Nightstick, I can tell that you are very passionate about this idea of yours but you have to realize that what you are proposing will almost certainly never happen. People won't stand for it. I know I wouldn't.
And what about the damage simply testing kids for this will do to them? Requiring innocent children to take a test to find out if they might rape a kid someday should not be a part of a productive and positive learning environment.
Never say never. We have seen all kinds of federal laws passed that were thought to be unlikely, starting from the Civil Rights Act.
Design me a test that works like our current standardized testing and is 100% accurate for catching pedophiles. Or, see my above post to see why it is completely unreasonable.
Or, think before you type, and realize two truths: (1) I am not the person who has to design the test; (2) this test need not be 100% accurate.
Your earlier posts implied that you would be fine with either, but I now see that the mention of physical is missing. I was merely inquiring into why that was the case.
The mention of physical isn't missing: it was never there. I'm inquiring as to how did our educational system fail you so much that your reading comprehension is so horrible.
Huh, that sounds an awful lot like what you want to do to pedophiles...
Do you only pop off with vague, vapid one-liners, or do you care to break down that statement with a competent analysis of my position?
Oh, now it's "likely"! A term you still have not defined or supported with a single shred of evidence.
Your responses are so vague and meandering that it's difficult to ascertain what you're referring to. I'll roll up my sleeves and try
Likely is self-explanatory.
As mentioned
countless number of times, there is no legal requirement for me to determine or gauge what percentage of pedophiles pose a danger. I asked you before which legal precedents require me to determine this, and you never responded.
And you STILL haven't explained why this proposal is prima facie unconstitutional, which is the very catalyst for me even interacting with the likes of you.
What? I've been telling you your inability to supply sufficient evidence for the claim is the problem.
What are you even talking about? Read our exchange, read my response, and think.
I repeat, in the vain hope that you'll finally understand; those are the two elements that are needed to be proven in order to institutionalize a pedophile, if pedophilia was classified properly.
What does "your inability to supply sufficient evidence for the claim" even mean? You do understand how a case works, correct? That it is on a case-by-case basis and there is no need whatsoever for me to issue a blanket generalization on "sufficient evidence for the claim"? Did you even think this through?
It certainly can be. And a database set up based on the assumption a person needs to be monitored and determined only by interactions with a doctor would in fact be wrong.
I just pointed out numerous examples where people can be monitored for flimsy pretexts, and you still insist "nuh-uh! it's wong! I said so!" Classic. Statutes, examples, legal precedents, common-law cases, please. "But this is how I feeeel!" doesn't fly in a debate, as I pointed out to you yesterday.
Tarasoff cannot establish that exception unless it's an exception to something. If we agree that pedophiles are protected by doctor-patient confidentiality you also need to present sufficient evidence to warrant an exception if you intend to use that medical information.
It's like you're not even trying to make sense. Tarasoff established an exception to the doctor-patient privilege. As I educated you before, doctor-patient privilege varies by state, and is not established by federal law, hence the name Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. Knowing this, does your first sentence make any sense? Why would you even type something like that?
Your second sentence once again displays a shockingly deficient reading comprehension level.
I don't need to present anything. If a pedophile's physician
feels reasonably that a pedophile is in imminent danger of hurting someone, the physician can break the privilege. Nobody needs to present any hard evidence that a pedophile is going to hurt anybody. Are you following?
If you understand doctor-patient privilege at all, which you obviously don't, you'd also realize that these exceptions are narrow in scope, and do not apply to the medical history in its totality, only the relevant portions. Knowing this, you should understand why your paragraph was nonsensical.
Jesus.
Your first bullet point said doctor-patient privilege isn't a law, yet the courts felt it necessary to write a bunch of words detailing an exception to this idea that isn't a law. Did they waste their time? You also said federal law does not recognize it, but HIPAA is federal law and outlines the privacy regulations applied to medical information.
Jesus christ.
(1) It isn't a federal statute. It's a state privilege. Find me the federal statute where it is a law.
(2) Find me the federal statute that codifies doctor-patient privilege.
(3) Jesus fucking christ. We are talking about doctor-patient privilege, and this idiot is bringing up regulations regarding what information
health insurance companies can disclose. Find me the federal statute that codifies
doctor-patient privilege
