That doesn't seem so obvious to me. It seems to me this bill might hurt dozens of model prisoners to prevent a few psychopaths from communicating with potential love partners. Just because it is...
"In recent years, we have seen distasteful examples of inmates who have committed bestial crimes being contacted by very young people to gain their sympathy and attention.
"Of course, we have to stop that."
That doesn't seem so obvious to me. It seems to me this bill might hurt dozens of model prisoners to prevent a few psychopaths from communicating with potential love partners. Just because it is "distasteful". Sorry, but "distasteful" doesn't cut it.
"Distasteful" is a politically correct way to say that these individuals, having committed heinous crimes and judged that they need complete removal from society, have fan groups formed around...
"Distasteful" is a politically correct way to say that these individuals, having committed heinous crimes and judged that they need complete removal from society, have fan groups formed around them and either manipulate people or have otherwise mentally unwell individuals latch onto them.
Their punishment means they have no right to be rewarded for their newfound infamousness.
Also worth keeping in mind is that in Denmark a "life sentence" is pretty rare, and despite the terminology it very rarely ends up leading to imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural...
Also worth keeping in mind is that in Denmark a "life sentence" is pretty rare, and despite the terminology it very rarely ends up leading to imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life. See: Wikipedia on Life imprisonment in Denmark
Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment serve an average of 17 years. A person with a life sentence will not be released if it is considered likely that the offender will recommit. This means that some offenders have served a considerably longer time than the average and in recent history there are four where this has surpassed 30 years: Naum Conevski (34 years as of 2018, still incarcerated in the closed unit of Sankt Hans Hospital), Palle Sørensen (33 years, released in 1998), Seth Sethsen (32 years as of 2018, still incarcerated) and William Brorson (32 years, released in 1978).
On average, slightly more than one person receives a life sentence each year (14 from 2006 to 2018), and in 2015 there were a total of 21 people serving a life sentence.
So this is a lot less drastic a measure, and effects far less prisoners, than most here would probably assume.
As much as I think our society's tendency to idolize serial killers if they're good-looking or social butterflies is distasteful and frankly hypocritical, I don't think we should be punishing...
As much as I think our society's tendency to idolize serial killers if they're good-looking or social butterflies is distasteful and frankly hypocritical, I don't think we should be punishing prisoners serving life sentences by controlling who they can/cannot socialise with on release just because hybristophilia is a thing.
It's new romantic relationships. As in relationships with mentally unwell individuals that fetishize people that commit heinous crimes. If they have one prior to imprisonment, as in one that isn't...
It's new romantic relationships. As in relationships with mentally unwell individuals that fetishize people that commit heinous crimes. If they have one prior to imprisonment, as in one that isn't the result of their crimes, then they can conjugate all they please.
Prison is punishment for a crime. Punishment means you no longer get the same privileges/rights as those that follow the law.
But they're banning all relationships, not just those with "unwell individuals" (and I would think that any such system evaluating such relationships would be fraught with problems as well). Yes,...
relationships with mentally unwell individuals that fetishize people that commit heinous crimes
But they're banning all relationships, not just those with "unwell individuals" (and I would think that any such system evaluating such relationships would be fraught with problems as well).
Prison is punishment for a crime.
Yes, but the question we have to ask is if such punishment is proportional or necessary to the crime. (Not to mention that punitive legal systems are unethical anyway). I'm not arguing that it's illegal for them to do this, I'm arguing that it's unethical for them to do this. Also, you could use your second point there to excuse any amount of heinous punishments for any crime, no matter how benign the crime or how unjust the law.
It's only for the first decade of their sentence. It, per the ministry's statement, would limit the ability of people with life sentences from “dating or giving publicity to their crimes, for...
But they're banning all relationships, not just those with "unwell individuals" (and I would think that any such system evaluating such relationships would be fraught with problems as well).
It's only for the first decade of their sentence.
It, per the ministry's statement, would limit the ability of people with life sentences from “dating or giving publicity to their crimes, for example on social media”.
