NationStates Jolt Archive

What do we need to do as a people? After yesterdays news about Jessica Marie Lunsford I have had enough. I am in the proccess of writing all my state and federal reps. it is hard because the langage degrades because of anger and I need to start over.

I have a few idea's
It is important to remember this man had been caught twice before doing this....twice. Out of a 10 year sentance he served 2 years?

Unacceptable.

1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 15-life first offence.

2.If you have to register at new address you have to register in prison (other inmates should be told) maybe a color coded prison uniform?

3.Second offence death no if's or but's. Life in states that have no C.P.

4. Could we make it so the federal death penaty applys?

5.Confession in no way gets you out of full punishment.

6.Executions on tv (you don't have to watch so I don't want to hear it.)

7.Increase in Amber alert funding (last one we got in Oklahoma was 12 hours old most children taken are killed in 3-6 hours)

8.Increase in education on dangers to children.

I would like to hear from you all about this to get idea's

Thanks in advance.
DAYWALKER

It is clear that this is an issue very close to your heart, and I admire your tenacity and thirst for justice. However, a few of your points disturbed me a bit.

2. Color coding prison uniforms for sexual predators is a bad idea. Guaranteed they'll be dead within a week.

3/4. Murder, I can understand the death penalty. But rape? I'm not so certain, since life has not been takem.

Feel free to refute me.

castration

take away the tools and they can't work

Personally, I feel the death sentence should never be imposed, because if someone turns out to be innocent after being executed, someone has just been murdered for nothing.

3/4. Murder, I can understand the death penalty. But rape? I'm not so certain, since life has not been takem.

Feel free to refute me.

before I start I am very much against the death penalty so that part of the quote doesnt apply BUT with regards to rape

I have worked in Mental Health both with rapists and rape victims

I think that the penalty for rape is much MUCH too lenient as ok the physical life hasnt been taken but the person who has been raped loses their quality of life for a very long time (indeed the memory of it never leaves them)

the majority of rapist have NO regrets whatsoever in fact I never met one who did except he wished he hadnt been caught!

I have seen both sides of the crime and whilst I agree that CP is not an option (IMO) I do feel that 5-6 years for a 1st time rapist (out after 3-4 years if he behaves) is a farce (talking about the UK here btw dont know what the rest of the world is like for sentancing rapists)

these people wreck lives and their victims have to live with that crime for the rest of thier life - at least when your killed it's over and you cant feel the pain anymore (harsh way of putting it but true)

"You have committed an inhuman crime. You are no longer worthy of being called human. Therefore, I officially strip you of the rights and dignities of humanity and call you 'Beast'. May God have mercy, for no-one else will."

From that point on, anything that happens should no longer be the concern of the law.

2. Color coding prison uniforms for sexual predators is a bad idea. Guaranteed they'll be dead within a week.

3/4. Murder, I can understand the death penalty. But rape? I'm not so certain, since life has not been takem.

2. And whats so bad about with that?

3/4. You clearly do not know anyone that has been raped. Their life is taken away from them....it forever haunts them.
You'd understand if you knew someone that had been raped.

castration
take away the tools and they can't work

Castration doesnt work. Its not just a matter of "taking away the tools," these people are mentally ill. Ok, so we castrate a guy and eliminate his testosterone....but that doesnt get rid of his sick fantasies. Castration is a simple solution, but not the correct one.

I gots an idea for the 2nd offence - life in prision, hard labor sentence.

Okay, okay, before anyone ELSE accuses me of being insensitive or too lenient on rapists; I agree wholeheartedly that the punishments are too lenient. I just don't think the death penalty applies.

Okay?

Castration doesnt work. Its not just a matter of "taking away the tools," these people are mentally ill. Ok, so we castrate a guy and eliminate his testosterone....but that doesnt get rid of his sick fantasies. Castration is a simple solution, but not the correct one.

Think about it. This bastard wants to rape/molest/etc. but he doesn't have a dick or balls to do it. Imagine the mental anguish he goes through...especially in his life in prison. As he's getting raped daily and has to piss into a bedpan, he'll realize the error of his ways, or at least die trying.

I think the way that rape has become a socially permissive thing is disgraceful. But these proposed statutes are utterly insane. You need to recognise your (admittedly understandable) anger towards these people is completely obstructing any impartiality you could possibly have.

What is obvious from this man's history is that our courts are not dealing with crimes effectively. Look at this guy's criminal history:

Couey has an extensive criminal record that includes 24 arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon and indecent exposure. In 1991, he was arrested in Kissimmee on a charge of fondling a child under age 16. Records don't show how the case was resolved.

During a house burglary in 1978, Couey was accused of grabbing a girl in her bedroom, placing his hand over her mouth and kissing her, Dawsy said. Couey was sentenced to 10 years in prison but was paroled in 1980.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/18/national/main681537.shtml

George Kanaris, 46, owner of Emily's Family Restaurant about a mile from the Lunsford home, said Couey worked there as a dishwasher more than 10 years ago, from about 1992 to 1994.

Kanaris said he fired Couey because he wrote a romantic letter to a bus girl who was 14 or 15.

This man has had little more than a few slaps on the wrist for a life history of crime. This is where the "3 strikes you're out" law would have been called for. In view of his history, especially as a sex offender whose target is little girls, he should have had a GPS tracking device strapped or surgically sewn to his leg. Martha Stewart has one although she has never posed a flight risk or a threat to other people. But this guy is wandering around with nothing to monitor his movements? :confused:

The sex offender registry lists where these people are "supposed" to be living. There is nothing to alert citizens as to where they really are. If we can't keep track of them to protect innocent people and law enforcement has its hands tied because of possible civil rights violations, then we shouldn't let them loose.

You need to recognise your (admittedly understandable) anger towards these people is utterly obstructing any impartiality you possibly could be having.

Excuse me? Why do these fuckers deserve mercy? They didn't think about that as they shoved their pitiful dick into their victims!

I have a daughter that is 13 so this atrocity hit close to my heart when I watched the events unfold. As have every other case similar to this one has. I have written my senators and house a rep to increase the penalty for CSC offenders as There needs to be more done to deter this evil. It is evil and not a sickness or mental illness. They are EVIL pure down to the core. To say otherwise only demeans the victims.

When one of these animals are released, why can't posters listing their crimes in detail and their picture be posted in public places...post office, police department, school bulletin board, retail business' bulletin boards, library, etc. Put their face in front of people, like we do with missing children, and then people will know "what" they are looking at when they see one.

"Oh, let's throw some harsher punishments at them. It's worked so well for all other sorts of crimes."

Please. The original author doesn't want justice, he wants revenge.

We have local cable channels for everything under the sun, from real estate companies to local government meetings. Why can't we have a pervert channel highlighting all of the know sex offenders in the area?

We have local cable channels for everything under the sun, from real estate companies to local government meetings. Why can't we have a pervert channel highlighting all of the know sex offenders in the area?

Yeah, why should human rights and rights granted by constitutions apply to everyone? Let's strip them arbitrarily because we crave either revenge or the illusion of safety!

castration

take away the tools and they can't work


Most intelligent people understand that rape is not about sex.

Yeah, why should human rights and rights granted by constitutions apply to everyone? Let's strip them arbitrarily because we crave either revenge or the illusion of safety!


So the Criminal in your mind has more rights than a 12 yo girl who can not fight off a full grown man? You are truly a sick individual to placate such evil. Once you commit a crime of this magnitude you should forgo your rights as a human. You inflicted pain an suffering on a child. In the case of Jessica death, yes I can see how we should feel the pain of the pervert that did this.

So the Criminal in your mind has more rights than a 12 yo girl who can not fight off a full grown man?

No, in my mind they both have equal human rights.

You are truly a sick individual to placate such evil.

Your ad hominems have no effect on me. If you cannot refrain from personal attacks and invocations of "evil", don't answer my posts, please.

Once you commit a crime of this magnitude you should forgo your rights as a human. You inflicted pain an suffering on a child. In the case of Jessica death, yes I can see how we should feel the pain of the pervert that did this.

Human rights are to be irrevocable for a reason - history has on so many levels shown us the danger of not having them apply to groups, how unpopular they may be.

This might be a good way to take care of them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050316/481/vah11003161513

An Iranian judiciary officer, whips, Mohammed Bijeh, convicted of raping and murdering 16 children, before he was hanged, in public in Pakdasht, Iran (news - web sites), a town outside the capital Tehran, Wednesday, March 16, 2005. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050316/481/vah10903161657

Two female relatives of victims look at Mohammed Bijeh, convicted of raping and murdering 16 children, as he is hanged in public, after receiving 100 lashes of the whip, in Pakdasht, Iran (news - web sites), a town outside the capital Tehran, Wednesday, March 16, 2005. Convicts are hanged in public in Iran only if a court deems that their offenses deeply affected public sentiment. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

This might be a good way to take care of them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050316/481/vah11003161513

An Iranian judiciary officer, whips, Mohammed Bijeh, convicted of raping and murdering 16 children, before he was hanged, in public in Pakdasht, Iran (news - web sites), a town outside the capital Tehran, Wednesday, March 16, 2005. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050316/481/vah10903161657

Two female relatives of victims look at Mohammed Bijeh, convicted of raping and murdering 16 children, as he is hanged in public, after receiving 100 lashes of the whip, in Pakdasht, Iran (news - web sites), a town outside the capital Tehran, Wednesday, March 16, 2005. Convicts are hanged in public in Iran only if a court deems that their offenses deeply affected public sentiment. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

Yeah, that's civilised. :rolleyes:

You all are missing the point. This guy had a long history of disrespecting the rights of others.

Charged with burglary 24 times? Burglary is not a crime of passion. It is a crime that is thought out ahead of time, and a conscious decision is made to deprive the victim of the possessions that they have worked long and hard for. In my mind, that makes it little better than slavery - a burglar in effect forces others to work for his benefit.

This guy's sexuality is really no more relevant than his favorite flavor of ice cream. Would he have been less evil if he had kidnapped, raped, and murdered a woman? A man? A donkey?

It breaks my heart to think of the pain that Jessica went through at the hands of this monster, but he isn't a monster because he is apparently attracted to girls. He is a monster because he's never respected girls - or anyone else.

Now whether he would have turned out differently if society had respected his attraction to girls 30 years ago - that is something we will never know.



Baldur

I disagree about not offering some leniency for confessions.

We WANT these criminals to confess. If they don't, many cases would never be resolved. They would still be looking for Jessica's body now.

But as to the KIND of leniency, i dont think a reduction of sentence is in order, but maybe allow them to serve time in solitary so the other inmates don't abuse them. Or have a special prison for sexual predators.

As far as posting their pictures, our community already does that. The poster of local convicted sexual offenders is hung in the local police department and published in the newspaper once a year with their current addresses.

For all the good that does...

Yeah, why should human rights and rights granted by constitutions apply to everyone? Let's strip them arbitrarily because we crave either revenge or the illusion of safety!

When you commit a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen. You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life. Constitutional rights? Where does it say that a person has the right to prey upon their fellow man in anonimity? A number of public building post fliers of people wanted by law enforcement for crimes. TV news also airs pictures of people suspected of crimes...person of interest. In what way does a known sexual predator have more rights to privacy than others?

Yeah, that's civilised. :rolleyes:

Civilized or not, it takes care of the problem. He will not rape or murder another child.

Civilized or not, it takes care of the problem. He will not rape or murder another child.

True.

IF you hang the right guy. Mistakes happen.

castration

take away the tools and they can't work

There is research that says that the tool you refer to is really the brain. It wasn't just a sexual act that was done to this poor little girl. The perp. is obviously very disturbed. I think for these sexually violent people live in prision is the only sure solution.

A little off topic, but I feel it's a bit necessary to understand my point of view. My mother was raped when she was young, and since then, I've talked to her about it. She still feels the pain, the betrayal from that "friend". All I'm saying is, if I ever meet that guy by off chance, you can guarantee I'll do more than castrate him...

In fact, there's a book I'm reading right now, "A Time To Kill" by John Grisham. One of his first books he's ever written I believe. I'm only a third of the way through, but it tells the story of how one girl's rape and murder was deal with politically, as well as "in the shadows." An interesting book, I must say.

First off I have not finished the letters. What I was looking for was idea's I may have not thought of to include. The prison uniform thing was a bit much it is out. I like the gps sensor idea mentioned so it is in.

Life in prison on second offence or C.P. is in not matter what.

Most sexual predators have a escalading order of violence. Get them off the street before a child dies.

Personally, I'd say that once someone commits such an act, especially on a child, let the family deal with it. Guaranteed, 99% of them will opt to kill him. I know I would, even if it meant going to jail for murder.

God help the guy I mentioned earlier, b/c I won't hesitate.

There is research that says that the tool you refer to is really the brain. It wasn't just a sexual act that was done to this poor little girl. The perp. is obviously very disturbed. I think for these sexually violent people live in prision is the only sure solution.

I agree. These deviants view humans as prey. We don't allow wild animals that attack humans to wander among us. Why should we accept violent and sexual offenders based on their civil rights? If the rights of one person violates the rights of another, the rights of the innocent must take priority. There are none more innocent or more dependent upon or deserving of our care and protection than children.

I'm off to Mass. Happy Palm Sunday to all.

Provided there is conclusive DNA evidence, I'd say mandatory life sentence on first conviction and leave it at that. The death penalty is too expensive and I'd rather have my tax dollars go to the most minimal amount of judiciary for such an animal.

No special uniforms or anything that would be considered "cruel and unusual". Prison is as much about protection as it is about confinement.

If it is my daughter who is the victim, I want 10 minutes alone in a room with the man and a 14" kong dong.

When you commit a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen.

Not where I live.

You give up your liberty,

Proportionately to the crime, and for a limited time, during which all your other rights are to be respected.

your right to vote,

Not where I live.

your right to pursue your goals and interests,

Not where I live to the extent as they can be fulfilled while incarcerated.

and sometimes your life.

Most certainly not where I live. Some countries honour the human rights charter.

Constitutional rights? Where does it say that a person has the right to prey upon their fellow man in anonimity?

Are you actually expecting anyone to fall for this straw man?

A number of public building post fliers of people wanted by law enforcement for crimes. TV news also airs pictures of people suspected of crimes...person of interest.

That is only done when there is sufficient cause.

In what way does a known sexual predator have more rights to privacy than others?

He has the same right to privacy as anyone else. Let go of the straw men, please.

[...] The death penalty is too expensive [...]


In my book, I'd do it for free.

castration

take away the tools and they can't work

Pragmatism!

No seriously, that's a good idea, and it would sure as hell deterr at least a few potential sex maniacs if they valued their junk. It would prevent them from duplicating their crimes when they inevitably get released.

Pragmatism!

No seriously, that's a good idea, and it would sure as hell deterr at least a few potential sex maniacs if they valued their junk. It would prevent them from duplicating their crimes when they inevitably get released.

Maybe. But then, there's always the case of the rapist after coming out of prison enacting revenge on the rapee.

Honestly, I think victims of rape especially violent ones, should relocate.. Start anew somewhere. I would like sexual predators to be moved on to an island or something.

The most important part of the term "sexual predator" is not the sexual aspect, but the predatory nature of the criminal. This is key.

I've got a simple solution, off the top of my head...

Maximum number of years in prison as is permitted for a child rapist or molester, but for those considered incorrigible, we simply administer a low-level laser treatment to permanently blind the predator. A predator without tools to prey is no longer a predator.

Castration could be optional. A blind person can learn to be a productive member of society, work a regular job, even have regular friends or family. However, a blind person can not prey on a child - the child must be brought to the predator, which would be possible, but unlikely, since the predator wouldn't know in most situations whether there were bystanders or parents in the general area, and escape would be far easier for a child of any age from a predator without his main tool - sight.

