I recently read that a lot of evangelic Christians in the USA are beginning to turn there back to Busch & Co and their harsh treatment of the poor, the weak and detainees in general, not to forget the wars. So maybe there is some hope (Indeed there is a strong link between Guantanamo and how the powerful treat the less fortunate or even criminals).
Today, I think, raising your voice is already an act of courage.

That's right, mr. Arnon and Jan Thys. I sometimes think i would be comfortable in the Middle Ages, but of course in those thoughts I'm always a king.

Pedophelia and such things are a strange thing. I don't know whether they're nature or nurture. In the old days of Greece it was perfectly acceptable (some say) and thus more (outcoming) of those kind? I wouldn't know. But punishment doesn't work, psychology has shown that a long time ago. Positivism works.

Dens:

I’m not saying that sex offenders should not be punished – all I’m saying is that it is not acceptable that people who served time (!) are forced to live under a bridge because of zoning laws.
Sexual offenders with money, in other words rich sexual offenders, are not going to be forced to build a "house" under a bridge. This zoning law, officially meant to protect children, turns out to be class warfare.
Instead of protecting the weak and poor, they are punished for being poor.
Also I’m not suggesting that Europe is more civilized than the US. Europe is uncivilized in a different way.

I think no one should be punished, but oke. I get your point. Everything is a matter of class. The fact that poor people have to build under bridges due to restriction, is only a way of giving a fake feeling of protection. It is only logical that the poor are used.
That these laws aren't used against the richer people (or have no effect), is irrelevant, because they would move to a different country if necessary, and this way they can tribute to the local economy. Everything has to be balanced. And excluding the weakest links is only a matter of decency.

Protecting the weak and the poor, when did one ever do that. I can only recall a birdspecies where the male fake injury to seduce the females, and even there it isn't the weakest performer who wins.
I guess I'm a darwinist. Protecting the poor, it's only good to look good. Isn't it?.

Dens

Dens, there are many good things to be said about social Darwinism, and sometimes it is necessary to point out that to a certain degree we do live in a society built on the laws of social Darwinism, but to applaud this vehemently is a proof of a lack of life experience and/or empathy. (I think the first given your opinion that nobody should be punished.) The rationale behind society is to protect the weak; (we all will be weak one day, or at least we will meet somebody stronger than we are) that we by large failed to do so yet (failed to protect people who are not able to protect themselves) is no proof that it is impossible and it is by no means an argument that the state should punish the weak and the poor for being poor and weak.
No, I’m not a socialist, certain opinions are a matter of decency, not so much a matter of ideology.
Your gratuitous statement (in this context) that it is only logical that the poor are being used and abused, implying that there is no reason to change this situation, forces me to advice you to focus the next three months on self-reflection.

Dens Powells, I do not agree when you say no one should be punished.
Punishment has an intimidating effect that is important in maintaining the law.
And the law keeps structure and order in the society, as far as it's established in a democratic way (in)directly by the people of that society itself.

But it is true that there are some conditions that where been seen as criminal acts, that now should be treated by psychologists. Although I also think you shouldn't take this to far.
For example: a man is producing to much testosteron and for this he is agressive, he commits a crime. Should he be treaten by a psychologist to get in controle of his rage, or maybe by a doctor to lower his testosteronlevel? No, I think that this man should have made that decision himself to see a psychologist or doctor before he committed the crime. So it is justified to give him a punishment according to the law.

As for the sex offenders under the bridge, these man did their time, so why should they still be punished? If the legislature believes that the time in jail is not enough to bring them to repentance, they should longer the time in jail or something like that. But you can't talk about justice if you are not able to give (ex-)criminals a new chance after their penitence.

Well, so I think.

It is hard to comment on this. It all makes sense, and yet doens't. I don't know what to think and thinking it makes me sad. But I'll give it a try. Please don't hate me for saying these things, If you do, realise it is ignorance.

I don’t think our society is build on the laws of social Darwinism, I believe social Darwinism is build on our society and then exploited. No law is simplistic, and neither is this one. So there are certain degrees and certain paths that aren’t followed. I do not applaud this way of living, I ‘m just undergoing it. I realise that this is how life works, and that this is how I should work, wanting to work in this society in an acceptable way.
I admit lacking life experience AND empathy on some occasions, but don’t we all. The statement that one day, we all will be weak (and meet our superior (sooner or later)) is a selfish statement, and thus something to improve yourself (making you stronger, even if this “being stronger” means that you’ve got an apple for the thirst as in family, money, friends). Helping the poor, can never be unselfish in a way, of course it is very altruistic (as well ) doing so. There is one person believed to be able doing unselfish altruistic things, and he’s described in the greatest novel of all times (I haven’t read it, though, so I trust people who tell me this): The bible.

It isn’t good that the weak and poor are being used for such things and punishments. It isn’t. But it logical, it makes sense. I don’t approve it, I really don’t. But I can’t offer a solution other than spreading a word, breaking taboo’s, making people realise, changing thoughts of others. I don’t know if mine is a good thought, but I’m willing to take a chance.
Logic isn’t always good. E.g. During sex, logic isn’t good. Sex is a basic thing, and yet not used by logic. And yet, it is very hard to ignore logics. I promise to make an effort on self reflection, although I’m scared.

@ Lisetta and Mr. Arnon
What you’re saying makes sense. IF the jailtime wasn’t enough of a punishment, they should prolongate it.
But I find it hard to discuss these matters over the internet. I want to say things, and then regret saying them, so I don’t type them. While speaking, you can interact, and thus make me wiser.

As for my start on self reflection, I realise that having said all this, makes me weak.

Dens

It seams that your selfreflection has started already. Showing ones weakness,es and be able to accept them, is a strength that few people have.

In my view it doesn't mather that you are weak or strong. It is important that you are happy and make other people happy as well.

@Dens: the fact that Arnon enters into a debate with you could also mean you're not as ignorant as you think you are. As for who's right, which unfortunately seems to be the increasing tone of this blog, who really cares? To argue for arguments sake is a good thing (in my opinion). And: there aren't many people out there who dare comment on his thoughts as they're scared shitless of his wit. At least you have the balls to speak your mind. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Excuse me for quoting in dutch, but i don't feel like translating it. 'de majesteitelijke gelijkheid der wetten, die de rijke evenals de arme verbieden onder de bruggen te slapen, in de straten te bedelen en brood te stelen.' Anatole France, Le lys rouge, 1946