No one is just strolling into a prison for a coffee, happen to catch the eye of someone through the bars while adding sugar to their order, and falls madly in love at first sight. These people are seeking out imprisoned individuals because of their infamy. They're either in the "he's misunderstood" or "I can fix him" camp or their in the manipulated camp. So call it a law to define what privileges you lose by being imprisoned or call it a law to prevent abuse by known manipulators and the easily manipulated. Potato, potato.
Yes, but the question we have to ask is if such punishment is proportional or necessary to the crime. (Not to mention that punitive legal systems are unethical anyway). I'm not arguing that it's illegal for them to do this, I'm arguing that it's unethical for them to do this.
Denmark's system is largely restorative, but even the most restorative legal system still supports punishment as discouragement from committing further harm.
Also, you could use your second point there to excuse any amount of heinous punishments for any crime, no matter how benign the crime or how unjust the law.
Logical fallacy. No one is supporting "heinous punishments" (not that this is one) for benign crimes.
The ultimate question here is: should the state be able to regulate what type of relationships prisoners are allowed to have? I say the answer is clearly no. Such practices are akin to making...
The ultimate question here is: should the state be able to regulate what type of relationships prisoners are allowed to have? I say the answer is clearly no. Such practices are akin to making interracial or homosexual relationships illegal, and no such policy should be put in place, even if it is well-intentioned (as it seems to be in this case).
I think that such practices are more akin to banning pedophilia and self-harm fetishes. I think that prison is essentially the state regulating a prisoner's relationships with others to prevent...
I think that such practices are more akin to banning pedophilia and self-harm fetishes.
should the state be able to regulate what type of relationships prisoners are allowed to have?
I think that prison is essentially the state regulating a prisoner's relationships with others to prevent the prisoner from harming others. Imprisonment is the severing of the free relations that free individuals get to enjoy and are trusted to not grossly abuse.
I think that in our culture most people would agree that sexually-romantically pursuing someone because they're a serial killer goes far, far beyond being a mere sexual-romantic preference or behavioral-personality eccentricity and instead reflects a mentally unwell state. And as such, hybristophiles should be protected from being emotionally exploited by psychopaths.
Are self-harm practices illegal? Do we fine or arrest those who, say, cut themselves? Do we imprison those with severe depression? Of course not, we should try to help them through therapeutic and...
I think that such practices are more akin to banning pedophilia and self-harm fetishes.
Are self-harm practices illegal? Do we fine or arrest those who, say, cut themselves? Do we imprison those with severe depression? Of course not, we should try to help them through therapeutic and medicinal solutions.
I think that in our culture most people would agree that sexually-romantically pursuing someone because they're a serial killer goes far, far beyond being a mere sexual-romantic preference or behavioral-personality eccentricity and instead reflects a mentally unwell state. And as such, hybristophiles should be protected from being emotionally exploited by psychopaths.
This is absolutely true. But this policy doesn't just do that. It takes away every prisoner's right to engage romantically with others, regardless of whether that other person is a hybristophile.
Which is what the law is doing. It's equivalent to preventing someone that commits self-harm from accessing to the things they use to harm themselves. Not every prisoner, just those sentenced to...
Are self-harm practices illegal? Do we fine or arrest those who, say, cut themselves? Do we imprison those with severe depression? Of course not, we should try to help them through therapeutic and medicinal solutions.
Which is what the law is doing. It's equivalent to preventing someone that commits self-harm from accessing to the things they use to harm themselves.
But this policy doesn't just do that. It takes away every prisoner's right to engage romantically with others, regardless of whether that other person is a hybristophile.
Not every prisoner, just those sentenced to life.
The number of people seeking out an infamous prisoner for a romantic relationship after their imprisonment that isn't a hybristophile is going to be indistinguishable from zero.
I think I'm going to need a source on that one before we start taking these people's fundamental human rights away and doing eugenics.
The number of people seeking out an infamous prisoner for a romantic relationship after their imprisonment that isn't a hybristophile is going to be indistinguishable from zero.
I think I'm going to need a source on that one before we start taking these people's fundamental human rights away and doing eugenics.
I'm not sure if that's a genuine question, but a relationship between two consenting adults is different than a relationship between an adult and a child.
I'm not sure if that's a genuine question, but a relationship between two consenting adults is different than a relationship between an adult and a child.
It's a genuine question. So let's go with you saying 'yes' to the question. To simplify the question: Should the state do anything to prevent a relationship between a known abuser and their victim?