If this policy were put into effect, the only children available for rape would be family members' children, who, if the family members were notified of the predator's history, would be kept away unless extreme negligence were present, which can't be defended against anyway.

Not where I live.


Fass, it has to be said: "where you live" is currently a joke.

Where did Saddam Hussein request to be sent when he was caught? That's right, Sweden.

Sweden is a nursery school for criminals - no locks on cell doors, guards being paid to let prisoners spend nights on the town, cellphones and guns smuggled in without any kind of checks... And not just in the minimum-security prisons - it's epidemic.

Thank God many Swedes are waking up to reality and starting to consider living in it. The New York Times ran a piece yesterday on the growing number of citizens supporting real prisons in Sweden, and if reason has its way, they'll make some changes.

Not where I live.

This is a serius issue about children dieing and ideas on how to provent it please don't troll here.

Televised Executions?!
Either you were raped/molested yourself or someone you know was, and you are unable to look at the issue rationally and objectively, or you are insane / from Texas..
I don't believe in the death penalty, i don't think anyone has the right to kill, including and especially the state.. Lock them up and throw away the key maybe.. But you can't be serious about televised executions.. Maybe we should bring back the Roman Colosseum too?

So the Criminal in your mind has more rights than a 12 yo girl who can not fight off a full grown man? You are truly a sick individual to placate such evil. Once you commit a crime of this magnitude you should forgo your rights as a human. You inflicted pain an suffering on a child. In the case of Jessica death, yes I can see how we should feel the pain of the pervert that did this.

No, he's saying they have the same rights no matter what, because rights are irrevocable. It's not in black and white, and Fass isn't evil he's just trying to get his point across.

No, he's saying they have the same rights no matter what, because rights are irrevocable. It's not in black and white, and Fass isn't evil he's just trying to get his point across.

When you violate someone else's rights, your rights cease to be irrevocable. I think that's clear. The Constitution, for one, states this almost exactly under due process. No one here is advocating removing anyone's right to due process.

When you commit a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen. You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life. Constitutional rights? Where does it say that a person has the right to prey upon their fellow man in anonimity? A number of public building post fliers of people wanted by law enforcement for crimes. TV news also airs pictures of people suspected of crimes...person of interest. In what way does a known sexual predator have more rights to privacy than others?

Not in Canada. Here, prisoners can still vote, there's no death penalty, and you can still get a job when you're let out, because we have rehab programs.

As for constitutional rights, yes, everyone has them and they cannot be taken away (if we ignore the "patriot" act :rolleyes: ) but we also have responsibilities not to infringe upon the rights of others. So no, we have no right to harm others, but you also have no right to infringe upon the rights of the rapist.

When you violate someone else's rights, your rights cease to be irrevocable. I think that's clear. The Constitution, for one, states this almost exactly under due process. No one here is advocating removing anyone's right to due process.

But they ARE advocating removing his right to live :rolleyes: which is what the argument seems to be about right now.

I have a daughter that is 13 so this atrocity hit close to my heart when I watched the events unfold. As have every other case similar to this one has. I have written my senators and house a rep to increase the penalty for CSC offenders as There needs to be more done to deter this evil. It is evil and not a sickness or mental illness. They are EVIL pure down to the core. To say otherwise only demeans the victims.

To say that they are evil to the core demeans your entire country and yourself. I can understand that when something like this happens, it affects you personally, but still, try to keep an open mind. (how's that for flamebait).

But they ARE advocating removing his right to live :rolleyes: which is what the argument seems to be about right now.

Some are, some aren't. I'm not.

Either way, you have no right to live in the U.S., according to the Constitution, only the right to due process and freedom from self-incrimination if the State finds it necessary to take it from you. I believe they're aware of the parameters within which a solution to the problem of crimes against children can be found.

Televised Executions?!
Maybe we should bring back the Roman Colosseum too?

Doing this would not be a bad idea. Set criminals against each other. At the very least, the sexual predators would be too busy trying to survive than thinking about the children or other victims (past and future)...

Some are, some aren't. I'm not.

Either way, you have no right to live in the U.S., according to the Constitution, only the right to due process and freedom from self-incrimination if the State finds it necessary to take it from you. I believe they're aware of the parameters within which a solution to the problem of crimes against children can be found.

If it's constitutional to kill people for commiting crimes, then why do so few states do it? Answer that question and you'll see why I don't agree with the death penalty. A long prison sentence pretty much ruins his life already...

I'm for televised executions.

I think that would weed out who actually supports the death penalty and who doesn't. A lot of people probably think they support it but would have second thoughts watching it.

Then again, maybe it'd just be a good way to get high ratings and quality TV. I mean all this "reality TV" bullshit. Let's make it REAL reality TV - hello world, this is reality, people dying.

Noooo some people can't handle that. They want their "real world" and other soft porn versions of reality, comforting lies.

Doing this would not be a bad idea. Set criminals against each other. At the very least, the sexual predators would be too busy trying to survive than thinking about the children or other victims (past and future)...

Even if gladiatorial games weren't a ridiculous idea, it would only bring glory to those prisoners. People would lose sight of why they were being punished and focus on the game, treating them as courageous competitors...

Child Rapist, Murderer Hanged in Iran
Wed Mar 16, 1:34 PM ET Middle East - AP

PAKDASHT, Iran - A young man convicted of raping and murdering 16 boys was lashed 100 times, and then hanged Wednesday in front of a large, angry crowd who pelted him with stones and scuffled with police.

Mohammed Bijeh, 23, confessed in court to raping and murdering the children, between March and September 2004. Iranian media have said Bijeh burned the bodies of his victims, all boys between 8 and 15.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050316/thumb.vah11003161513.iran_hanging_vah110.jpg

Doing this would not be a bad idea. Set criminals against each other. At the very least, the sexual predators would be too busy trying to survive than thinking about the children or other victims (past and future)...

Here's the thing... you're killing a man, already contoversial, then you're filming it. It's no better than the Iraqis filming public decapitations.

If it's constitutional to kill people for commiting crimes, then why do so few states do it? Answer that question and you'll see why I don't agree with the death penalty. A long prison sentence pretty much ruins his life already...

Fears that due process wasn't being applied forced a moratorium that ended with Gilmore. Some states still believe that due process isn't in reality sufficient to ensure that innocents aren't executed. Most have more confidence in the system. None have disputed that life is not a right to those who have violated the rights of others.

Edit: The number of states allowing the death penalty is 38, it might've been worth the mention.

Here's the thing... you're killing a man, already contoversial....There is nothing controversial about sending a child rapist and murderer to the Iranian Blue nylon...as long as you know for sure he is Guilty

That works too, but what I was thinking was that mistakes happen. (responding to pepe)

There is nothing controversial about sending a child rapist and murderer to the Iranian Blue nylon...as long as you know for sure he is Guilty
Which you rarely do.

Which you rarely do.Then the Blue Nylon is to be used rarely.

But why kill him at all?

But why kill him at all?

#Cos Bije is a great danger for children.
#to reduce the pain the victim's families feel.
#so that it dicurages other child Murderers(make it a public BlueNylon).
# in general to deliver justice.

lik i said...must be sure they have solid proof.

i dont agree with the death penalty, it is irreversible and just plain barbaric

i dont agree with the death penalty, it is irreversible and just plain barbaricfor a man(woman) wrongly acused of being a "sexual predator"...Jail is barbaric and irreversible.

Fass, it has to be said: "where you live" is currently a joke.

If you think that has any merit or effect, you are mistaken.

Where did Saddam Hussein request to be sent when he was caught? That's right, Sweden.

What, you think it reflects negatively on Sweden that we have a reputation of respecting the human rights of prisoners?

Sweden has a history of accepting convicted war criminals from UN tribunals (for instance, such people like Biljana Plavsic). We also have a history of respecting human rights. Any sane person would want to come to such a country and serve their time, in stead of, say, Turkey.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein's request was denied.

Sweden is a nursery school for criminals - no locks on cell doors,

Not true. There are locks on doors.

guards being paid to let prisoners spend nights on the town,

Not true, either. Guards are payed to accompany criminals who have had their requests for leave approved, if there is a need for supervision.

cellphones and guns smuggled in without any kind of checks...

Not true, either. While there is a problem in that certain checks have been circumvented in certain cases, checks were certainly in place.

And not just in the minimum-security prisons - it's epidemic.

Unlikely.

Thank God many Swedes are waking up to reality and starting to consider living in it.

Ineffective rhetoric.

The New York Times ran a piece yesterday on the growing number of citizens supporting real prisons in Sweden, and if reason has its way, they'll make some changes.

Prison reform is a topic after some high profile escapes (even though all the escapees were caught relatively swiftly), yes. But not in the way you imply. Oh, and I didn't think anybody took The New York Times seriously this side of 2003.

Now that you have failed in attacking Sweden, as if though that would have any bearing on this discussion, maybe you should try to stay on-topic and say something worth while?

for a man wrongly acused of being a "sexual predator"...Jail is barbaric and irreversible.
these days...It is the case in the US, I would like to know if it is the case in other countries

How about we put them all in ovens?
...


Long jail sentences are the answer, the death penalty is immoral, especially in cases other than murder.


Perhaps if people got angry about more imporant issues more lives could be saved?

How many kids dont have health insurance? How many have health problems as a result of their parents' poverty?

How many kids die of preventable illness or starvation?

I would wager the number is significantly higher than those hurt by pedophiles.

And therefore a more pressing problem.

My wife and I disagree on the death peanlty. She's against it and I think it applies in some cases. What you all are missing on the civil rights question isn't that everyone doesn't have rights. The real question is whose rights should be given more weight when in conflict. Does the criminal have the right for no one to know his past crimes and his tendancy to repeat them or does the every day citizen have the right to know who may be a threat and take the steps necessary to protect himself and his family? Trials for crimes are not done in secret. Everyone knows who is accused of what and what the outcome of the trial is. There is no law or constitutional right to have your past crimes shielded from public knowledge. I say if we have to have all these big ugly billboards everywhere we put pictures of violent and sex criminals on them.

My personal views:

1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 15-life first offence.
-Yes, maybe longer.

2.If you have to register at new address you have to register in prison (other inmates should be told) maybe a color coded prison uniform?
-No. You are sentencing those men to death and a life of pain. While they did wrong, a crime is a crime and all men in a prison should be treated equally. I was under the impression that criminals can keep their crimes secret from other inmates? I think that should be kept.

3.Second offence death no if's or but's. Life in states that have no C.P.
-Three strikes. Twice is too little... Nowadays I find that girls of 14 can look 18 and above. If this is the case... then, three strikes. If they're forcing themselves into a toddler, 2 times.

4. Could we make it so the federal death penaty applys?
-Might as well.

5.Confession in no way gets you out of full punishment.
-Yeah.

6.Executions on tv (you don't have to watch so I don't want to hear it.)
-If this just for sexual deviants? If so, no. If for all crimes - yes.

7.Increase in Amber alert funding (last one we got in Oklahoma was 12 hours old most children taken are killed in 3-6 hours)
-This is American I suppose, but it sounds like a good idea?

8.Increase in education on dangers to children.
-Yes, but the education could be harsher. No pussyfooting. Show them the dangers. Scare the shit out of them or something to that degree. No more 'the people you could talk to are paedophiles'... Could? Heh, a child's mind would take the risk. As one of the kids who have grown up in the age of 'the internet paedo', I don't think education was good enough here in the UK. A few adverts with aspects I would get now, not as a 10 year old... They do it with smoking. They do it with drink driving. Do it with the internet.

If you think that has any merit or effect, you are mistaken.


Funny, that's exactly what I thought of your replying to each of a previous poster's points with "that's not how we do it," or whatever it was. The thread is asking for suggestions of how to remedy criminal behavior. Tell me how "we don't do that" contributes in any way. It helps in the same way a person would help by posting "I don't listen to music" in a music thread.

Your version of the Swedish prison system is nowhere near what the accounts I've read describe. If you don't think they're credible, that's fine, but I'll stick with mine until I hear better.

As for actual debate, I've already posted a proposal.

I would wager the number is significantly higher than those hurt by pedophiles.

And therefore a more pressing problem.

This isn't an either/or problem. You can dismiss virtually any debate on societal ills by pointing to larger problems if you like.

You realize that knowing we can save the lives of the sick and starving and doing nothing is exactly the same as standing by, with a gun, watching somone kidnap a little girl and cut her throat and doing nothing.

Morally it is exactly the same.

1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 15-life first offence.
-Yes, maybe longer.

Define "child related crime"

and define what kind of circunstances AND what kind of proof is nessesary for that rigid ruling.

You realize that knowing we can save the lives of the sick and starving and doing nothing is exactly the same as standing by, with a gun, watching somone kidnap a little girl and cut her throat and doing nothing.

Morally it is exactly the same.

You don't see a disparity in proximity or obligation there, Mr. Singer?

You don't see a disparity in proximity or obligation there, Mr. Singer?
explain your point about "obligation"

Define "child related crime"

and define what kind of circunstances AND what kind of proof is nessesary for that rigid ruling.

Heh - a pedant? :D

To be frank, sticking your parts or having parts stuck into you, before the age of legal consential sex. DNA testing in these circumstances or as any other rape case is treated. If nothing is said... well, lets just assume the kid enjoyed it enough not to say anything. ;) If there is no proof - they get away with it.

I believe other crimes are treated the same as if adults were involved... Murder, etc? If not, they should be.

If you think that has any merit or effect, you are mistaken.



What, you think it reflects negatively on Sweden that we have a reputation of respecting the human rights of prisoners?

Sweden has a history of accepting convicted war criminals from UN tribunals (for instance, such people like Biljana Plavsic). We also have a history of respecting human rights. Any sane person would want to come to such a country and serve their time, in stead of, say, Turkey.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein's request was denied.



Not true. There are locks on doors.



Not true, either. Guards are payed to accompany criminals who have had their requests for leave approved, if there is a need for supervision.



Not true, either. While there is a problem in that certain checks have been circumvented in certain cases, checks were certainly in place.



Unlikely.



Ineffective rhetoric.



Prison reform is a topic after some high profile escapes (even though all the escapees were caught relatively swiftly), yes. But not in the way you imply. Oh, and I didn't think anybody took The New York Times seriously this side of 2003.

Now that you have failed in attacking Sweden, as if though that would have any bearing on this discussion, maybe you should try to stay on-topic and say something worth while?

People hate the Swedish prison system because its not that tough but theres still very little crime

You realize that knowing we can save the lives of the sick and starving and doing nothing is exactly the same as standing by, with a gun, watching somone kidnap a little girl and cut her throat and doing nothing.

Morally it is exactly the same.

No, it is not morally the same. Also, why not try to stay on topic? I've noticed on these boards, no matter what the topic is someone always tries to turn things socialist.

Not where I live.

Proportionately to the crime, and for a limited time, during which all your other rights are to be respected.

Not where I live.

Not where I live to the extent as they can be fulfilled while incarcerated.

Most certainly not where I live. Some countries honour the human rights charter.

Are you actually expecting anyone to fall for this straw man?

That is only done when there is sufficient cause.

He has the same right to privacy as anyone else. Let go of the straw men, please.

If you think that has any merit or effect, you are mistaken.

What, you think it reflects negatively on Sweden that we have a reputation of respecting the human rights of prisoners?

Sweden has a history of accepting convicted war criminals from UN tribunals (for instance, such people like Biljana Plavsic). We also have a history of respecting human rights. Any sane person would want to come to such a country and serve their time, in stead of, say, Turkey.

Oh, and Saddam Hussein's request was denied.

Not true. There are locks on doors.

Not true, either. Guards are payed to accompany criminals who have had their requests for leave approved, if there is a need for supervision.

Not true, either. While there is a problem in that certain checks have been circumvented in certain cases, checks were certainly in place.

