IIRC, there’s a high recidivism rate for most violent crimes, except murders of passion. There’s a drop-off after age 40 or so, there’s some evidence that addressing cognitive deficits (i.e. fucked-up thinking) and life skills (i.e. keeping a job and getting by in society) can reduce recidivism, and there’s been some successful work with treatment programmes for pedophilia.

I spent a couple of months once reading through material relating to recidivism and risk factors (helping categorise and organise a specialist library). There’s the potential to reduce a lot of human misery if a society can just address recidivism and reintegrating criminals effectively.

I’d have to dig out the stats again, and it’s been a long time since I read them when I worked for Justice. IIRC, the deterrent effects of sentences relies mainly on perceptions of getting caught - if sentences are “tough”, then the actual length of sentence doesn’t matter that much, but the (perceived) chances of getting convicted do.

This ignores, of course, the theoretical legal principle of proportionality, which would better equate rape with GBH or aggravated assault, and the practical legal problems for both the prosecution and conduct of such cases - prosecuters would be less likely to bring rape charges alone to trial, the defense would be more likely to require a trial and less likely to plea, and the courts would be more likely to require better protection for defendents.

The idea of imposing a really harsh sentence, while emotionally satisfying, is at odds with the goal of increasing convictions. You cannot both deal with the inherent problems of making it easier to get a conviction in the typical “he said she said” situation and substantially increase the penalty for those convictions.

If you want to increase conviction rates, get rid of or decrease the War on Drugs and channel some of those funds into dealing with sexual assault.

That doesn’t even remotely make sense.

You’re just not very smart, are you?

I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m just pointing out that the misogyny that drives a man to rape probably shouldn’t be given and excuse to kill too…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t rapists/sex offenders have a high recidivism rate?

Add incompetent and stupid to the list.

Of course, if you include murder there’s one less witness…

Good thinking, Einstein.”

That doesn’t even remotely make sense.

But *WHAT* a surprise, the rape apologist getting all upset about someone not apologising for rapists.

Piss off, asshat.

I’ve often wondered whether the christian prohibitions against suicide were put in place precisely to counter a possible tendency to skip “real” life and head straight for the after-life. The way they build up heaven makes it sound so attractive…(ummmm, heaven!…)

‘Course that’s just crazy talk. I mean, they didn’t even HAVE bunk beds, Nikes, and purple shrouds back in the day…

Or that Huckabee lied about receiving the testimony of women about the case in question?

Why are you pretending that these are two separate issues? Huckabee tried to cover up that he’d received the testimony because it showed that he ignored it and the rest of the facts in favor of his whacked-out conspiracy theory.

I won’t care overmuch if President Kucinich launches a sympathetic investigation of the 9-11 “truth” nonsense; I will be very concerned if he pretends that the physicists and engineers who send him rebuttal material, never did that.

I would be extremely worried if President Kucinich started making public policy based on what 9/11 whackos think happened. Pretending that he didn’t receive the rebuttal would only be additional proof of irrationality.

There’s a difference between believing something weird and taking concrete steps based on that belief. To use a non-political example, a lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens, but only a few of them joined the Heaven’s Gate cult.

I don’t think anyone is saying this and I’m not sure where you got it. I’m not sure what sort of strawperson you’re trying to conjure, but at this point you’re really flailing.

Huckabee’s partisanship directly contributed to his decision, which directly contributed to the rape and murder of at least one woman. That makes his partisanship in this instance pretty damned evil.

That Huckabee made a political decision based on some whacked-out conspiracy theory?

Or that Huckabee lied about receiving the testimony of women about the case in question?

To me, the latter is far, far worse. “Whacked-out conspiracy theory” is a matter of opinion. “Lied about the testimony of rape survivors” is pretty objective. I won’t care overmuch if President Kucinich launches a sympathetic investigation of the 9-11 “truth” nonsense; I will be very concerned if he pretends that the physicists and engineers who send him rebuttal material, never did that.

One is a difference of opinion - in the Dumond case, admittedly, an opinion that is pretty far-fetched and stupid. And that does reflect on him - but I would not be standing up if the statement to the audience was “stand up if you’ve never believed something far-fetched and stupid”, and I doubt many people here would, either.

The other is shitting on the testimony of raped women and trying to literally disappear them from the record. That’s monstrous.

Is adhering to a stupid political paranoid fantasy REALLY worse than being a moral monster? Are we THAT partisan?