Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!

No but you and another poster have offered your OPINIONS, which are erroneous. (I realize it's silly to say someone's opinion is wrong, but... when you say your opinion that 2+2 = 5.... someone will provide evidence to the contrary... such as what dead posted)

If there's doubt about their imprisonment then they need to be release PRONTO Since there's doubt and not proof they were falsely imprison then there's no back pay.

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!

Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."

Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."

Frazzled reposte: agreed. there exist people who wrongly go to prison. However thats not a statistically sufficient number to invalidate the first premise. ergo you lose Funboy! Now geta job hippy!

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!

Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."

Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."

Ok, So what, that is very little of the population of prison, The people who do commit crimes and go to prison are horrible parents, they left their children for some stupid thing, whether it be drugs, shoplifting.
So what if a small minority has dont no crime, we are talking about people who do commit crimes and have kids, whihc im willing to be is more likely.
Point is, ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No on has proffered evidence that its statistically likely you're a bad person if you're in jail. You people need to work on your basic regression analysis confidence levels, and pronto!

Frazz premise: "People who are in prison are bad guys, and bad parents."

Counterargument: "There exist people who wrongly go to prison."

Ok, So what, that is very little of the population of prison, The people who do commit crimes and go to prison are horrible parents, they left their children for some stupid thing, whether it be drugs, shoplifting.
So what if a small minority has dont no crime, we are talking about people who do commit crimes and have kids, whihc im willing to be is more likely.
Point is, ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want.

A lot of the argument/debate seems to stem from the association with going to jail at all and being a bad parent, as opposed to being a bad parent because you were associated with committing heinous crime A, B, or C.

Some have put forth the premise that JUST being in prison all of its own, is reason enough to be labeled a bad parent. Regardless if you were framed, a patsy, a victim of circumstance, etc.

Your premise "[Y]ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want." is more true IMO, as it contains "if you do a crime"... I still wouldn't agree that just because you went to jail for a crime, that it makes you a bad parent. I would determine whether or not you're a bad parent or not on an individual level. Not a collective one.

I honestly believe that it's a bit of a collectivist notion to lump everyone together and just say, BAD!

The dad who went to jail because he lost his temper and assaulted someone who said something very cross to his underage daughter? I wouldn't put him on the same level of a "bad parent" as John Gacy, or someone who traffics heroin for instance. Its a case by case scenario...

I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.

Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.

skyfi wrote:

Some have put forth the premise that JUST being in prison all of its own, is reason enough to be labeled a bad parent. Regardless if you were framed, a patsy, a victim of circumstance, etc.

Your premise "[Y]ou are a bad parent if you do a crime and get sent to jail, you have kids, you cant do whatever the hell you want." is more true IMO, as it contains "if you do a crime"... I still wouldn't agree that just because you went to jail for a crime, that it makes you a bad parent. I would determine whether or not you're a bad parent or not on an individual level. Not a collective one.

I honestly believe that it's a bit of a collectivist notion to lump everyone together and just say, BAD!

This was my primary concern.

So those with questionable/in doubt conviction should go free?

 Jihadin wrote:
So those with questionable/in doubt conviction should go free?

Are they proven guilty, at that point?

Cause, that's what we do still right? Presumption of innocence, and all that? That's still around?

After this thread and the GITMO thread....I've no idea. Only hard confirmed idea I can go by. Is not be "That Guy" to wind up in either places Only back up hard evidence we can go by of releasing prisoners would be ICE.

Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.

Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.

So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.

Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?

daedalus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
So those with questionable/in doubt conviction should go free?

Are they proven guilty, at that point?

Cause, that's what we do still right? Presumption of innocence, and all that? That's still around?

ba-zing

 Jihadin wrote:
Only hard confirmed idea I can go by. Is not be "That Guy" to wind up in either places

Absolutely 100% agree!

skyfi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.

Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.

So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.

Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?

A good rolemodel would not have hit a guy for just saying something to his daughter

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

A good rolemodel would not have hit a guy for just saying something to his daughter

"if you <action I dislike>, I will beat the gak out of you."