Unlikely.

Ineffective rhetoric.

Prison reform is a topic after some high profile escapes (even though all the escapees were caught relatively swiftly), yes. But not in the way you imply. Oh, and I didn't think anybody took The New York Times seriously this side of 2003.

Now that you have failed in attacking Sweden, as if though that would have any bearing on this discussion, maybe you should try to stay on-topic and say something worth while?

First off you're the one who held up your country as a model of proper prisoner treatment. The responder was answering your boasts. I have highlighted something you said that supports Pepe's response. Your country's criminals are allowed vacations from prison. What? They vacation with guards if it is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for them to be under supervision and control they wouldn't be in prison.

The only straw men I have seen thrown out here is by you. You have not backed up your statements with anything other than "that's not how we do it" and have dismissed thought out arguments by others as "Ineffective rhetoric" "not true" "If you think that has any merit or effect, you are mistaken" "Let go of the straw men" "Are you actually expecting anyone to fall for this straw man? " "Unlikely"

We all know how things are done in your country. Perhaps you can offer some insight as to the logic behind these practices.

No, it is not morally the same. Also, why not try to stay on topic? I've noticed on these boards, no matter what the topic is someone always tries to turn things socialist.

Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily entail socialism... but eh, yeah.. the original topic would be more interesting.

Heh - a pedant? :D

If nothing is said... well, lets just assume the kid enjoyed it enough not to say anything. ;) .

I really hope your joking, but even so its still disturbing. In many many cases of child rape, or plain rape in general the victim doesn't speak up. It is not because they enjoyed it.

Define "child related crime"

and define what kind of circunstances AND what kind of proof is nessesary for that rigid ruling.
Any crime that involves the deliberate harming of a child under 13.

Dna,multiple witnesses , conffesion

Funny, that's exactly what I thought of your replying to each of a previous poster's points with "that's not how we do it," or whatever it was. The thread is asking for suggestions of how to remedy criminal behavior. Tell me how "we don't do that" contributes in any way. It helps in the same way a person would help by posting "I don't listen to music" in a music thread.

Zooke was claiming "we" did something. I was telling her, that, no, not everyone does those things. Context, dear Pepe, context.

Perhaps if people got angry about more imporant issues more lives could be saved?


Absolutely. The News reports the stuff that will sell. Very few children are murdered by strangers every year. Many more die in preventable accidents or from preventable diseases - even in the US. (Far more die from preventable causes in the Third World.)


I would wager the number is significantly higher than those hurt by pedophiles.


More than that, "Child Protective Services" and other "child advocacy" groups hurt far more children than pedophiles do. The great majority of child molesters are not even pedophiles. The "child advocacy" groups end up driving a wedge between children and those adults who would like to help them - all thanks to the misdirected hysteria about a few psychopaths.

http://inquisition21.com/



Baldur

To be frank, sticking your parts or having parts stuck into you, before the age of legal consential sex.
http://www.rock103.com/crew/showprep/media/prt/prt6.jpg

Mr legislator, Mr Judge you just sentenced her to a mandatory minimun 15 years closed term.

Zooke was claiming "we" did something. I was telling her, that, no, not everyone does those things. Context, dear Pepe, context.

I'm sure Zooke was pointing out how things are done in the US. That is where she lives and that is where the crime that has started this latest round of criminal debates occurred. You can't define the use of the word "we" as a collective term for the laws of all countries.

Long jail sentences are the answer, the death penalty is immoral.Why is the death penalty immoral?

First off you're the one who held up your country as a model of proper prisoner treatment. The responder was answering your boasts.

No, I didn't. As I told Pepe just a minute ago, I was explaining to Zooke that, no, things aren't done the same everywhere. Context, again, seems the key word. f it is boasting to point out an erroneous assumption, then, well...

Your country's criminals are allowed vacations from prison. What?

No, not vacation - leave, which is dependant on good behaviour. A lot of countries, yes, even the US, have systems where criminals can apply for leave.

They vacation with guards if it is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for them to be under supervision and control they wouldn't be in prison.

Again, "leave", not "vacation". And, contrary to your belief, not everyone in prison poses a threat to other people. Unsupervised leaves are also highly conditional on good behaviour, risk assessment and are part of rehabilitation.

Again, taking into context that I was explaining to Zooke, that, no, "we" didn't all do certain things the same way, how is this relevant?

To all the people biaching about Sweden Jail system...

You all need to compare Sweden vs USA crime rates...

It theirs are lower..they must be doing something rite.

[unrelated]their Tax filing system makes way more sense...just like IKEA.

IRS :mp5:

http://www.rock103.com/crew/showprep/media/prt/prt6.jpg

Mr legislator, Mr Judge you just sentenced her to a mandatory minimun 15 years closed term.

Heh, oh well.

And if the kid doesn't speak up - what can be done? Anything can be assumed. The law cannot be sought if there is no justice to be done. Perhaps I was a little harsh, but if you don't speak up... what is there to do? It's a sorry fact, but a true one.

Why is the death penalty immoral?

because the government should not have the power to decide who should and shouldn't live among the people.

Heh, oh well.

And if the kid doesn't speak up - .he did not spek up... someone else blew the wistle.... it was proven and she has confessed.
.
.

unless...unless you mean that her sweetheart can stop the acusations if he wishes.

because the government should not have the power to decide who should and shouldn't live among the people.
the Govs have the power to do so (when they send them to Jail).

I think this is the link OceanDrive meant to use:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-09-teacher-rape_x.htm

I'm entirely opposed to crimes against children, AND crimes against adults - if they actually cause harm. As such, I'm entirely opposed to psychopaths like this fellow down in Florida.

But as far as I'm concerned, when mutually consentual activities are made illegal, the real evil-doers are those who write the idiotic laws. While some adjustment needs to be made for children who do not fully understand the consequences of their actions, the current laws go way, way too far - like asking for a glass of water and getting a tsunami.



Baldur

he doest have to... It was proven... and she has confessed.

unless...you mean that her sweetheart can stop the acusations if he wishes.
I was talking about circumstances where the kid needs to talk about the crime for a case into the matter to start.

(edit)ie, the only people who knew, being the kid and the criminal in question.(/edit)

I was replying to someone else, my bad.

No, I didn't. As I told Pepe just a minute ago, I was explaining to Zooke that, no, things aren't done the same everywhere. Context, again, seems the key word. f it is boasting to point out an erroneous assumption, then, well...

I don't think anyone needed to be told that things aren't done the same everywhere - no one is assuming that things are the same anywhere. The context was:

When you commit a crime, you forfeit your rights as a citizen. You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life. Constitutional rights? Where does it say that a person has the right to prey upon their fellow man in anonimity? A number of public building post fliers of people wanted by law enforcement for crimes. TV news also airs pictures of people suspected of crimes...person of interest. In what way does a known sexual predator have more rights to privacy than others?

Zooke is trying to justify a proposal by describing the system as it stands, arguing that measures against sex criminals are permissible under this standard. Saying that some other country is lax on sex crimes means what, exactly, in the context of this debate? People were posting suggestions as to how to deal with the problem. I haven't heard a proposal from you yet. I took your assertion that Sweden's model was relevant to mean exactly that, and gave an opinion of why it shouldn't be considered so...

because the government should not have the power to decide who should and shouldn't live among the people.
...this is funny coming from someone that in another thread said they support mass slaughtering of homosexuals...

how about the people just lynch them, like in the good old days

I think this is the link OceanDrive meant to use:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...cher-rape_x.htm
I'm entirely opposed to crimes against children, AND crimes against adults - if they actually cause harm. As such, I'm entirely opposed to psychopaths like this fellow down in Florida.

But as far as I'm concerned, when mutually consentual activities are made illegal, the real evil-doers are those who write the idiotic laws. While some adjustment needs to be made for children who do not fully understand the consequences of their actions, the current laws go way, way too far - like asking for a glass of water and getting a tsunami.
yes..

IMO in some countries...an expression such "sexual assault" or "sexually harrased" is a carpet expression ..and a lot of different kind of garbage are swept under that carpet.

The laws need to be clear and precise without exeption.

BTW. big eyes, good research South Niflheim

...this is funny coming from someone that in another thread said they support mass slaughtering of homosexuals...
pls...use the quote buttom.
or link it.

how about the people just lynch them, like in the good old days

People do. When the government tries an individual, the court recognizes the process as "People vs. X," as the government, elected and funded by the people, applies the law, written by our representatives in Congress, to the crime. You don't think this is a bit more just than resorting to having unelected individuals, possibly ignorant of the law, simply lynching a person they believe is a threat?

Zooke is trying to justify a proposal by describing the system as it stands, arguing that measures against sex criminals are permissible under this standard. Saying that some other country is lax on sex crimes means what, exactly, in the context of this debate? People were posting suggestions as to how to deal with the problem. I haven't heard a proposal from you yet. I took your assertion that Sweden's model was relevant to mean exactly that, and gave an opinion of why it shouldn't be considered so...

That's exactly what she meant. Laws have to be created that will not let criminal's civil rights be used as a shield to prey on other people. I visited the sexual predators registry to see who might be in my hometown. We live in a quiet middle class neighborhood. There are 4 class 3 (high risk) offenders within a mile of our house. Their pictures are posted on that site. I recognized 2 of them and one of them works at the convenience store where we buy our gas. How many times has my wife been in that store alone after dark and we didn't know there was a twice convicted rapist working there? If this information can be made public on the internet whe not everyone has internet then it needs to be made public in a way that is accessible to everyone/

why is the deathpenalty immoral?

because the government should not have the power to decide who should and shouldn't live among the people.

the Govs have the power to do so (when they send them to Jail).

Uh... Live among the people, not live among the people. :¬l

It's immoral because if you believe people have the right to life, thenyou should accord them that right.
If you believe the right is inalienable, then they can do nothing to divest themselves of that right
If you believe that a person can alienate their right to life (by taking the life of another and so violating their right to life) fair enough, I suppose, but you must recognise that you open the door to a whole range of abuses. Having established that a person's right to life may be alienated in certain circumstances, we leave ourselvs open to changes in what those circumstances are. If we can kill someone for murder, can we do it for rape, as discussed here? can we do it for attempted murder? Robbery? Common assault?

This is, of course, leaving aside all of the concerns about what you do if you execute an innocent person. IF they're in prison, you can apologise and let them go. Yeah, you may have ruined their life, but crucially, they aren't dead.

I don't think anyone needed to be told that things aren't done the same everywhere - no one is assuming that things are the same anywhere. The context was:

"You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life."

I was pointing out that, no, "you" do not do that at all. USians might (depending on the state), but the general "you" doesn't do that at all. Thus making her subsequent elaboration only applicable to whatever particular (US) state she may have meant.

Zooke is trying to justify a proposal by describing the system as it stands, arguing that measures against sex criminals are permissible under this standard. Saying that some other country is lax on sex crimes means what, exactly, in the context of this debate?

Do not resort to straw men. That some other country was "lax on sex crimes" was claimed nowhere, and the explanation that no, "you" didn't do that at all showed that her argument was applicable only to a limited circumstance, which not all of us share.

People were posting suggestions as to how to deal with the problem. I haven't heard a proposal from you yet. I took your assertion that Sweden's model was relevant to mean exactly that, and gave an opinion of why it shouldn't be considered so...

Then you assumed incorrectly. My comment on context still applies.

My solution? Crack down on burglars, thieves, and murderers (while allowing for mitigating circumstances - i.e. trying to feed starving family (not likely in any industrial nation), got into a drunken fight with another drunken fool, etc.)

In short, crack down on any crime where a lack of respect for others was central to the crime. These people tend to be very dangerous in MANY ways. If this psychopath in Florida had gotten 2 years for each count of burglary, he would have been in prison and Jessica would be alive.

After that, crack down on crimes where a lack of self-control was central to the crime. Allow for mitigating circumstances (if the trigger event was extremely rare and extremely provocative, it would serve little purpose to keep the offender in jail). Give these people much nicer living conditions - they are often nice enough people who just can't handle negative emotions. We want them off the street, but there is no reason to punish them beyond incarceration.

That pretty much covers the worst offenders.



Baldur

pls...use the quote buttom.
or link it.
Okay.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482631&postcount=73
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8485840&postcount=195

....
This is, of course, leaving aside all of the concerns about what you do if you execute an innocent person. IF they're in prison, you can apologise and let them go. Yeah, you may have ruined their life, but crucially, they aren't dead.
*scenario*
Lorena acuses Bobby of savagely raping her...we send Bobby to Prison for 5 years...

4 years later, by accident, we find out that Lorena lost her mind...she was enraged wanted to make him pay cos Bobby sletp with her best friend...

Bobby comes out whit AIDS and tell us he has been beaten and raped on a daily basis...

then we apologize and tell him "Bobby, we ruined your life...but crucially you aint dead"

"You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life."

I was pointing out that, no, "you" do not do that at all. USians might (depending on the state), but the general "you" doesn't do that at all. Thus making her subsequent elaboration only applicable to whatever particular (US) state she may have meant.


Yes, naturally his/her suggestion was built on current jurisprudence where he/she is from. But the argument was that the principles our system operates on can facilitate a certain solution. So it went somewhat like:

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Where I'm from, we don't do "X."

Which advances the debate how? The logical step would've been to say:

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Doing "X" is wrong because "Z," so "Y," based on principle "X," is wrong.

How would you deal with sex offenders then? I'd be interested to know. Surely 'respecting humanity' would still include consequences for kidnapping, torturing, raping, and killing an 9-year old girl, yes?

2. And whats so bad about with that?

3/4. You clearly do not know anyone that has been raped. Their life is taken away from them....it forever haunts them.
You'd understand if you knew someone that had been raped.
With the rate of rape out there he probably does know someone that was … even if he does know “know” it

As for the uniforms I think it is a bad idea … simply it is essentially getting someone else to do your dirty work

Really the only purpose for those uniforms are for them to attract attention for retribution. All fine and good except for the person that carries out the act you have essentially set up for them to do will get punished for murdering the sex offender.
You not only having someone else do the states dirty work but the person that acts as your tool takes the fall for a situation you set up … something not right about that

What do we do about sexual predators? It has to stop. Ideas?

What do we need to do as a people?
I feel that part of the problem is because we as a society do not know our neighbors, we have no sense of community. We have lost sight of the fact that we need to look out for each other.
After yesterdays news about Jessica Marie Lunsford I have had enough. I am in the process of writing all my state and federal reps. it is hard because the language degrades because of anger and I need to start over.

I have a few idea's
It is important to remember this man had been caught twice before doing this....twice. Out of a 10-year sentence he served 2 years?

Unacceptable.

1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 15-life first offence. 1st offence should be life with no chance of parole. No exceptions.

2.If you have to register at new address you have to register in prison (other inmates should be told) maybe a color-coded prison uniform? This would mean the prisoner would be singled out by the other inmates and “punished” in their own way for his deeds…not a bad idea.
2a. Registering a child molester, if he is not serving a mandatoy life sentence, isn’t enough, once his rights are revoked the police, probation officer, any adult, who stays with in the law, should be able to monitor the molester’s actions at any time. If the molester is not where he’s supposed to be an APB is immediately released. Maybe a permanently installed GPS chip or equivalent should be installed on the molester’s person.

3.Second offence death no ifs, ands or buts. Life in states that have no C.P. If there’s a mandatory life sentence this is a mute point.

4. Could we make it so the federal death penalty applies? The Federal Government in the U.S. could do this, but it would take an act of Congress or the Supreme Court to make it stick. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Car Jacking is a federal offence.

5.Confession in no way gets you out of full punishment. Right on.

