Judge Judy on Larry King - September 8, 2009 (Pt. 2)

[MondoBeno]

What does "Judeo-Christian" ethos have to do with this?

I've studied the Talmud for years, and I guarantee, the Talmud's response to rape and child molestation are very sexist and uncaring. The Amoraim who wrote the Talmud never studied Psychology, Forensics, Child Developement, etc. They'd never worked with drug addicts, crack babies, children of unmarried teenage mothers, etc.

[UprightBanana]

@MondoBeno he was referring to the judeo-christian model of forgiveness and the idea of the good human which she obviously denied by saying there are people who are wired wrong and are evil from the core and need to be put in more prisons

[shellbuddy2002]

As a SURVIVOR of sexual abuse, and we ARE survivors, the system has failed over and over again, the powers that be are not paying enough attention!!! Drug dealers get more prison time than sex offenders....that is SO wrong...

[stripymccatpuss]

Larry gets payed for this ???????

[TheMrJose17]

JUDGE JUDY! 

[PravdaDeus]

I want to live in Judge Judy's world!

[shenyain]

And LOOKING into facts on WHAT he did and weather he's likely to be a lunatic or not. If it constitutes parole officers for the rest of his life and certain behavioure then fine. But not something as stupid as "Would you like to live next door to him?" I'd like to live next door to Donald Trump but we don't get to choose who lives next door to us. It's Trump's decision or the offender's decision on if he wants to do so or not. I got mad respect for her. But that decision was not thought out.

[sauceykat]

@shenyain I don't think you get it, your logic is flawed. It's not who do you want to live next to (a la Donald Trump), it's would you want to live next to him? Would you want him next to your children? IF NOT, then how can you justify letting him near someone ELSE's home/kids/etc. Her point is: it's easy for judges who have lots of money and nice houses to release these criminals b/c they KNOW they will never live next to them, but instead poorer/working class ppl will be stuck with them.

[shenyain]

@sauceykat Alright well, I admit that the judges probably released him because they know, he won't live around them, however, the working class and the middle class don't need to ask that when an ex-con lives near them, nor are they supposed to look at his past errors. That's like saying that a person who has been released of all the charges is still a prime suspect. It's not what the records show that determines his place, its his behavior. Get him checked, see if he is rehab'd.

[sauceykat]

@shenyain What are you talking about? OF COURSE people look on released convicts' "past errors"--that's the whole point of a criminal record, and why the public are notified when a sex offender/child molester moves into their neighbourhood.

[shenyain]

Surprising that she went to Law School and became a Judge without hearing about David Hume's Induction Fallacy. Fallacy which states that there is no guarantee of the future and an observation of a pattern does not constitute labeling that pattern for ever and ever on what it is. If someone noticed that an apple is red and continued to notice and apple is red they will make it an irrefutable statement....until they discover a green apple. She is going by experience and common sense.

[sauceykat]

@shenyain That's all fine and great in theory, but NOBODY can predict the future so the only way to deal with the situation practically is to go by past experience, common sense, and statistics. It's not like this guy (the kidnapper) was considered a "bad apple" from the start, HIS OWN BEHAVIOUR has PROVEN that he is a bad apple and it's very doubtful (I would say impossible) given the circumstances that he could ever be rehabilitated. That's just a fact. Common sense should prevail!

[shenyain]

@sauceykat True, however, his past history should not shape who he is, if he is unfit to be in a community, he'll be unfit for a job, and so on. If you really want to know what he's up to, get a physiologist, run some tests, make sure that he's ACTUALLY rehab'd, Give him some tasks, ban him from school places, he's still on parole so he'll have to go to his appointments. Say he moved near me tomorrow. What I'd do is talk to him, not be scared or lock him up.

[sauceykat]

@shenyain "If he is unfit to be in a community, he'll be unfit for a job" Wow, that sounds incredibly naieve. Do you mean to say that nobody who holds a job can possibly be a criminal? No lawyers, doctors, priests, etc. have ever committed crimes? Come on! Your argument is full of false and flawed logic.

[shenyain]

@sauceykat Also, the four principles of incarceration: Restitute, Retribute, Segregate, and...Rehabilitate. If he's fixed, than he's fixed. Instead of being up in arms about it, maybe we should look at what evidence tells us instead of being judgmental. Judy denounces the hell out of it, without even looking at all the further analysis they could do, his behavior, and transcripts from his sessions.