Just words, amirite?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

skyfi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I would. He still effectively bailed on the situation because he got caught.

Now I'll go with 'people not falsely convicted' in my prison statement, but otherwise it holds just fine.

So, Murdering 30+ people Gacy-style, and punching a twit in the face are equal crimes? Sorry I disagree.

Getting caught has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the dad hit the guy, and stayed around to "get his punishment" like he should, to be a ya know, good role model for his childrenz?

A good rolemodel would not have hit a guy for just saying something to his daughter

I agree. I didn't mean to infer he was a good role model, but that in order to be a good role model, he should stay and "take his licks"

My point was that the dad who struck a man for saying something to his kid, is not as "bad" of a parent, as a man who murdered 30+ people. You can't simply say they are both equally bad parents because they both wound up in prison. One is clearly a worse person/parent.

To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.

 daedalus wrote:
To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.

I am confused about what you are saying.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
To expound upon that, and before you reply with what I know you're going to reply with, there are many times that law enforcement is not effective or available. For one, there is a dangerous subset of people who genuinely only understand a show of force. Law enforcement might not be entirely sympathetic. The guy just gets held overnight and then you have to watch over your shoulder the rest of your life wondering when he's going to get back at you. I have actually witnessed this happening.

I am confused about what you are saying.

Sorry. That's meant to be read as attached to my example for when it becomes okay to hurt someone for saying something to your underage daughter.

Read it as if I assume, between the two comments, the next thing you're going to say is "that's when you call in the police."

Saying what exactly? And hurting someone never becomes ok until they strike and you first, remember, talk is just that, talk

Wasn't there a case in Texas where a Dad beat a guy to death for molesting his daughter. The dad knowingly going to beat the guy to death. At a barn. Knowing the police were going to be late to show to stop him. Bare knuckle death beat down. At a barn...

I remember that.

Yup. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/11/he-got-what-he-deserved-texas-dad-beats-his-daughters-molester-to-death/


Seems whole town agreed father was not at fault... So they wouldn't think the father in my example is as bad as John gacy... I would reckon at least. ( a jump I know, someone talking like they going to molest as opposed to catching them in act.. Seems like they'd approve of a scaled response though is my point, ie slugging someone for saying it vs beating them to death If ya caught them

Why I believe...if I remember correctly...he got away with murder. He didn't use any farm implements....horse shoes...2 by 4....whatever have you in a barn. That dad went and stuck with pure anger and wanted the satisfaction on beating the guy to death with bare knuckles...think Texas have a law for that benefiting the guy that protecting his daughter.

 Jihadin wrote:
Why I believe...if I remember correctly...he got away with murder. He didn't use any farm implements....horse shoes...2 by 4....whatever have you in a barn. That dad went and stuck with pure anger and wanted the satisfaction on beating the guy to death with bare knuckles...think Texas have a law for that benefiting the guy that protecting his daughter.

Well h is probably in the right according the the law, excessive force to protect someone

Apparently Texas authorizes deadly force in response to sexual assault, which is what protected this dad.. Who was only 23!! Crazy. Just a kid still really

So he didn't go to jail and was a good parent.

Ok, But lets get OT, Tell me why someone who, willingly commits a crime, that separates them from their kids, is a good parent?

 sourclams wrote:
So he didn't go to jail and was a good parent.

See exactly. Meantime all the ones in jail still suck. Because they're bad. which is not good. Unlike queso which is good. You know what else is good? Benadryl, when you get six wasp stings. Rum is good for that too. I know. I know.

Depends on the daughter view....she got molested by an adult male. Her father is an adult male that just killed another Adult Male. Something in back of my mind though telling me the daughter was there an saw it go down. So we have one adult male who was a child molester (woot dead) but now a father that's a killer. Some people perception would consider it murder

edit
Here's a sig on me for that one. That was due I'm harden enough not to be bothered by dead kids. I've seen enough them shot or blown the hell up on their school bus. Quite a few beheading to. It just really really makes me hate Insurgents (I also throw AQ and the Taliban in that mix)

edit
grammar

Is it murder or protecting someone?