6.Executions on TV (you don't have to watch so I don't want to hear it.) The American Civil Liberties Union already has made sure that criminals have too many rights as it is. This won’t fly at all, due to criminals having basic rights under the US Constitution. But an act of Congress and support from the US Supreme court to strip all criminals of their rights for certain crimes would go a long way toward limiting these people from being in and among the law abiding members of society.

7.Increase in Amber alert funding (last one we got in Oklahoma was 12 hours old most children taken are killed in 3-6 hours) Isn’t it interesting how a law can be passed but no or not enough money is appropriated to support it?

8.Increase in education on dangers to children. This should be directed toward children, parents, and anybody who watches over children. Small seminars, free, to all who would attend about what is needed to be done to protect our children. Something along the lines of NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH programs. Volunteer Advocates are needed to keep these programs active.

I am angry about this as well, I don't care how your personal feelings are about the death penalty or human rights. When you experience what it is like to lose your child to a molester then come and tell me what you think or are feeling then. I'm tired of all you do gooders thinking of the rights of others, particularly the criminals, when they didn't think of their victims rights when they were committing the crime. :mad: :mad:

1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 1st offence should be life with no chance of parole. No exceptions.

Define "child related crime"

...and what kind of proof is nessesary.

Yes, naturally his/her suggestion was built on current jurisprudence where he/she is from. But the argument was that the principles our system operates on can facilitate a certain solution. So it went somewhat like:

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Where I'm from, we don't do "X."

Which advances the debate how? The logical step would've been to say:

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Doing "X" is wrong because "Z," so "Y," based on principle "X," is wrong.

1. She has not returned.

2. She did not specify.

How would you deal with sex offenders then? I'd be interested to know. Surely 'respecting humanity' would still include consequences for kidnapping, torturing, raping, and killing an 9-year old girl, yes?

We deal with them through the criminal justice system, which can only punish people once/crime, and which still has to comform to our constitution, which applies to everyone.

castration

take away the tools and they can't work

Good idea! They were cruel to some kid, so why not pay them back.

Hang them all! :mad:

Define "child related crime"

...and what kind of proof is nessesary.

:headbang: OK Ocean Drive! The person who began this thread is tired of Child Molesters not doing their full time in prison as am I. I personally think that as far as the molesting of children are of concern, there should be a life sentence for the conviction of child molestation, no exceptions.

It has been proven, and no I don't have the information at my finger tips, that child molesters, and rapists for that matter, excellerate in their crimes from just molester, to molester and murderer.

The current laws should be plenty to convict the molester, but the penalty should be stronger. :mad:

...and to be honest, your demand for proof, concerns me, are you afraid of what society may eventually come around to?

:headbang: OK Ocean Drive! The person who began this thread is tired of Child Molesters not doing their full time in prison as am I. I personally think that as far as the molesting of children are of concern, there should be a life sentence for the conviction of child molestation, no exceptions.

It has been proven, and no I don't have the information at my finger tips, that child molesters, and rapists for that matter, excellerate in their crimes from just molester, to molester and murderer.

The current laws should be plenty to convict the molester, but the penalty should be stronger. :mad:

...and to be honest, your demand for proof, concerns me, are you afraid of what society may eventually come around to?
All that Blah-Blah does not answer the 2 questions...

Maybe if I ask one question at a time.

Pharoah, What is your Definition of "child related crime"?

We deal with them through the criminal justice system, which can only punish people once/crime, and which still has to comform to our constitution, which applies to everyone.

Through the criminal justice system, you say? Hmm.. I never thought of that. Using laws? Laws which are constitutional? Interesting....



Seriously though, that's not an answer. No one in this thread, except maybe one person, has advocated doing anything other than changing laws that would be constitutional and used through the criminal justice system...

So more specifically then, what "Kinds" of laws and punishments would you advocate?

"You give up your liberty, your right to vote, your right to pursue your goals and interests, and sometimes your life."

I was pointing out that, no, "you" do not do that at all. USians might (depending on the state), but the general "you" doesn't do that at all. Thus making her subsequent elaboration only applicable to whatever particular (US) state she may have meant.

Iwannabeacowboy and Pepe...thank you for defending and clarifying my arguments. :cool:

Fass, I want to commend you on dissecting and incorrectly interpreting my remarks after I signed off to go to church. You don't seem to have all of your facts straight on US policy involving convicted criminals, however. Prisoners in the US do not get leave (vacation, holiday, etc) for good behavior. Some are granted supervised leave for family emergencies, such as the funeral of an immediate family member...but not if they are considered a risk to the population. Good behavior only increases their chance of early parole.

In the USA, if you commit and are convicted of a crime against society, you loose your liberty through inprisonment and/or law enforcement agency monitoring. Upon your release your travel is restricted and your whereabouts must be reported to the appropriate agency.

In the USA, convicts do not have the right to vote while they are in prison. In some states they are given their voting rights back after they have fulfilled their prison and parole terms.

In the USA, the incarcerated do not have the right to legally pursue their careers or other life goals other than rehabilitation and education.

In the USA, in 37 (?) states your crimes may cause you to forfeit your life. That is why I said "sometimes your life". Even in the states that do not have the death penalty, you can be forced to permanently give up your life of freedom.

In the USA, we have laws enacted that permit the notification of its citizens that there is a person living in their vicinity that could pose a risk.

In the USA, we are allowed to notify the public of people that are being sought in connection with a crime.

In the USA, we have the right to be provided with the information we need to protect ourselves.

In the USA, we have the right to urge our representatives to pass laws that impose harsher punishment on criminals and closer supervision of released criminals.

Now, why not take Pepe's suggestion and do this?

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Where I'm from, we don't do "X."

Which advances the debate how? The logical step would've been to say:

Zooke: We already do "X," so why don't we do "Y?"

Fass: Doing "X" is wrong because "Z," so "Y," based on principle "X," is wrong

All that Blah-Blah does not answer the 2 questions...

Maybe if I ask one question at a time.

Pharoah, What is your Definition of "child related crime"?

:headbang: Oh, I get it, you must be a lawyer and you figure if you keep pressuring me to answer your inane question I will drop my stance. Wrong. I think it is simple. We are addressing the fact that too many child molesters are getting away with sexually attacking children and killing them. So, by "child related crime" if you sexually attack any child under the age of 18, you should spend all the time prescribed by law, (preferably your life, my preference), in prison.

The proof necessary, are the provisions that each state determines by law.

.... You don't seem to have all of your facts straight on US policy involving convicted criminals....
looking at the mirror?

1. She has not returned.

2. She did not specify.

We deal with them through the criminal justice system, which can only punish people once/crime, and which still has to comform to our constitution, which applies to everyone.

1. I'm back.

2. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484840&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484871&postcount=16
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484884&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8484957&postcount=27

To clarify:

1. We need stricter mandatory sentences for violent offenders.
2. We need a more accessible and prevalent offender alert system. We have fliers for "wanted" criminals and news bulletins for "suspected" criminals. Such information should be available to all people on potential threats in their area. Warnings of sexual predators should be readily available in our schools.
3. We need to make a determination that one person's right to privacy does not supercede another's right to live more safely and securely.
4. We need to acknowledge that habitual criminals are not fit to live in society and need to be locked up where they can't hurt innocent people.

looking at the mirror?

I'm going on information being provided to me by a friend who works in a prosecutor's office. Rather than make a rude and uninformative remark, why not provide information to support your remark?

looking at the mirror?
please, i'm asking you with all my heart, knock it off. don't get into these stupid, childish sniping games. this thread has some real promise, with some real discussion occuring on a very emotionally charged topic, and i would love to see that continue. it's hard enough to find a good thread these days, so please don't de-rail this one with rude behavior.

:headbang: Oh, I get it, you must be a lawyer....No I am not...(Maybe you should hit your head harder)

...I think it is simple.No it is not simple, thats why we have so many different opinions.

So, by "child related crime" if you sexually attack any child under the age of 18...so in your opinion a 18 years old is still a "child"...


The proof necessary, are the provisions that each state determines by law.
The question is "in your opinion" what should be minimum proof...

If your answer is "whatever the state provisions are"...that means that you are happy with your current state rape laws...In that case we need to know what is your State or Country...(maybe its so perferct that we need to emulate).

In any event your answers are not clear and direct...you have clear thinking issues.

I'd say mandatory life sentence on first conviction and leave it at that.

Problem is a life sentence doesn't always mean life. There is always the parole, commutation of sentence, or pardon. :( Now, if life without pardon or parole really meant that I might consider it a better option than death.

I'm going on information being provided to me by a friend who works in a prosecutor's office. Rather than make a rude and uninformative remark, why not provide information to support your remark?If it was not clear enough...
I dont think you are well informed...and on top of that you are being arrogant.

Problem is a life sentence doesn't always mean life. There is always the parole, commutation of sentence, or pardon. :( Now, if life without pardon or parole really meant that I might consider it a better option than death.
That depends on the country...in some countries life means life.

....with rude behavior.Waht part was rude?

what part did you not understand?

If it was not clear enough...
I dont think you are well informed...and on top of that you are being arrogant.

I'm arrogant in stating fact as provided by a professional and requesting that others do the same? Fine! I'll take my arrogant butt out of here and let you all ruin this thread with insulting remarks and boastful claims. Carry on!

Problem is a life sentence doesn't always mean life. There is always the parole, commutation of sentence, or pardon. :( Now, if life without pardon or parole really meant that I might consider it a better option than death.
i'm all for "life of hard labor without possibility of parole." those who victimize children should spend their lives doing the jobs nobody else wants, and all their wages should be donated to charities and organizations which help the victims of child sexual abuse.

i believe the age of consent should be lowered to 16 across the board, so that 16 is the age of majority. in view of that, i believe that any and all sexual contact with a person under 16 should be considered by law to be a non-consenting encounter, since a person under 16 would be legally defined as unable to give adult consent. any person who perpetrates nonconsentual sexual acts against another person is a rapist, and i believe all rapists (across the board) should be sentenced to the life-without-parole system i described, so any person having sexual contact with a minor would receive this penalty because their actions would qualify as rape.

Waht part was rude?

what part did you not understand?
playing dumb does not fool anybody. just drop it, and get on with your life. there is no need for you to waste your time (or ours) with this behavior.

...Fine! I'll take my arrogant butt out of here and let you all ruin this thread with insulting remarks and boastful claims. Carry on!
your are arrogant in stating that you are the sole holder of the truth...

and that your "truth" is good for all of us...

Think about it. This bastard wants to rape/molest/etc. but he doesn't have a dick or balls to do it. Imagine the mental anguish he goes through...especially in his life in prison. As he's getting raped daily and has to piss into a bedpan, he'll realize the error of his ways, or at least die trying.

I like it :-D

your are arrogant in stating that you are the sole holder of the truth...

and that your "truth" is good for all of us...
i don't see that. and, at any rate, personal attacks are a major hijack. please stick to the topic to avoid de-railing the thread. if you want to discuss Zooke's behavior, send telegrams or start another thread for that. just show some courtesy to the thread founder and to those who are participating here, and don't let your personal attacks disrupt a good discussion.

if you have something to say on the topic, please do stay and share, though! :)

i'm all for "life of hard labor without possibility of parole." those who victimize children should spend their lives doing the jobs nobody else wants, and all their wages should be donated to charities and organizations which help the victims of child sexual abuse.

i believe the age of consent should be lowered to 16 across the board,

Sounds reasonable, but why lower the age from 18 to 16? Any particular reason for that?

I think sexual predators should be sentenced to death, evil bastards. Perhaps it can be a quick one, but it should be very painful. VERY, VERY painful. :mad:

....You don't seem to have all of your facts straight on US policy involving convicted criminals....
looking at the mirror?
.
.
... there is no need for you to waste your time (or ours) ...
:confused:

Zooke told him that he needs to have his facts strait on US policy...

and I think she need to get some facts straight herself...

now Bottle... what was your reply about?

It has been proven, and no I don't have the information at my finger tips, that child molesters, and rapists for that matter, excellerate in their crimes from just molester, to molester and murderer.


This has hardly been proven. Kind of like the case for "gateway" drugs. Most serious criminals have committed LOTS of crimes, and not all of them can be major ones. When they are finally caught for a major crime, they go to prison and are not able to repeat their lesser crimes. This presents the illusion that they "graduate" from lesser to greater crimes, but all it really proves is that people who do not respect the rights of others, or have no self-control, are a danger to others.

It would also be good to hear your definition of "molestation". The legal definition used in the United States is so broad as to be useless - ANYONE can qualify as a child molester.

If you are talking about forcible rape of children, I am absolutely opposed - but the current state of affairs is so insane I cannot presume that this is what you mean.



Baldur

I think sexual predators should be sentenced to death, evil bastards. Perhaps it can be a quick one, but it should be very painful. VERY, VERY painful. :mad:
I agree.

Sounds reasonable, but why lower the age from 18 to 16? Any particular reason for that?
because, neurologically speaking, there is no ability a 16 year old lacks which an 18 year old has. social studies have also demonstrated that today's 16 year olds are more mature than 18 year olds of our grandparents' generation, in many different measurements. i believe a 16 year old is as able to give consent as an 18 year old, so there's no reason to allow the latter to act as adults but to deny the former.

i also believe there are many societal benefits to lowering consent age in America; turning 18 usually is accompanied by some acting out, simply because the young person is enjoying new freedoms. this also occurs at 21, when the young person is (finally) able to purchase alcohol. i believe that the danger from these temporary wild periods would be greatly reduced if the age of consent was reached while the young person was more likely to still be living with their parents. i think a 16 year old would act out to about the same degree as an 18 year old or 21 year old, but the 16 year old would have more regulation from their parents and more close supervision for their family, so they would be less likely to get into serious trouble.

i don't want to hijack the whole thread with age-of-consent stuff, but it does seem relavent to the topic...after all, if a 16 year old can't give consent, it's rape to have sex with them, but if they can, it's not...that's a big issue.

Zooke told him that he needs to have his facts strait on US policy...

and I think she need to get some facts straight herself...

now Bottle... what was your reply about?
my reply was to tell you to drop it. please get over it. you were rude, you know it, everybody else knows it, but it did not need to be a big deal. move on and let it go.

you were rude...

look, No Im not your Little brother, No I dont need any babysitting, and NO I dont need you to tell me what to do or how to behave.

i believe the age of consent should be lowered to 16 across the board, so that 16 is the age of majority.

That would be raising it in some jurisdictions.


in view of that, i believe that any and all sexual contact with a person under 16 should be considered by law to be a non-consenting encounter, since a person under 16 would be legally defined as unable to give adult consent.

Yeah, well, the law is an ass.

As long as the law does not respect the right of children to say Yes as well as No, I cannot in good conscience support the law.


any person who perpetrates nonconsentual sexual acts against another person is a rapist,


by your definition, the worst rapists in the US are probably those paid by the government to convince children to tell lies implicating innocent people, or forcing children to undergo "medical examinations" to get proof to implicate an adult whom the child does not want punished.


and i believe all rapists (across the board) should be sentenced to the life-without-parole system i described, so any person having sexual contact with a minor would receive this penalty because their actions would qualify as rape.

There is your problem. You come up with such a broad definition of rape that it is no longer rape - or, rather, enforcing your morality IS a kind of rape, but I don't think that's where you were going.

So should we put YOU in jail for life for supporting crimes against children?



Baldur

my reply was to tell you to drop it. please get over it. you were rude, you know it, everybody else knows it, but it did not need to be a big deal. move on and let it go.

Bottle...I really appreciate your support in this, but you're wasting your time. I'm calming down and getting some work done. You and the other serious posters can discuss this issue intelligently.

welcome to general...now why dont you stop wasting my time?Somebody needs a hug! You clearly have had a bad day...everybody, give OceanDrive some love, and help him stop being such a sour puss! :fluffle:

Bottle...I really appreciate your support in this, but you're wasting your time. I'm calming down and getting some work done. You and the other serious posters can discuss this issue intelligently.
yeah, i give up. i don't understand why somebody would be so determined to divert an otherwise nice topic, but oh well...i don't get people, mostly :).