[sauceykat]

@shenyain So, let me ask you this, would you feel comfortable having a man who kidnapped/raped/tortured/abuse­d a young CHILD for 18 YEARS live next to you because he's been "rehabilitated" by the state (especially given that the state rarely does any actual rehabilitation?)

[donna1175]

Not every single prisoner can be rehabiliated , look at Charles Manson , Manson didnt commit the Tate/Labianca murders by his own hand & after 40 yrs is still loony . Some people can be helped , others cant.

[amindbody]

thanks for this. she is a reasonable and logical gal.

[doston1]

i think she's ridiculous. i don't really agree with anything she says. first off, people can be rehabilitated, just not the way we do it in this country. i completely disagree with building more prisons and locking more people up. we already a far higher percentage of people locked up than China, which is ridiculous. Why not address the underlying problems that cause the crimes. Generally that is economic inequity, but a fat cat like Judy doesn't want to talk about that.

[rails2002]

@doston1 the question has to be.....would you want that person living next to you and your family.....yes or no

[doston1]

That's the problem. She's a simpleton. Would you want a murderer living next to you? They're not tracked. I mean, get real. Again, address the underlying causes of crime (inequity) and it won't happen (as much). Don't ask stupid questions like "would you like them living next to you?" First off, that's not a question you get to ask in America, last time I checked. We don't get to choose who's living next to us. I don't like fascism or a police state, thanks. Rich peope do tho. :)

[sauceykat]

@doston1 OMG she isn't asking LITERALLY and not saying you can literally choose who lives next to you, she's saying how can a judge, in all good conscience, release a convicted violent felon if they themselves wouldn't want that person in their own neighbourhood/community. She's saying if you wouldn't want to live next door to them and have your kids near them, how can you expect other citizens to be stuck next to them?

[Tile700]

@doston1 your soooo right, we should try to rehabilitate sudam hussein. Your a fucking idiot

[sauceykat]

@doston1 You're right, I'm sure if you just gave Bin Laden more money he would be rehabilitated and become a nice guy and you'd be HAPPY to live next to him *rolleyes*

[itsjustme2919]

@doston1 Or how about we talk about the 40 years of experience she has had a judge (a good judge, good reviews, heard a record amount of cases per day in the New York System) and her experience as a prosecutor and try to reason from that rather than limp wristed psychologists who what to offer an excuse or new syndrome for every prisoner in jail. China may have a lower rate of crime, but remember in China, your every move is watched. We have freedoms in this country and some abuse it.

[mjn76]

The existence of sex offender lists begs the question: if such persons are so dangerous as to require warning to the public, why are such offenders not incarcerated?

[dancebaby808]

precisely. but sex offenders also include, as JJ pointed out earlier, 21-yr-olds who've been convicted of having sex with 16-yr-olds. the nature of these crimes are clearly not as serious or violent as those committed by people like Garrido. and yet they're all lumped into the same category and labeled as "sex offenders". while I agree with you that people like Garrido should be in jail, what about the 21-yr-old who made the stupid decision of having sex with a teenager?

[78UNKNOWN]

Larry king should know when to call it a day

[seaside145]

You are so right. He was always dumb. Now he's annoying.

[jebeese]

I friggin love JUdge Judy. Smart, sharp and honest. She's refreshing.

[RRViper800TT]

dang, i'd like to sex offend sarah at the computer....

[nodahanshin44]

yeah she's super hot.

[Dohzr]

I love how she keeps looking to her left cause shes used to talking to byrd whos at her left xD

[rocksteady55]

This is why Kathy Griffin is a great guest on the show. She doesn't let Larry get much word in. Love Judy

[Pokygirl2001]

I like her comments about predatory sex offenders as well!

Judy's more liberal than she wants it to be known, heh.

[thatsoundsdelicious]

Larry king is such an idiot. A terrible interviewer.

[auntyjin]

Yes he's an idiot, he's always interrupting his guest's response. I'm surprised JJ doesn't pound and say "I'm Speaking!!!" She's more mellow towards LK, he needs a muzzle !

Yo Larry! Let your guests finish their sentence, and their thought before you start blurting out your useless drivel !!!

[lovegunchic]

@auntyjin i agree, i just want him to shut up lol

[nodahanshin44]

yep - always has ben.

[chatcat123]

JJ for president!

[AliciaLovesRock]

Huh??

[Pat2296]

Awesome. JJ is the only public figure who has the guts to say what other people just think.

And yes - Shut up Larry!