It's a genuine question.
So let's go with you saying 'yes' to the question.
What is the difference between a relationship with an adult and a child and an adult and another mentally unwell and easily manipulated adult?
To simplify the question: Should the state do anything to prevent a relationship between a known abuser and their victim?
They should work on preventing the abuse and not say that the adult cannot have any relationship at all. Stating that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having any relationship is eugenics. And...
They should work on preventing the abuse and not say that the adult cannot have any relationship at all. Stating that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having any relationship is eugenics.
And all of this is moot anyway because this policy doesn't just target abusive relationships, it targets any relationship after they went into prison. It's casting too wide a net.
Which is what the law is in place to do. No one is saying, that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having a relationship. What is clear, is that a mentally ill adult should not be given easy...
They should work on preventing the abuse and not say that the adult cannot have any relationship at all. Stating that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having any relationship is eugenics.
Which is what the law is in place to do. No one is saying, that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having a relationship. What is clear, is that a mentally ill adult should not be given easy access to a known abuser.
And all of this is moot anyway because this policy doesn't just target abusive relationships, it targets any relationship after they went into prison. It's casting too wide a net.
Incorrect. As has already been stated, it's to prevent dating between sentenced-to-life prisoners (known abusers) and the mentally ill individuals that would seek them out.
Where in the article does it say it only prevents relationships between sentenced-to-life prisoners and mentally ill individuals? I know that's the intent of the law, but it seems that it's...
Where in the article does it say it only prevents relationships between sentenced-to-life prisoners and mentally ill individuals? I know that's the intent of the law, but it seems that it's preventing relationships between sentenced-to-life prisoners and anyone they met after going to prison.
The article does say that those with a life sentence are only forbidden from new relationships and not forcing them to cut all ties with partners from before their sentencing. I haven’t done any...
The article does say that those with a life sentence are only forbidden from new relationships and not forcing them to cut all ties with partners from before their sentencing.
I haven’t done any research into it but I wasn’t particularly under the impression that people serving out a life sentence were exactly reproducing like rabbits before this law came out?
Just because it doesn't affect many people doesn't make the practice of eugenics wrong. Even if it only affects a group of people where only 1% of that population has children, it's still...
Just because it doesn't affect many people doesn't make the practice of eugenics wrong. Even if it only affects a group of people where only 1% of that population has children, it's still eugenics, regardless of the scale.
I think I've clearly demonstrated how this is akin to eugenics, so I'm not really sure how you can say that it has no basis in reality. And the reason why I'm so intent about this is because I am...
I think I've clearly demonstrated how this is akin to eugenics, so I'm not really sure how you can say that it has no basis in reality. And the reason why I'm so intent about this is because I am always very alarmed when the state tries to control who people can and cannot have relationships with.
That doesn't seem so obvious to me. It seems to me this bill might hurt dozens of model prisoners to prevent a few psychopaths from communicating with potential love partners. Just because it is "distasteful". Sorry, but "distasteful" doesn't cut it.
"Distasteful" is a politically correct way to say that these individuals, having committed heinous crimes and judged that they need complete removal from society, have fan groups formed around them and either manipulate people or have otherwise mentally unwell individuals latch onto them.
Their punishment means they have no right to be rewarded for their newfound infamousness.
Also worth keeping in mind is that in Denmark a "life sentence" is pretty rare, and despite the terminology it very rarely ends up leading to imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life. See:
Wikipedia on Life imprisonment in Denmark
So this is a lot less drastic a measure, and effects far less prisoners, than most here would probably assume.
As much as I think our society's tendency to idolize serial killers if they're good-looking or social butterflies is distasteful and frankly hypocritical, I don't think we should be punishing prisoners serving life sentences by controlling who they can/cannot socialise with on release just because hybristophilia is a thing.
It's not on release. It's while in prison.
This is absolutely abhorrent. It's nothing less than eugenics, and it should be reported as such.
I'm not seeing the connection. How do you come to the conclusion that this is eugenics/on par with eugenics?
It's essentially banning a group of people from reproducing. How is that not eugenics?