...give OceanDrive some love...

Shagadelic!! :D :D :eek: :D

yeah, i give up. i don't understand why somebody would be so determined to divert an otherwise nice topic, but oh well...i don't get people, mostly :).

I've learned that although you can get into some interesting discussions on here and sometimes see issues with a new view, it's not worth it to endure personal attacks and getting angry. This is a forum for relaxation...not taxation. Enjoy the debate...and give em heck for me.

Ok, firstly, I want to answer some of the things you said. It's obvious that this is close to your heart, but I think that you are not thinking about this rationally.

I have a few idea's
It is important to remember this man had been caught twice before doing this....twice. Out of a 10 year sentance he served 2 years?

Unacceptable.
Firstly, I agree. This man was OBVIOUSLY a criminal and shouldn't have been allowed to get away with it twice. Especially not with so short a sentence. This is something to talk about. I agree that there should be some mandatory sentences for Child Molestation.
1. Mandatory sentence for a child related crime 15-life first offence.
Ok, I'm gonna say right now. This is just plain stupid. I'll be honest. I have a girlfriend who is considered "Under age" and if I got thrown in jail for life just cause I love her, she would probably want to kill herself. However, under your system, that is a VERY likely scenario. This is why laws like this are not so strict. Because not every case is the same. It's not like murder, or rape. It's simply a "Child related crime".

2.If you have to register at new address you have to register in prison (other inmates should be told) maybe a color coded prison uniform?
Ok, guess what. They know when someone comes in for Child Molestation. In most prisons there are already color coded uniforms, but even in those who are not, word gets around. Why? Cause everyone in prison hates a child molester. Most people in prisons have families back home. Something people don't reallize. And anyone who has a daughter they love will hate anyone who is a Child Molester.
3.Second offence death no if's or but's. Life in states that have no C.P.

4. Could we make it so the federal death penaty applys?
Once again. This is WAY to harsh. See my answer to your first suggestion. Not every crime is alike and you aren't always dealing with someone who is really a criminal.
5.Confession in no way gets you out of full punishment.

I agree. Why should someone who is a criminal get less of a punishment because they admit to being evil? Never did understand that.
6.Executions on tv (you don't have to watch so I don't want to hear it.)

7.Increase in Amber alert funding (last one we got in Oklahoma was 12 hours old most children taken are killed in 3-6 hours)

8.Increase in education on dangers to children.
Guess what. This stuff DOES NOT HELP! Only parents can have enough of an impact on kids to stop them from doing the things that get them abducted. Supporting a fund, which you have already noted was worthless, will not help. Executing people on public television will cause all sorts of problems because we are civilized in this country and we know that any person in their right mind does not want their kids sneaking to watch some guy get killed. The fact is, the only way to prevent child abductions is to start teaching kids early about the dangers. It is hard, and very frustrating, but the rewards are good. So many parents want to act like they are so good, but the truth is, kids are being put in more danger because parents refuse to do their jobs.

3.Second offence death no if's or but's. Life in states that have no C.P. -Three strikes. Twice is too little... Nowadays I find that girls of 14 can look 18 and above. If this is the case... then, three strikes. If they're forcing themselves into a toddler, 2 times.

So if you had a sister, you'd be willing to let that THIRD chance possibly be her? I think even two is too much. Why let the person have a chance to do it again?

By the way, I also think that the age a "Child" becomes an "Adult" by law should be lowered to 16. I think there should also be provisions so that anyone over the age of 12 may take a kind of maturity test which will determine if they have the proper maturity to choose their mate, or, in some cases their husband.
If these things where inacted, I would be able to marry Alex and I wouldn't have to wait any longer. We've been together for 2 years!!! 2 YEARS!!!! And I haven't left her. I've stayed with her the whole time. Thats longer then any previous relationship I've had with women my age and above!
The fact is, I can't live without Alex. I would much rather die then have to spend the rest of my life knowing that I would never see her again. I think that alot of the people who have posted like the creator have some problems with thinking about this issue clearly because they haven't experienced the truth of love. Guess what. Love doesn't care about how old you are. It chooses you and says "Look, this is the right person for you" and you can't stop yourself from loving that person. I can never support any law that does not take into thought, the power of love and the fact of it's existance and it's trancendance of race, color, creed, and, thats right, age...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Punishment is not prevention. The only way to prevent sexual violence against children is to provide children with the means to protect themselves from violence.

Most intelligent people understand that rape is not about sex.

No shit, smartass. Nothing like following me around is it? Anyhow, you still can't rape someone with a penis you don't have.

So if you had a sister, you'd be willing to let that THIRD chance possibly be her? I think even two is too much. Why let the person have a chance to do it again?
He had conditions. His point was clear. There should always be conditions to crimes. The pastor's daughter at my church is 15. She looks, and acts grown, and looks enough like her baby bros that one could easily mistake her for a mother. She is also quickly on her way to becoming very sexually active, and I'll tell you, Ashley wouldn't have a hard time convincing a guy to sleep with her. She has Size D breasts and a perfect body, so that when someone looks at her, they don't see her as a 15 year old girl. She's extremely mature, and would find it easy to fool someone into thinking she is at least 21.
Now in this case, would you think it would be right to throw some poor guy in jail because he was fooled into thinking that he was sleeping with a consenting adult?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Punishment is not prevention. The only way to prevent sexual violence against children is to provide children with the means to protect themselves from violence.
they are separate issues...and we need both....we need Prevention AND we need Punishement

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Punishment is not prevention. The only way to prevent sexual violence against children is to provide children with the means to protect themselves from violence.

Cool. I'm thinking Girls with Guns. Like Mischa Barton in "Lawn Dogs". (Best movie ever.)



Baldur

No shit, smartass. Nothing like following me around is it? :confused: What was that all about?

He had conditions. His point was clear. There should always be conditions to crimes. The pastor's daughter at my church is 15. She looks, and acts grown, and looks enough like her baby bros that one could easily mistake her for a mother. She is also quickly on her way to becoming very sexually active, and I'll tell you, Ashley wouldn't have a hard time convincing a guy to sleep with her. She has Size D breasts and a perfect body, so that when someone looks at her, they don't see her as a 15 year old girl. She's extremely mature, and would find it easy to fool someone into thinking she is at least 21.
Now in this case, would you think it would be right to throw some poor guy in jail because he was fooled into thinking that he was sleeping with a consenting adult?
some are asking for mandatory minimum 15 years on first offense...others asking for a life term. !!!!

:confused: What was that all about?

Don't worry about it. Stolen Butterfrogs knows what I'm talking about. He (assuming) is a troll. A new name doesn't give someone a new identity.

Hang Them All! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Now in this case, would you think it would be right to throw some poor guy in jail because he was fooled into thinking that he was sleeping with a consenting adult?

I actually know of a case like this - taken to the extreme.

A woman went online and pretended to be something like 20 years old, and wanting sex. Trying to relive her youth. Lots of cybersex with men she met online. Online, her maturity was clear from the way she wrote, so no one doubted that she was an adult. When they came to meet her, she convinced her 15yo daughter to take her place, and her daughter had sex with a number of men to preserve her mother's online identity which was so important to her mother. The 15yo was very well developed, and none of the men had reason to believe she was not the person they had conversed with online. Online, the mother had stated that she was somewhat shy in person, and could only feel free to talk when she was online, so the men didn't suspect when the daughter didn't speak as well as the mother had written.

The police got wind of all this, and naturally arrested the mother. They also arrested all the men they could track down, got them convicted and sent to prison.

Where is the justice in that?

It's disgusting is what it is.

And many of the posters here want to make it worse?



Baldur

I actually know of a case like this - taken to the extreme.

A woman went online and pretended to be something like 20 years old, and wanting sex. Trying to relive her youth. Lots of cybersex with men she met online. Online, her maturity was clear from the way she wrote, so no one doubted that she was an adult. When they came to meet her, she convinced her 15yo daughter to take her place, and her daughter had sex with a number of men to preserve her mother's online identity which was so important to her mother. The 15yo was very well developed, and none of the men had reason to believe she was not the person they had conversed with online. Online, the mother had stated that she was somewhat shy in person, and could only feel free to talk when she was online, so the men didn't suspect when the daughter didn't speak as well as the mother had written.

The police got wind of all this, and naturally arrested the mother. They also arrested all the men they could track down, got them convicted and sent to prison.

Where is the justice in that?

It's disgusting is what it is.

And many of the posters here want to make it worse?



Baldur
What a stupid bitch...

they are separate issues...and we need both....we need Prevention AND we need Punishement

If crimes were prevented then they would not have to be puinshed. Having both redundant. The current problem is that we have very little prevention.

No shit, smartass. Nothing like following me around is it? Anyhow, you still can't rape someone with a penis you don't have.
Yes you can. Read the laws on rape by instrumentation.

Stop puting them on probation. They always break it. Treat them as if they have something mentally and psychologically wrong, because they do. They need to have in-living treatment. Just like alcohol and drug rehabilitation, if you give the person treatment while they have freedom to work, etc., often times the rehabilitation process is defeated by their connection tothe outside world. Thus, the resources needed to perform the acts they are trying to be rehabilitated for.

No shit, smartass. Nothing like following me around is it? Anyhow, you still can't rape someone with a penis you don't have.

Many, many ways (http://store.sextoys.sex-superstore.com/cgi-bin/toys.cgi?af=5945&type=toys&text=dildo&criteria=init)

I refuse to read the rest of the thread. So, if any of this has been said, then you can just count me as an extra vote.

First of all, strong punishments are fine. I like the death penalty as a deterrent, but I don't think the benefits will ever outweigh the costs. This isn't a thread about the death penalty, though, so I won't go into that. Penalties should be severe for disrupting society. However, I'm not convinced that any punishments would actually prevent crimes. The people who would commit such crimes are not concerned about the punishments. They generally either act purely on instinct, giving no thought to the consequences, or believe they are smarter than the police, perceiving a lack of consequences.

So, what can we do about it? I would start by repealing our puritanical laws that deliberately repress people's sexual desires until they burst. However, this is a long-term approach and will have no effect on the people who are already screwed up.

For now, we can try to crack down on it. The libertarian in me says, "get the drug dealers out of jail so the rapists can serve their full sentences, and divert police from drug trafficking investigations." Also, some education for the victims and potential victims would be nice, too.

Stop puting them on probation. They always break it.

Actually, sexual offenders are much less likely to repeat their offenses than other types of criminals. This is probably because the definition of a sexual offender is so broad that it includes very different types of people, many of whom were never a threat to anyone in the first place.



Baldur

Alright, the original poster said televised executions would be good. Followed by, don't complain, you don't have to watch them. What's stopping kids from watching it? This is not good. And I rarely, if never, complain about what's on T.V. I know there are other T.V. shows with death on them, most are fake, and a few times real, such on Real TV, but what would be really disturbing is that you would have to explain it to your kid. The government condones that. And from what I've heard a lot, rape is a pschological thing, so why would you sentence someone with a serious mental problem to death? Would you lethally inject someone with psychosis(sp?) if they killed thier best friend? Lawyers plead insanity for thier clients, sometimes. Why are rapists sent to a mental institution?

Just my thoughts...

the definition of a sexual offender is so broad that it includes very different types of people, many of whom were never a threat to anyone in the first place.

Realised I should give a couple of examples:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050110&s=nathan

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUALP7N5E.html

And to think - in the first case that idiot judge Carl Brown Jr. ignored the children who were purported victims when they pleaded with him not to put their friend in prison. He did an injustice not only to Dr. Craft, but also victimized the children he pretended to be protecting.

When I heard about that judge being shot in Georgia, I hoped it was Brown - but unfortunately it was not. Tanj.



Baldur

I just want to bring up something, not meant to hijack the thread.

Many sexual predators lurk in chat rooms and sometimes games on the internet. I am 14, as some may know, and I just want to say that any child that gets lured into visitng and being raped by a pedophile has probably the IQ of feces. Same goes for the parents:

Kid: Mom, I met Billy Joe in the internet, he's 10 too. Can I visit his.. I mean, his parents trailer in the middle of Arizona, all alone?

Parents: Be sure to pack extra underwear!

I meet plenty of people on the net who are my age and aren't idiots. When they reveal their age, I normally believe them after talking with them for a while. But if some person says he or she is 14 too and they think we should see eachother, then he or she is probaby another Michael Jackson.

I dunno if this topic hs covered this, just wanted to say it for some reason.

PS: I'm in Deutschland. Their keyboards are weird.

Stop puting them on probation. They always break it. Treat them as if they have something mentally and psychologically wrong, because they do. They need to have in-living treatment. Just like alcohol and drug rehabilitation, if you give the person treatment while they have freedom to work, etc., often times the rehabilitation process is defeated by their connection tothe outside world. Thus, the resources needed to perform the acts they are trying to be rehabilitated for.


So, basically, you are saying that the nation should fund a HUGELY expensive undertaking which will end up coming out of MY pockets, and for what!? Look! The fact is, they are not all nutcases. Get this, some of these people aren't just raping some little girl cause they want a little girl. They are actually making love to a fully formed woman that the state won't accept as a woman yet because of the fact that they aren't 18 yet. Thats not right.

The fact remains, girls are far more mature nowadays. The age a girl becomes mature and adult comes far faster. And for some girls, it comes even faster then most. Alex had a very traumatic childhood, and as a result, she was forced to mature quickly. She still has a sorta childish side to her, because occasionally she wishes that she could have the childhood she wasn't allowed to have, but when push comes to shove, I've known 30 year olds with less maturity. She knows how love works, and she knows she is in love with me. I know I love her. Why should we not only be denied that love, but also be punished for it? Cause I'll tell you the truth, it would be as much of a punishment for her if I was sent to prison as it would be for me. It would be more of a punishment for her if I was to be executed. Especially on live TV. And our relationship isn't the only one that works so well. Did you know that Loretta Lynn was 14 when her 21 year old boyfriend proposed to her!? WHOA!!!! Guess what! They stayed married until he died of old age. And to this day, she still talks about him and loves him dearly. That is just one example, and I am in a similar position with Alex. If I could get her parents permision, I would marry her today! I wouldn't think twice if the offer was given because I've had 2 years with plenty of other choices in which I could have left her. I'm to far now and just waiting for the chance. She is feeling the same. Cut us some slack and think before you say things. It's people like you who ruin this country with that bull crap.

Realised I should give a couple of examples:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050110&s=nathan

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUALP7N5E.html

And to think - in the first case that idiot judge Carl Brown Jr. ignored the children who were purported victims when they pleaded with him not to put their friend in prison. He did an injustice not only to Dr. Craft, but also victimized the children he pretended to be protecting.

When I heard about that judge being shot in Georgia, I hoped it was Brown - but unfortunately it was not. Tanj.



Baldur
Dude... that judge that was killed was a close relative of someone who goes to my church. There was alot of crying the sunday after. Gotta watch what you bring up...

Did you know that Loretta Lynn was 14 when her 21 year old boyfriend proposed to her!? WHOA!!!! Guess what! They stayed married until he died of old age. And to this day, she still talks about him and loves him dearly.

Heck, that's nothing. Edgar Allen Poe married Virginia Clemm when she was 13, and they were pretty clearly in love a couple years before that and remained so until her death. Dante's Beatrice was 13, Lewis Carroll's Alice was not quite 4 when they met, and Mark Twain's "angelfish" ranged from about 8 to 12.

Just a century ago, many girls got married by age 14.

The current ignorance and hysteria is just that - Ignorance and Hysteria. Love knows no age.



