it never works, but I will always keep trying....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn7

all group homes have problems... everyone i have ever known that spent any time at any group home was either abused in some way or they were the ones gettin over on the house... not nice places, at all...

---

If what you say is true, then we are talking about sick societies that need to be cured!

While the emotion response is typically that most satisfying, it rarely is the most effective.
Fact is that punishment is a deterrent only to a certain extent, even capital punishment.
Abusers of all sorts are attracted to certain professions, like the priesthood and the above ones in the article, and to certain volunteer work where they h ave easy access to their victims.
I know of at least one case of a young man that went into the priesthood hoping to have his problem fixed or controlled and of course, that didn't work and he ended up abusing ( he got professional help and while still a priest he does NOT get involved with children at all and yes, he did his time also).
We need to be better at finding the causes, making sure these people do NOT get into positions of trust and access, make sure those that have been found with this disease get the help they need.
AND we must make sure that when caught, they are punished.
Punishment must be part of he process, if not for the sick person, for the victims and survivors.

yeah but how do you identify them early and what do you do to them once you think youve found a candidate for some sort of pre-emptive agenda???

do you think we should be doing genetic screens on all babies born and logging that info??? there are so many implications there... one could be targeted for all sorts of things... and insurance companies would descriminate... law agencies would be more inclined to find you guilty if they believed you were predisposed to such an act anyways... its the very reason why you can only present evidence relevant to the case in a criminal trial... but we can show habitual evidence... its not a giant leap to include genetics... but we arent there yet, scientifically... we have alot of ideas, but we arent 100% sure about everything genetic... it hasnt been that long since we cracked the human genome...

dont get me wrong, im all for preventative measures... im just not sure how it should be done... i dont like the idea of big government getting that far into my head... to do this you would have to create an agency to do the actual work and then on top of that you would need a sh!tload of oversight... the government already has enough control over our lives as it is...

if the only answer was involuntary genetic screens, i'd rather just take my chances... like we've been doing for the last 100,000 years... so far we havent done so bad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn7

yeah but how do you identify them early and what do you do to them once you think youve found a candidate for some sort of pre-emptive agenda???

do you think we should be doing genetic screens on all babies born and logging that info??? there are so many implications there... one could be targeted for all sorts of things... and insurance companies would descriminate... law agencies would be more inclined to find you guilty if they believed you were predisposed to such an act anyways... its the very reason why you can only present evidence relevant to the case in a criminal trial... but we can show habitual evidence... its not a giant leap to include genetics... but we arent there yet, scientifically... we have alot of ideas, but we arent 100% sure about everything genetic... it hasnt been that long since we cracked the human genome...

dont get me wrong, im all for preventative measures... im just not sure how it should be done... i dont like the idea of big government getting that far into my head... to do this you would have to create an agency to do the actual work and then on top of that you would need a sh!tload of oversight... the government already has enough control over our lives as it is...

if the only answer was involuntary genetic screens, i'd rather just take my chances... like we've been doing for the last 100,000 years... so far we havent done so bad...

---

Nothing so Orelean.
The issue with any mental disorder is prevention AND cure.
If we are to find that pedophila and the tendancy to sexually and physically abuse is SOLELY a learned behavior, then that would be the easy thing to fix.
It seems that it is a combination of both and as such, dealing with only one part won't work.
IF there is a genetic issue and that issue can be identified earlier on, then we can help sooner rather than later and perhaps in prevent a crime.
Not a bad thing eh?
Heck, I am sure that any alchollic would tell you that if he/she had know that they had the potential to be one that they would have take the proper steps NOT to be one ( if the steps were there for them to take).

And as this thread and article shows ( and history), no, we haven't been doing OK at all.

short of mandatory genetic screening, how do you find that out???

so how long before we find ways to persecute people over their genes..? before we start segregating and splitting people up into more groups than we already have... its so divisive... and that info can potentially be used against you in so many ways later on in your life...

making these screens mandatory on newborns would be a huge attack on personal liberties... the government shouldnt be able to force you to do anything like that... even the small things we have now, i disagree with... like, if vaccines were mandatory i would be super pi$sed off... ive never had one and if i ever do have one it will be because i made that choice... anyone who tries to force a needle into me gets the nasty end of my 12 guage...


and im still willing to take my chances... just handle your biz, and you should be fine... sh1t happens, deal with it... i am so not worried about people raping my kids... its something i 'll keep an eye on and be aware of, but its not gonna keep me up at night... having big government reach further into my life is NOT the answer for anything...

im all for education... its the only way to go about any of these social ills... dont make drugs illegal, make people understand why they are bad... we havent done a very good job of that so far... we tell them its bad and think thats enough... SHOW them... make a field trip into the skids and see people pulling scabs off their faces... take a walk down an alley and let em enjoy the smell and point out some makeshift homes crackheads sleep in... not just some cheesy video and some reformed junkie putting everyone to sleep in some class nobody wanted to attend in the first place...

You are making this a far bigger issue that it is bro, doctors ALREADY screen for lots of genetic issues, even when the child is still in the development stage.
There is no persecution.
IF indeed pedophila is a disease that can be screened, WHY on earth would You or anyone else have issues with that?
Do you have issues with screening for cancer? diabetes? parkinsons ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

You are making this a far bigger issue that it is bro, doctors ALREADY screen for lots of genetic issues, even when the child is still in the development stage.
There is no persecution.
IF indeed pedophila is a disease that can be screened, WHY on earth would You or anyone else have issues with that?
Do you have issues with screening for cancer? diabetes? parkinsons ?

---

I am not certain the "crime gene" exists.
There hasn't been anything but theory around it and it's coming from a different source than actual geneticists.

But, if it is found to be true, then screening for criminal probability seems like a good idea provided the proof is in place, can be demonstrated repetitively and can be shown to be 100% correct or at the very least five 9's effective.

In which case there can be all sorts of alternatives worked out regarding the raising of a criminally probable child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin

You are making this a far bigger issue that it is bro, doctors ALREADY screen for lots of genetic issues, even when the child is still in the development stage.
There is no persecution.
IF indeed pedophila is a disease that can be screened, WHY on earth would You or anyone else have issues with that?
Do you have issues with screening for cancer? diabetes? parkinsons ?

---

mandatory screenings??? yeah, i have a HUGE problem with that...

as far as people choosing to be screened, sure...

my issue has nothing to do with pedophilia...

and with geneology, i'd sure hate to see some kid have to spend years in preventative councilling over a theory... you think insurance would pay for that "treatment"??? mandatory genetic screenings are a potential disaster from an insurance perspective... imagine, youre 25 you have this great new job and a sweet family and you get denied for coverage because of a test you were forced to take 25 years earlier??? think it wont happen? and thats just one small issue that comes to mind as i type... there are more, just think it thru and they'll show themselves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Jamieson

I am not certain the "crime gene" exists.
There hasn't been anything but theory around it and it's coming from a different source than actual geneticists.

But, if it is found to be true, then screening for criminal probability seems like a good idea provided the proof is in place, can be demonstrated repetitively and can be shown to be 100% correct or at the very least five 9's effective.

In which case there can be all sorts of alternatives worked out regarding the raising of a criminally probable child.

---

i'd have to see overwhelming evidence before i'd let that happen without a fight... as of now, i am anything but satisfied...


i find genetics very interesting and im all for research, but i know enough to know that we dont know much... we're barely ankle deep in this stuff... we arent anywhere near where we need to be to create any sort of reliable screening...