It's new romantic relationships. As in relationships with mentally unwell individuals that fetishize people that commit heinous crimes. If they have one prior to imprisonment, as in one that isn't the result of their crimes, then they can conjugate all they please.
Prison is punishment for a crime. Punishment means you no longer get the same privileges/rights as those that follow the law.
But they're banning all relationships, not just those with "unwell individuals" (and I would think that any such system evaluating such relationships would be fraught with problems as well).
Yes, but the question we have to ask is if such punishment is proportional or necessary to the crime. (Not to mention that punitive legal systems are unethical anyway). I'm not arguing that it's illegal for them to do this, I'm arguing that it's unethical for them to do this. Also, you could use your second point there to excuse any amount of heinous punishments for any crime, no matter how benign the crime or how unjust the law.
Denmark's system is largely restorative, but even the most restorative legal system still supports punishment as discouragement from committing further harm.
Logical fallacy. No one is supporting "heinous punishments" (not that this is one) for benign crimes.
Edit: an word
The ultimate question here is: should the state be able to regulate what type of relationships prisoners are allowed to have? I say the answer is clearly no. Such practices are akin to making interracial or homosexual relationships illegal, and no such policy should be put in place, even if it is well-intentioned (as it seems to be in this case).
I think that such practices are more akin to banning pedophilia and self-harm fetishes.
I think that prison is essentially the state regulating a prisoner's relationships with others to prevent the prisoner from harming others. Imprisonment is the severing of the free relations that free individuals get to enjoy and are trusted to not grossly abuse.
I think that in our culture most people would agree that sexually-romantically pursuing someone because they're a serial killer goes far, far beyond being a mere sexual-romantic preference or behavioral-personality eccentricity and instead reflects a mentally unwell state. And as such, hybristophiles should be protected from being emotionally exploited by psychopaths.
Are self-harm practices illegal? Do we fine or arrest those who, say, cut themselves? Do we imprison those with severe depression? Of course not, we should try to help them through therapeutic and medicinal solutions.
This is absolutely true. But this policy doesn't just do that. It takes away every prisoner's right to engage romantically with others, regardless of whether that other person is a hybristophile.
Which is what the law is doing. It's equivalent to preventing someone that commits self-harm from accessing to the things they use to harm themselves.
I think I'm going to need a source on that one before we start taking these people's fundamental human rights away and doing eugenics.
Should the state have age of consent laws?
I'm not sure if that's a genuine question, but a relationship between two consenting adults is different than a relationship between an adult and a child.
It's a genuine question.
So let's go with you saying 'yes' to the question.
What is the difference between a relationship with an adult and a child and an adult and another mentally unwell and easily manipulated adult?To simplify the question: Should the state do anything to prevent a relationship between a known abuser and their victim?
They should work on preventing the abuse and not say that the adult cannot have any relationship at all. Stating that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having any relationship is eugenics.
And all of this is moot anyway because this policy doesn't just target abusive relationships, it targets any relationship after they went into prison. It's casting too wide a net.
Which is what the law is in place to do. No one is saying, that a mentally ill adult is incapable of having a relationship. What is clear, is that a mentally ill adult should not be given easy access to a known abuser.
Incorrect. As has already been stated, it's to prevent dating between sentenced-to-life prisoners (known abusers) and the mentally ill individuals that would seek them out.
Where in the article does it say it only prevents relationships between sentenced-to-life prisoners and mentally ill individuals? I know that's the intent of the law, but it seems that it's preventing relationships between sentenced-to-life prisoners and anyone they met after going to prison.
The article does say that those with a life sentence are only forbidden from new relationships and not forcing them to cut all ties with partners from before their sentencing.
I haven’t done any research into it but I wasn’t particularly under the impression that people serving out a life sentence were exactly reproducing like rabbits before this law came out?
Just because it doesn't affect many people doesn't make the practice of eugenics wrong. Even if it only affects a group of people where only 1% of that population has children, it's still eugenics, regardless of the scale.
You seem weirdly focused on pushing this eugenics idea that have no basis in reality in this case.
I think I've clearly demonstrated how this is akin to eugenics, so I'm not really sure how you can say that it has no basis in reality. And the reason why I'm so intent about this is because I am always very alarmed when the state tries to control who people can and cannot have relationships with.