Baldur

But if some person says he or she is 14 too and they think we should see eachother, then he or she is probaby another Michael Jackson.
[/i].
Hey, guess what. Micheal Jackson is innocent you idiot! God! Why can't people stop wanting to torture that man just cause he's successful and nice. If you actually knew your facts you would know the following:

1. This child wanted nothing to do with this from the start. He has said so over and over. It's the parents who are pursuing this case.

2. The parents are known drug addicts and they have attempted to do this exact same thing on others before. The fact is, they have been PROVEN to being liars out to steal peoples money.

3. The facts just don't line up! The only reason they are even trying this case is because it's Micheal Jackson. If it was anyone else, they would have dismissed this upon looking at who was being accused and by whom.

Now, think about what you type before you type it. People who try to say stuff should get their facts straight before spouting their nonsense.

I am 14, as some may know, and I just want to say that any child that gets lured into visitng and being raped by a pedophile has probably the IQ of feces.


Why should we listen to you? You're obviously not capable of making any decisions, or even minimal amounts of thought, because you haven't reached the magical age of <insert local age of consent here>. Until you are <insert local age of consent> you are free to say No to sex (but not free to say Yes) because you are just too stupid to consider anything sexual. Sure, animals with even less brains have sex all the time, and we don't try to stop them (for the most part), but that doesn't apply because, um, it doesn't apply. And sure, we won't prevent a pregnancy if your partner is the same age as yourself, but if they are over 18 we will put them in jail for your protection no matter how much you might think you love them. After all, you are just too young to have emotions for yourself, until you reach the age of <insert local age of consent>. Or, if you do have emotions, they don't really count because you're just a child.


PS: I'm in Deutschland. Their keyboards are weird.

Oh my! you're ethnocentric to boot! Better call the politically correctness police!

(if there's any doubt: JUST KIDDING! I'm being sarcastic.)



Baldur

The only reason they are even trying this case is because it's Micheal Jackson. If it was anyone else, they would have dismissed this upon looking at who was being accused and by whom.

Not quite. Prosecutors have shown a willingness to pursue a conviction against just about anyone, if they think they can win and score points. Or sometimes for political reasons, or because they are psychotic.

In this case, ol' Sneddon seems to be psychotic, with a pathological hatred of Michael Jackson.

Heck, I'm no fan of Michael's music either, but I don't think he should go to prison for it.



Baldur

because, neurologically speaking, there is no ability a 16 year old lacks which an 18 year old has. social studies have also demonstrated that today's 16 year olds are more mature than 18 year olds of our grandparents' generation, in many different measurements. i believe a 16 year old is as able to give consent as an 18 year old, so there's no reason to allow the latter to act as adults but to deny the former.

i also believe there are many societal benefits to lowering consent age in America; turning 18 usually is accompanied by some acting out, simply because the young person is enjoying new freedoms. this also occurs at 21, when the young person is (finally) able to purchase alcohol. i believe that the danger from these temporary wild periods would be greatly reduced if the age of consent was reached while the young person was more likely to still be living with their parents. i think a 16 year old would act out to about the same degree as an 18 year old or 21 year old, but the 16 year old would have more regulation from their parents and more close supervision for their family, so they would be less likely to get into serious trouble.

i don't want to hijack the whole thread with age-of-consent stuff, but it does seem relavent to the topic...after all, if a 16 year old can't give consent, it's rape to have sex with them, but if they can, it's not...that's a big issue.

I like your logic and reasoning. Thank you for answering my question.

Them dying would be fine with me. It's about the worse thing you can do to a child and leave them living.

Them dying would be fine with me. It's about the worse thing you can do to a child and leave them living.
Agreed (my gf currently had been molested from age 4 (roughly) to age 13 ... did I mention that she was in a wheelchair because she is 100 percent arthridic and just had double hip replacement from age 7-13)
So bassicaly her faugher molested her from age 4-7 ... she had hip replacement and molested same daughter in her weelchair from age 7-13

I beleive he got 4 years for it (work release and all) bastard

Me from 11 to 15 by my sadistic foster-brother. I told my foster father and he wouldn't believe me. My other foster brother was the one who put a stop to it.

So, basically, you are saying that the nation should fund a HUGELY expensive undertaking which will end up coming out of MY pockets, and for what!? Look! The fact is, they are not all nutcases. Get this, some of these people aren't just raping some little girl cause they want a little girl. They are actually making love to a fully formed woman that the state won't accept as a woman yet because of the fact that they aren't 18 yet. Thats not right.

The fact remains, girls are far more mature nowadays. The age a girl becomes mature and adult comes far faster. And for some girls, it comes even faster then most. Alex had a very traumatic childhood, and as a result, she was forced to mature quickly. She still has a sorta childish side to her, because occasionally she wishes that she could have the childhood she wasn't allowed to have, but when push comes to shove, I've known 30 year olds with less maturity. She knows how love works, and she knows she is in love with me. I know I love her. Why should we not only be denied that love, but also be punished for it? Cause I'll tell you the truth, it would be as much of a punishment for her if I was sent to prison as it would be for me. It would be more of a punishment for her if I was to be executed. Especially on live TV. And our relationship isn't the only one that works so well. Did you know that Loretta Lynn was 14 when her 21 year old boyfriend proposed to her!? WHOA!!!! Guess what! They stayed married until he died of old age. And to this day, she still talks about him and loves him dearly. That is just one example, and I am in a similar position with Alex. If I could get her parents permision, I would marry her today! I wouldn't think twice if the offer was given because I've had 2 years with plenty of other choices in which I could have left her. I'm to far now and just waiting for the chance. She is feeling the same. Cut us some slack and think before you say things. [B] It's people like you who ruin this country with that bull crap.[B]

Actually, sexual offenders are much less likely to repeat their offenses than other types of criminals. This is probably because the definition of a sexual offender is so broad that it includes very different types of people, many of whom were never a threat to anyone in the first place.



Baldur


It's quite funny that you say that. You seem to have very little knowledge of sex offenders whatsoever. Being 14 and marrying a 21 year-old can be very different to being 13 and being molested by a 45 year-old. Sex offenders have nothing to do with love or marriage. Sex offenders have to do with doing things of a sexual nature to a child(18 years is considered an adult, pending by state). I'm not saying that you should be punished for this. It's ignorant to say that sex offenders don't get away with repeated offenses. I could care less if a sex offender has served time, if they have gotten out of prison or put on probation and then repeated the offense, the whole idea of prison and probation has been defeated. Every year thousands of children are molested because sex offenders are put on probation or serve time and then are released. In several cases, as it was in my case several years ago, it was mandatory that all sex offenders be released from prison. Members of the community are only alerted about the presence of sex offenders living among them under only 2 circumstances. One, the sex offender is planning to move into your neighborhood. Two, you pay approximately $50 to use government internet resources.
The term sex offender is all in how you interpret it. I define sex offender as any person 18 year or older who has had sexual interaction with a child 0-17 years of age. As for Loretta Lynn, things today are quite different. Also please note, that most children who have been molested believe to be loved or be in love with their predator.

Me from 11 to 15 by my sadistic foster-brother. I told my foster father and he wouldn't believe me. My other foster brother was the one who put a stop to it.

That sucks, TS. Sorry it happened to you. I'm glad you had another foster brother who stopped it, though.



Baldur

Them dying would be fine with me. It's about the worse thing you can do to a child and leave them living.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

who/what is your reply about ???
(or use the quote button)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

who/what is your reply about ???
(or use the quote button)

"Them" would be sexual predators. Any means of stopping them would be alright by me.

"Them" would be sexual predators. Any means of stopping them would be alright by me.
Death penalty for your foster Brother then.

It's quite funny that you say that. You seem to have very little knowledge of sex offenders whatsoever.

Actually I know several of the registered type, though admittedly they did not commit any real offenses, just offenses according to the law. They are actually some of the nicest people I know.

They pointed out that while they were in prison, it was quite clear who the real molesters were - the ones who didn't really care about what they had done to their victims - and who the child lovers were - who had not actually harmed anyone (generally convicted for possession of child pornography, and a few for consentual sexual interaction (usually not actual sex) with partners under the age of consent). They also noted that the authorities seemed to think the molesters could be cured despite all contrary evidence, but considered the child lovers incorrigible because <gasp!> they actually LOVED children.


Being 14 and marrying a 21 year-old can be very different to being 13 and being molested by 45 year-old.

EXACTLY. There's a HUGE difference between consentual and nonconsentual sex - as any thinking person would expect, and as has been confirmed by Rind et al (1998) in the case of minors.


Sex offenders have nothing to do with love or marriage. Sex offenders have to do with doing things of a sexual nature to a child(18 years, pending by state).


The two are not necessarily contradictory. Despite the law, love happens.

If *I* were to define a sex offender, I would make the distinction that their relationship is not a loving one, but the State refuses to recognize any difference.


I'm not saying that you should be punished for this. It's ignorant to say that sex offenders don't get away with repeated offenses.


I'm not saying that sex offenders never get away with repeated offenses. I'm saying that they are less likely to reoffend than other offenders.

Some were never a threat in the first place, and avoid any repeats because they recognize that even if THEIR actions won't harm a child, the government's and society's reactions probably will.

Some committed an offense because they lacked self-control (perhaps they were drunk), and given a full understanding of the consequences take appropriate actions to prevent a repeat.

Some committed an offense because they misread a child's intentions, and once they understand this communication problem are unlikely to repeat an offense against a child they love.

And one group just doesn't give a damn about anyone but themselves. This is the dangerous group, and the most likely to reoffend. They also seem to be the group the authorities care least about.


The term sex offender is all in how you interpret it. I define sex offender as any person 18 year or older who has had sexual interaction with a child 0-17 years of age.

Exactly - a large part is in the interpretation. That is a dangerous thing, however, when we are using a flawed definition of sex offender to decide how to keep children safe.


As for Loretta Lynn, things today are quite different.


Only because our modern society makes it so.


Also please note, that most children who have been molested believe to be loved or be in love with their predator.


And who is to say that they were not loved? or were not IN love?

Some idiot case worker who refuses to acknowledge what is in front of their eyes? who refuses to accept that a man could really love a girl? or a girl really love a man?

I have several friends who still pine for the love of their life that was stolen from them by some idiot do-gooder, who wish they could get in touch with the girl they loved, though she is now grown up, to tell her again how much they love her. Sometimes the girl moved away, sometimes they were found out. One friend met a girl in a Serbian orphanage where he worked, and when the other staff found out how much he loved this girl, they tried to extort money out of him and he had to leave. He met the love of his life in a Russian orphanage, and again she was taken away from him. In neither case did he molest them, or even have any sexual interaction with them - but he was punished because he LOVED them.

I don't think the do-gooders know what love IS. In many cases, they commit the offences against children, convincing them that the man who loved them did not actually love them, insinuating in their minds that they could never REALLY be loved and must have imagined it. That is the real crime, and our society condones it and demands it.

Psychopaths like this Couey fellow in Florida are the exception, not the norm - and no one would blame all normal heterosexual men because of a psychopath like Ted Bundy - but all this obscures the greater crime being committed against child lovers and children alike by the false "guardians" of children.



Baldur

Actually I know several of the registered type, though admittedly they did not commit any real offenses, just offenses according to the law. They are actually some of the nicest people I know.

They pointed out that while they were in prison, it was quite clear who the real molesters were - the ones who didn't really care about what they had done to their victims - and who the child lovers were - who had not actually harmed anyone (generally convicted for possession of child pornography, and a few for consentual sexual interaction (usually not actual sex) with partners under the age of consent). They also noted that the authorities seemed to think the molesters could be cured despite all contrary evidence, but considered the child lovers incorrigible because <gasp!> they actually LOVED children.



EXACTLY. There's a HUGE difference between consentual and nonconsentual sex - as any thinking person would expect, and as has been confirmed by Rind et al (1998) in the case of minors.



The two are not necessarily contradictory. Despite the law, love happens.

If *I* were to define a sex offender, I would make the distinction that their relationship is not a loving one, but the State refuses to recognize any difference.



I'm not saying that sex offenders never get away with repeated offenses. I'm saying that they are less likely to reoffend than other offenders.

Some were never a threat in the first place, and avoid any repeats because they recognize that even if THEIR actions won't harm a child, the government's and society's reactions probably will.

Some committed an offense because they lacked self-control (perhaps they were drunk), and given a full understanding of the consequences take appropriate actions to prevent a repeat.

Some committed an offense because they misread a child's intentions, and once they understand this communication problem are unlikely to repeat an offense against a child they love.

And one group just doesn't give a damn about anyone but themselves. This is the dangerous group, and the most likely to reoffend. They also seem to be the group the authorities care least about.



Exactly - a large part is in the interpretation. That is a dangerous thing, however, when we are using a flawed definition of sex offender to decide how to keep children safe.



Only because our modern society makes it so.



And who is to say that they were not loved? or were not IN love?

Some idiot case worker who refuses to acknowledge what is in front of their eyes? who refuses to accept that a man could really love a girl? or a girl really love a man?

I have several friends who still pine for the love of their life that was stolen from them by some idiot do-gooder, who wish they could get in touch with the girl they loved, though she is now grown up, to tell her again how much they love her. Sometimes the girl moved away, sometimes they were found out. One friend met a girl in a Serbian orphanage where he worked, and when the other staff found out how much he loved this girl, they tried to extort money out of him and he had to leave. He met the love of his life in a Russian orphanage, and again she was taken away from him. In neither case did he molest them, or even have any sexual interaction with them - but he was punished because he LOVED them.

I don't think the do-gooders know what love IS. In many cases, they commit the offences against children, convincing them that the man who loved them did not actually love them, insinuating in their minds that they could never REALLY be loved and must have imagined it. That is the real crime, and our society condones it and demands it.

Psychopaths like this Couey fellow in Florida are the exception, not the norm - and no one would blame all normal heterosexual men because of a psychopath like Ted Bundy - but all this obscures the greater crime being committed against child lovers and children alike by the false "guardians" of children.



Baldur

I think we're in agreement. I was just really shocked when you said rehabilitation is not a good option. It's better than imprisonment for repeated sex offenders. Repeated sex offenders DO clearly have mental and psychological problems. I think you and I can moth agree on who is a sex offender and who is not. You are absolutely right about Loretta Lynn. Many young women marry older men or visa versa. That does not necessarily mean they are a sex offender or are doing anything wrong. For those people who have a normal mental and psychological capacity, I think it is common sense to them what a sex offender is and isn't. However, governments cannot be run on common sense. That would be deadly for everyone.

... I think you and I can moth agree on who is a sex offender and who is not..
thr definition can be defferent from one country to another...

Honestly, I think victims of rape especially violent ones, should relocate.. Start anew somewhere.

So basically, they get punished twice. Once, because some animal attacked them, and secondly, because now THEY have to leave their family, friends, and home.

That sounds immensely unfair to me.

I think we're in agreement. I was just really shocked when you said rehabilitation is not a good option. It's better than imprisonment for repeated sex offenders.

Huh? Did I say that? Didn't mean to. Rehabilitation is frequently not NEEDED for people who have never caused any harm in the first place, but that isn't the same thing as saying that imprisonment is better. I thought you were replying to my post that the sex offenders have a lower rate of reoffending than other types of offenders.



Baldur

Huh? Did I say that? Didn't mean to. Rehabilitation is frequently not NEEDED for people who have never caused any harm in the first place, but that isn't the same thing as saying that imprisonment is better. I thought you were replying to my post that the sex offenders have a lower rate of reoffending than other types of offenders.



Baldur

No. I don't even know how they compare to other offenders. All I was trying to say was that rehabilitation is the best option for repeated sex offenders.

Sexual predators should be publicly castrated with plastic knives, without being given anesthesia, then hot tar should be applied to stem the bleeding. Then, they should be thrown into a swimming pool filled with piranhas.

No shit, smartass. Nothing like following me around is it? Anyhow, you still can't rape someone with a penis you don't have.

I'm sorry, how am I following you around, that was my first post at nationstates?

Besides, I'm not the only person who took issue with your statement. Several people posted similar arguments about rape not being sex but a mental problem.

What happens when you castrate a rapist? Maybe he rapes them with a fork next time? It's an act of violence committed by someone who wants to control another human being.

So, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with both of your assessments sir, and I might add that I take exception to your rude language.

Isn't there a rule against foul language here?

I'm sorry, how am I following you around, that was my first post at nationstates?

Besides, I'm not the only person who took issue with your statement. Several people posted similar arguments about rape not being sex but a mental problem.

What happens when you castrate a rapist? Maybe he rapes them with a fork next time? It's an act of violence committed by someone who wants to control another human being.

So, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with both of your assessments sir, and I might add that I take exception to your rude language.

Isn't there a rule against foul language here?

I'd have to agree with you. Rape has little to do with sex. It's more about domination.

No. I don't even know how they compare to other offenders. All I was trying to say was that rehabilitation is the best option for repeated sex offenders.

In that case - I'd say it would depend on the person. In cases of violent behavior, I'm far more concerned about keeping society safe from that person than in making extraordinary efforts to rehabilitate them. On the other hand, I'd like to see prison colonies (like Georgia and Australia started out) rather than the current prison system. Nowadays we might have to set them up in remote areas, and/or fence them in or the like, but I see nothing good in the current prison system. It is inhumane and I believe only fosters more criminality.

Of course, in the cases of many "sex offenders", and also many of the victims of the War on Drugs, what we really need is an amnesty and an official apology from the government for their terrible behavior.



Baldur

I just want to bring up something, not meant to hijack the thread.

Many sexual predators lurk in chat rooms and sometimes games on the internet. I am 14, as some may know, and I just want to say that any child that gets lured into visitng and being raped by a pedophile has probably the IQ of feces. Same goes for the parents:

Kid: Mom, I met Billy Joe in the internet, he's 10 too. Can I visit his.. I mean, his parents trailer in the middle of Arizona, all alone?

Parents: Be sure to pack extra underwear!

I meet plenty of people on the net who are my age and aren't idiots. When they reveal their age, I normally believe them after talking with them for a while. But if some person says he or she is 14 too and they think we should see eachother, then he or she is probaby another Michael Jackson.

I dunno if this topic hs covered this, just wanted to say it for some reason.

PS: I'm in Deutschland. Their keyboards are weird.
That was an amazingly scary and cogent post.
I hope my son has his act together so well when he's 14.

In that case - I'd say it would depend on the person. In cases of violent behavior, I'm far more concerned about keeping society safe from that person than in making extraordinary efforts to rehabilitate them. On the other hand, I'd like to see prison colonies (like Georgia and Australia started out) rather than the current prison system. Nowadays we might have to set them up in remote areas, and/or fence them in or the like, but I see nothing good in the current prison system. It is inhumane and I believe only fosters more criminality.

Of course, in the cases of many "sex offenders", and also many of the victims of the War on Drugs, what we really need is an amnesty and an official apology from the government for their terrible behavior.



Baldur

I have to agree with you. Forget what I said about rehabilitation. Although, the current system does need to go.

I have to agree with you. Forget what I said about rehabilitation. Although, the current system does need to go.
I say, kill them all.

Actually, sexual offenders are much less likely to repeat their offenses than other types of criminals. This is probably because the definition of a sexual offender is so broad that it includes very different types of people, many of whom were never a threat to anyone in the first place.



Baldur


You are seriously fucked up. Sexual predators, which is what this thread is about, have very high rates of recidivism. People who have sex with children don't love them. That's a bunch of bullshit.

You are seriously fucked up. Sexual predators, which is what this thread is about, have very high rates of recidivism. People who have sex with children don't love them. That's a bunch of bullshit.

Exactly. Love has nothing to do with it. Claiming it's okay to molest a child because you're in love with them is no different than claiming it's okay to kill a guy because you were mad at them. It's no excuse to take away someone's rights or violate them before they're mature.

Castration...double Castration!

How about a life sentence for all convicted rapists. These criminals do not deserve a second chance. This crime is almost as bad as murder.

This should apply for any crime....

Whatever the prison term decided by the judge, that should be the full term served. If the sentence is for 10 years or more, then the offender should serve 10 years or more, and not just 3 or 5 years. No parole, no time off for good behaviour.

If the judge thinks a crime is only worth 5 years due to mitigating circumstances then the sentence should be 5 years and 5 years should be served.

If the sentence is for life, then they should stay in prison until they leave feet first in a coffin. If after (insert reasonable length of time to have new evidence prove innocence/appeal etc - 15 years?), they haven't been able to prove themselves innocent, or that the crime wasn't worth a life sentence, then someone serving a life sentence should be executed. It costs a lot of money to keep someone locked up. A bullet costs 50c.

Death penalty for your foster Brother then.

Fine by me. Him and his pervert friend.

This should apply for any crime....

Whatever the prison term decided by the judge, that should be the full term served. If the sentence is for 10 years or more, then the offender should serve 10 years or more, and not just 3 or 5 years. No parole, no time off for good behaviour.

If the judge thinks a crime is only worth 5 years due to mitigating circumstances then the sentence should be 5 years and 5 years should be served.

If the sentence is for life, then they should stay in prison until they leave feet first in a coffin. If after (insert reasonable length of time to have new evidence prove innocence/appeal etc - 15 years?), they haven't been able to prove themselves innocent or that the crime wasn't worth a life sentence, then then someone serving a life sentence should be executed. It costs a lot of money to keep someone locked up. A bullet costs 50c.

I absolutely agree in terms of the worst crimes, but if we're planning on releasing the criminal, indeterminate sentencing does have a good bit of data on its side. Criminals with incentives to behave generally do. However, for guys like those who killed this girl in Florida, the distinction has to be made and the harshest penalties enforced, I agree.

Force him to listen to rap music 24/7 while in a prison where all of the male prisoners have been geneticaly programmed to be hyper homosexual, requiring that they receive homosexual sex from the rapist's body type just to live and are overly aggresive. Ensure he is never allowed to wear clothing and that and he is forced to watch Star Wars in his cell for 4 hours of the day. Also geneticaly program him so he requires his own sperm and piss to live and that he is forced to drink all of it every once in a while, and that he is geneticaly engineered to regrow it. If he refuses to watch Star Wars force him to stare at Star Trek porn of all the characters, including Palaski. If he causes too much of a fuss, then have Michael Jackson, who's sexual perversity exceeds that of even Slaanesh, oversee his demonic homosexual tortures inflicted on the sex predator. Have them do this when the sex predator refuses to watch the Star Wars then, when after a time when he does watch it, have them do it to him just to mess with his head. Have an angry god make the sex predator's soul in googleplex bodies so that the entire race of the sex predator go through this torture. Have them wear eachother's skin just to survive and have them all reincarnated to be the sex predator's again and have an infinite supply of sex predator's given over to each one of us. Have a seperate eternal number of sex predators submitted to our special Council where we research and discuss how to torture and kill them in new ways.

In all the threads I have read on nationstates I have seen a very few who are actually NOT morons. Whatever your opinion is on this (mine is cp cause you can't rape/murder if you are dead, and if you actually killed those who "deserved it" in a reasonable amount of time then people would be less likely to try something) it is an opinion. The televised exocution/Roman Colusseum ideas sound good but are impractical, cause you could never get it approved legally. Remember that what ever you think is irrelevant unless you can get it passed as law. Don't come to a forum and insult people unless you are already working on your solution in the real world. (I am not working on mine because it is too far from "public opinion" to become reality.)

I absolutely agree in terms of the worst crimes, but if we're planning on releasing the criminal, indeterminate sentencing does have a good bit of data on its side. Criminals with incentives to behave generally do. However, for guys like those who killed this girl in Florida, the distinction has to be made and the harshest penalties enforced, I agree.
Okay, how about if the sentence is for ten years, then _at least_ 10 years are served. Make release conditional on good behaviour. Have their parole sentence made indeterminate and adjustable for good behaviour etc.

In all the threads I have read on nationstates I have seen a very few who are actually NOT morons. Whatever your opinion is on this (mine is cp cause you can't rape/murder if you are dead, and if you actually killed those who "deserved it" in a reasonable amount of time then people would be less likely to try something) it is an opinion. The televised exocution/Roman Colusseum ideas sound good but are impractical, cause you could never get it approved legally. Remember that what ever you think is irrelevant unless you can get it passed as law. Don't come to a forum and insult people unless you are already working on your solution in the real world. (I am not working on mine because it is too far from "public opinion" to become reality.)
You say not to come online and insult people unless you are working on a solution (witch you admit to not doing)

But your first sentience is an insult "in all the threads I have read on nationstates I have seen a very few who are actually NOT morons"

Way to be hypocritical

We could put chastity belts on all children under the age of consent and then give them a written test on safe sex practices, before turning over the keys (so to speak) :)

Exactly. Love has nothing to do with it. Claiming it's okay to molest a child because you're in love with them is no different than claiming it's okay to kill a guy because you were mad at them. It's no excuse to take away someone's rights or violate them before they're mature.

So an 18 year old who has sex with his 17 year old finace with whom he is planning to spend the rest of his life doesn't really love her?
I'm just trying to get this straight but most of us aren't talking about 40 year old getting it on with 9 year olds. We're talking about teenagers who are very nearly adults getting it on with peers who are barely adults. At least, that is what I'm talking about when I rail against statutory rape laws.

So an 18 year old who has sex with his 17 year old finace with whom he is planning to spend the rest of his life doesn't really love her?
I'm just trying to get this straight but most of us aren't talking about 40 year old getting it on with 9 year olds. We're talking about teenagers who are very nearly adults getting it on with peers who are barely adults. At least, that is what I'm talking about when I rail against statutory rape laws.

SInce when are most of us talking about teenagers? I'd say most of us are talking about grown men abusing children. Your example of a 17 and 18-year old is nothing illegal, and I'm not saying it should be. It isn't considered child molestation and no one would consider it so.

I think most of us are thinking about ways to ensure that already-illegal actions are treated in a way which would render the perpetrator unable to attempt the crime again.

It is clear that this is an issue very close to your heart, and I admire your tenacity and thirst for justice. However, a few of your points disturbed me a bit.

2. Color coding prison uniforms for sexual predators is a bad idea. Guaranteed they'll be dead within a week.

3/4. Murder, I can understand the death penalty. But rape? I'm not so certain, since life has not been takem.

Feel free to refute me.

WARNING I AM GOING TO GET GRAPHIC HERE.

Actually before AIDS I was not in favor of the death penalty for rape of an adult woman, however if a child is raped, she or he is attacked by someone with a significan size disparity and may well take serious damage to their reproductive or eliminatory systems. Some of these rotten people rape children who are infants. This can kill a child under 6 months.
In the case of someone 7 or under the victim can be rendered sterile. This used to happen a lot to those poor princesses married in extreme youth in the Middle and Dark Ages.
Even when there is not horrific physical damage, psychological damage is severe in the victims of rape in childhood. It is damned well hard enough for a grown woman to come to terms with haveing been raped.
Now there is HIV-AIDS and a child or person under 20 for that matter is more vulnerable to infection if raped, because of the tissues of their sexual organs being less thick. Being raped causes damage in grown women. It's one of the ways they can tell an incident was rape and not voluntary and consensual sex. The damage in children of course is very great.
This means if the perpetrator has any STD the kid is going to get that disease in addition to the other problems they face.
I have always favored the death penalty for people who rape children, and now I favor it for all rapists because of HIV-AIDS.
It used to be that rape while it was a terrible crime did not take life necessarily, now it has a good chance of taking the victims life later on.
I do consider a life ruined to be a life taken.
This isn't just a female issue, in the case of children, males are pretty frequently raped and have to live with the consequences.

Nobody is going to do what needs to be done in order to stop these things from happening. The reason it wont be done is because it requires changing our own mentality, and people will not be willing to do that.

So far, everyone here has focused on what to do with them after they are caught. But no one has come up with any way of stopping them before they offend for their very first time. What I propose, although it stands no chance of ever happening, would in fact help prevent child sexual abusers from ever committing a first offence.

The fact is that people who sexually abuse children suffer from mental conditions. There are two types of child molesters, the preferential pedophile suffers from the condition of pedophilia. The treatment for pedophilia involves either aversion therapy (which is what you see in the movie "A Clockwork Orange"), or group therapy which focuses on developing the moral values of the pedophile and empathy for the victim and giving him the tools to keep from offending.

The other type of child sexual abuser is the situational pedophile. This person does not suffer from the condition of pedophilia but rather from self esteem issues, substance abuse problems, depression, and other conditions that lead them to abuse a child rather than seek a healthy relationship. This type of person can be treated using cognitive behavioral techniques to treat their underlying mental conditions (self esteem, etc).

Treatment does exist, and the myth that a pedophile will never stop offending is a misconception based on a misunderstanding of what pedophilia is. A pedophile can in fact stop offending and there are no reputable psychologists who deny this. The preferential pedophile cannot change his sexual orientation, but he can choose to remain celibate (or to seek out relationships with men or women instead). Every human being is capable of celibacy if he so chooses, and in the case of the pedophile, they have a strong motivation for remaining celibate or seeking a more acceptable partner. There is a big difference between being able to change their orientation and being able to stop offending.

Having established that there are in fact treatments available, the question I pose is, why dont pedophiles seek treatment before they commit their first offence? The answer is obvious.

There is an enormous stigma associated with mental health problems. The stigma is bad enough for standard mental health issues such as depression, low self esteem, and the other things that could lead to situational pedophilia. But the stigma is even worse for the preferential pedophile, because they are seen as terrible monsters that need to be castrated. Also, mandatory reporting laws often make it dangerous for a pedophile to seek help because if they do so the psychologist is legally obligated to inform authorities. Under these conditions, it is no wonder that pedophiles preffer to keep their feelings hidden until they come out in the form of actual abuse.

What would happen if the stigma was not there? What if visiting a psychologist was as acceptable as going to the dentist? Many people would seek out psychologists to help them deal with their problems before they become something more serious. Among these people would be the ones who, without recieving the help, wouldve gone on to abuse a child (or rape adult women, or become serial killers, or some other mental problem driven criminal activity).

What if the stigma for being a pedophile was not there? Many pedophiles would seek help before they offend for the first time, and they would be better equipped to never offend in the first place.

The answer then, is that to help prevent these things form happening. We have to change ourselves. It begins with stopping ourselves from saying things like "they all need to be castrated, skinned alive, then hung!". It starts with accepting people who have mental health problems.

What I propose, although it stands no chance of ever happening, would in fact help prevent child sexual abusers from ever committing a first offence.

The fact is that people who sexually abuse children suffer from mental conditions. There are two types of child molesters, the preferential pedophile suffers from the condition of pedophilia. The treatment for pedophilia involves either aversion therapy (which is what you see in the movie "A Clockwork Orange"), or group therapy which focuses on developing the moral values of the pedophile and empathy for the victim and giving him the tools to keep from offending.

The other type of child sexual abuser is the situational pedophile. This person does not suffer from the condition of pedophilia but rather from self esteem issues, substance abuse problems, depression, and other conditions that lead them to abuse a child rather than seek a healthy relationship. This type of person can be treated using cognitive behavioral techniques to treat their underlying mental conditions (self esteem, etc).

My brother is in this catagory. He's currently serving 80 years for his second (known) offense. I've heard stats claiming pedophiles have anywhere from 30 to 80 victims before the first time they are caught. Though I wasn't aware of it, my mother informed me after the trial that he had been accused when he was 16. At his first conviction he was 32.


Treatment does exist, and the myth that a pedophile will never stop offending is a misconception based on a misunderstanding of what pedophilia is. A pedophile can in fact stop offending and there are no reputable psychologists who deny this. The preferential pedophile cannot change his sexual orientation, but he can choose to remain celibate (or to seek out relationships with men or women instead). Every human being is capable of celibacy if he so chooses, and in the case of the pedophile, they have a strong motivation for remaining celibate or seeking a more acceptable partner. There is a big difference between being able to change their orientation and being able to stop offending.

But treatment still has a very low success rate. You have to desire for treatment to work and put in the maintenance for it to do any good. Just attending counseling without actively and fully participating does little good.

Having established that there are in fact treatments available, the question I pose is, why dont pedophiles seek treatment before they commit their first offence? The answer is obvious.

There is an enormous stigma associated with mental health problems. The stigma is bad enough for standard mental health issues such as depression, low self esteem, and the other things that could lead to situational pedophilia. But the stigma is even worse for the preferential pedophile, because they are seen as terrible monsters that need to be castrated. Also, mandatory reporting laws often make it dangerous for a pedophile to seek help because if they so the psychology is legally obligated to inform authorities. Under these conditions, it is no wonder that pedophiles preffer to keep their feelings hidden until they come out in the form of actual abuse.


This is also true for many people who act out violently. I read so many stories of killers who talked to psychologists about their violent fantasies or prisoners who asked for help while in institutions but weren't taken seriously.

We could put chastity belts on all children under the age of consent and then give them a written test on safe sex practices, before turning over the keys (so to speak) :)

I'm afraid that won't work.There are still ways children can be traumatized through sexual experience even if they wear a chastity belt.

I'm afraid that won't work.There are still ways children can be traumatized through sexual experience even if they wear a chastity belt.
My brother committed forcible oral sodomy. As many good qualities as he has, he's where he belongs.

SInce when are most of us talking about teenagers? I'd say most of us are talking about grown men abusing children. Your example of a 17 and 18-year old is nothing illegal, and I'm not saying it should be. It isn't considered child molestation and no one would consider it so.

I think most of us are thinking about ways to ensure that already-illegal actions are treated in a way which would render the perpetrator unable to attempt the crime again.

It is illegal in some states. It doesn't take much effort to find horror stories about teenagers being prosecuted for consentual sex. It happens when you lump all "sex offenders" together while forgetting that the people who make laws are almost as corrupt and stupid as the people who enforce them. There are 16 year old girls who are registed sex offenders because they "produced child pornography" by taking topless pictures of themselves.

My brother is in this catagory. He's currently serving 80 years for his second (known) offense. I've heard stats claiming pedophiles have anywhere from 30 to 80 victims before the first time they are caught. Though I wasn't aware of it, my mother informed me after the trial that he had been accused when he was 16. At his first conviction he was 32.
Had he gotten help when he was 16, would he have offended again at 32? There is a good chance he would not have done it and would be a free, and perhaps successful man right now.



But treatment still has a very low success rate. You have to desire for treatment to work and put in the maintenance for it to do any good. Just attending counseling without actively and fully participating does little good.

The idea that treatment has a very low success rate is false. The second part of your answer, however, is true. What I proposed was creating an environment where people feel free to go to a psychologist before it ever gets serious enough to where they are ready to offend. Obviously those people who go will be people who want to go. There will always be some people who choose not to go, and thats fine. It is normal for there to be a small amount of crime that you simply cannot stop. No crime has ever been brought to a complete stop. The idea is to bring the number of child sexual abuse incidents to the lowest possible minimum. There will always be some who offend anyway, no matter what you do.


This is also true for many people who act out violently. I read so many stories of killers who talked to psychologists about their violent fantasies or prisoners who asked for help while in institutions but weren't taken seriously.

I agree that it is true of a wide variety of violent criminals. Even some non-violent criminals (kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs, etc.). That is why this strategy would be so effective, because it would help reduce a wide range of serious crimes. It is also true that psychologists need to be better trained to deal with serious conditions like this. But, do not forget that the cases you hear are the exception and not the rule. You heard about the case because it was unsuccessful, but you did not hear about the thousands of cases where someone who couldve become a serial killer went to a psychologist and was successfully treated. You can only hear about cases where it failed, which is why the number of times that it failed seems inflated. As far as prisons go, once again we are in agreement, prisons need to be providing better mental health services. However, that is a different topic because what I wanted to explore was ways of stopping it before it ever happens in the first place.


Something else I shouldve added originally. Suppose that we eliminate the stigma on seeking help for mental health problems. We would still be faced with a situation where those who are underprivilidged and need mental health services are unable to obtain it. Therefore, it is also very important that a system that provides free mental health care to individuals be established.

@ Lazy Hippies - One of my therapists had previously worked with sex offenders and was quite discouraged by her low success rate, but that's anecdotal. Most literature I've read has indicated low success rates, but it usually comes from law enforcement. I'd be interested in info about other sites.

@ Lazy Hippies - One of my therapists had previously worked with sex offenders and was quite discouraged by her low success rate, but that's anecdotal. Most literature I've read has indicated low success rates, but it usually comes from law enforcement. I'd be interested in info about other sites.

The data that people quote so often was fabricated by activists trying to pass Megan's law in the early 90s. There were senators and congressmen who were well educated enough to notice that this was bad data and tried to get people to slow down on this legislation so they could do some real research, and if you examine the congressional record you will find record of these statements. However, no one was willing to sacrifice their political career by stopping this legislation despite the fabricated data. There was some data quoted on cnn in their "Opinion & Analysis" section of the Law section of their web site about a year ago that showed that sex offenders actually have lower recidivism than most violent offenders, and drastically lower than those with drug or gang related convictions. But, I cannot recall what the opinion was about, which makes it very difficult to find that article.

The issue of sex crimes against children seems to touch nerves like nothing else, and I agree that penalties need to exemplify the heinous nature of the crime. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am utterly opposed to the death penalty, because it's my belief that the human citizens of any nation are not animals to be culled when they become problematic.

While we examine the legislation and procedures for punishing individuals, I think we lose sight of the bigger picture. Sexual predation is an ongoing cycle, usually resulting from sexual abuse as a child. Now this is not to say that all sexually abused children become predators in adulthood, OR that childhood abuse in some way explains or justifies sexual predation on children. Hell no. It is merely correlated phenomena which may provide societies with insight as to the psychological and social aetiology of child sexual abuse.

I spent some years working with children and adolescents while at university, so my perspective on this is a little more substantial than mere "book-learnin'." Many of my clients were sexual predators while still children themselves, and the destruction that this cycle of abuse caused to their family unit and sense of personal ethical standards was horrific. One client, who I developed a particular fondness for, admitted to raping a 7 year old girl when he was only 9. Yes, he showed no remorse about the incident. And yes, he seemed quite proud of his early conquest. Nonetheless, he was still a child of 13 at the time this confession was made, and at some point our responsibility to his safety was grossly negligent.

It seems to me that people become so vehement in their pursuit of justice that they become a little selective about who's children to protect from what. Their responsibility is first and foremost to their own children, I agree, but there seems to be a limitation to our responsibility to all children when a sexually abused child starts behaving in a sexually threatening way to others. Where's the cut-off point, people? When do these children we're professing to protect and nurture become your death row fodder? At 18 sexual behaviour of this kind, if present, is often fully ingrained, so we have to intervene early, not wait until they're punishable under adult laws. Maybe that way we can salvage the lives of both the abuse victims and the burgeoning perpetrators.

To consider this issue from the top-down (loading the responsibility on legislators and government) instead of the bottom-up (getting involved in community support for young people), is symptomatic of the laziness and blindness that allows child sexual abuse to fester in communities. It's a complex issue. You can write all the letters you want to your local member of parliament, but if you got off your arse and helped to create nurturing environments for these children, I guarantee you'd actually be making a difference. Until you do, check your ignorant vigilantism at the door.

...
You can write all the letters you want to your local member of parliament, but if you got off your arse and helped to create nurturing environments for these children, I guarantee you'd actually be making a difference. Until you do, check your ignorant vigilantism at the door.

Although I disagree with everything else you said because the victim/abuser cycle myth is based on outdated studies eventually proven to be useless, I applaud your final statement. If people got up and actually did something for themselves they could actually make a real difference in real lives.

Although I disagree with everything else you said because the victim/abuser cycle myth is based on outdated studies eventually proven to be useless, I applaud your final statement. If people got up and actually did something for themselves they could actually make a real difference in real lives.

Do you actually know a sexual predator? What Boodicka is saying is accurate. People who are abused tend to become the abuser.

Do you actually know a sexual predator? What Boodicka is saying is accurate. People who are abused tend to become the abuser.

Yes. I have known both pedophiles who have offended and ones who have not. The abused/abuser cycle was a myth resulting from improperly done studies. They studied convicted sex offenders and compared them to the population of the country rather than comparing them to the population of convicts who are not sex-offenders. When compared to the population of inmates, there isnt a statistically significant difference. It seems that people who suffer sexual abuse are more likely to commit crimes in general, not sex crimes in specific.

Although I disagree with everything else you said because the victim/abuser cycle myth is based on outdated studies eventually proven to be useless, I applaud your final statement. If people got up and actually did something for themselves they could actually make a real difference in real lives.
I'm curious about that one. My brother and I were both victims of childhood sexual abuse. I've heard males more often identify with the offender after abuse, while females don't tend to. Your thoughts?

2. Color coding prison uniforms for sexual predators is a bad idea. Guaranteed they'll be dead within a week.


you call that a bad idea?

you call that a bad idea?
Yes.

I'm curious about that one. My brother and I were both victims of childhood sexual abuse. I've heard males more often identify with the offender after abuse, while females don't tend to. Your thoughts?

For some reason females tend not to become pedophiles at all (despite what recent media hype might suggest). It is a much more rare condition in women than in men. My guess is that it has something to do with biology (something I know very little about). I am quite knowledgable (for a layman) on psychology but not psychiatry.

Yes. I have known both pedophiles who have offended and ones who have not. The abused/abuser cycle was a myth resulting from improperly done studies. They studied convicted sex offenders and compared them to the population of the country rather than comparing them to the population of convicts who are not sex-offenders. When compared to the population of inmates, there isnt a statistically significant difference. It seems that people who suffer sexual abuse are more likely to commit crimes in general, not sex crimes in specific.

Hmm... I still disagree. I'm not saying that people who are abused will become the abuser, but more often than not, sexual predators have a history of being sexually abused themselves.

I'm curious about that one. My brother and I were both victims of childhood sexual abuse. I've heard males more often identify with the offender after abuse, while females don't tend to. Your thoughts?

Everyone is different. Statistics are great when dealing with groups but they fail completely when dealing with individuals.

Yes.

from the few threads i've read on these forums i've noticed you people have a pretty high tolerance for perversions of all kinds. didn't think you would stoop this low though...

Hmm... I still disagree. I'm not saying that people who are abused will become the abuser, but more often than not, sexual predators have a history of being sexually abused themselves.

Sorry but that is completely incorrect. Even the studies that showed that offenders are more likely to have been abused never even attempted to claim "more likely than not" status. Such would mean that most sexual offenders were abused themselves. No serious psychological study has ever claimed that. What they claimed was that a person who was abused was more likely to become an abuser than a person who was not. But no one has ever claimed that most abusers were abused.

from the few threads i've read on these forums i've noticed you people have a pretty high tolerance for perversions of all kinds. didn't think you would stoop this low though...

Executing people like this is inhumane. Can anyone else see that they are seriously psychologically ill? The guy has a history of crimes - burglary, rape, etc. It's all about the power and the fear. He is most likely psychotic, meaning he can't feel normal emotion.

If anything, you should be feeling sorry for him, and others like him. Life seriously sucks for them.

They need to be restrained somehow, only for the sake of protecting others. Really though, some of these people just can't help it.

from the few threads i've read on these forums i've noticed you people have a pretty high tolerance for perversions of all kinds. didn't think you would stoop this low though...

Funny. Your telling a former victim of abuse that she's stooping so low by trying to be understanding. How low are you stooping?

Executing people like this is inhumane. Can anyone else see that they are seriously psychologically ill? The guy has a history of crimes - burglary, rape, etc. It's all about the power and the fear. He is most likely psychotic, meaning he can't feel normal emotion.

If anything, you should be feeling sorry for him, and others like him. Life seriously sucks for them.

They need to be restrained somehow, only for the sake of protecting others. Really though, some of these people just can't help it.

I agree with you that executing anyone is inhumane. However, I disagree with the idea that some people just cannot help it. Whether you feel emotion or not does not excuse you for choosing not to care about someone else's emotions. Even if you cannot feel emotions you need to respect the emotions of others. These people choose to do what they do and they deserve to be punished. Sure, they deserve mental help too, but they also deserve to be punished because their mental health problems do not excuse the fact that they made a choice to do what they did. The only logical excuse for not being punished due to mental health reasons is if you truly could not tell right from wrong. The person in this case could tell right from wrong or else he would not have bothered trying to hide the body and lying to the police until he was cornered with the lie detector test. He knew what he was doing was wrong and he chose to do it anyway.

Sorry but that is completely incorrect. Even the studies that showed that offenders are more likely to have been abused never even attempted to claim "more likely than not" status. Such would mean that most sexual offenders were abused themselves. No serious psychological study has ever claimed that. What they claimed was that a person who was abused was more likely to become an abuser than a person who was not. But no one has ever claimed that most abusers were abused.

Yes, however, things can be true even though the studies do not show it. That's the beauty of scientific evidence. It represents what is true, it is not what is the truth.

I agree with you that executing anyone is inhumane. However, I disagree with the idea that some people just cannot help it. Whether you feel emotion or not does not excuse you for choosing not to care about someone else's emotions. Even if you cannot feel emotions you need to respect the emotions of others. These people choose to do what they do and they deserve to be punished. Sure, they deserve mental help too, but they also deserve to be punished because their mental health problems do not excuse the fact that they made a choice to do what they did.

Exactly how will punishing these people help them or anyone else?

Funny. Your telling a former victim of abuse that she's stooping so low by trying to be understanding. How low are you stooping?

why would you try and be understanding? these "people" don't deserve understanding, or life come to think of it...

Exactly how will punishing these people help them or anyone else?

It provides justice to the victim's family, which is an important step in helping them move on.

It provides justice to the victim's family, which is an important step in helping them move on.

That kind of thinking sickens me. :(
It would be healthier for the victims and their families to forgive the criminal.

wow

i really hope that was a sarcastic post..

That kind of thinking sickens me. :(
It would be healthier for the victims and their families to forgive the criminal.

One can forgive and still demand justice.

why would you try and be understanding? these "people" don't deserve understanding, or life come to think of it...
I understand that some of them are seriously mentally ill. I think preventing a crime is a better idea than punishing it. If my abuser could have gotten help, I may have never had to suffer. That's better than revenge. I was 9, but my abuser was only 14. He obviously had some serious problems. Thinking about him still makes my skin crawl, but where did he get these ideas? He was just a kid. What happened to make him that way? I'd really like to know.
My brother ended up a sex offender. Is this why? Is it because the same guy abused him? I've suspected so for years. The boy came from a family that was really bizarre. His sisters also were somewhat sexual towards me, though they weren't violent. What was going on in that house? The answers to these questions would do me more good than revenge ever would.

One can forgive and still demand justice.
Amen.
Though I only believe in forgiveness when it benefits the victim. I'm not interested. Understanding is a different thing altogether.

I understand that some of them are seriously mentally ill. I think preventing a crime is a better idea than punishing it. If my abuser could have gotten help, I may have never had to suffer. That's better than revenge. I was 9, but my abuser was only 14. He obviously had some serious problems. Thinking about him still makes my skin crawl, but where did he get these ideas? He was just a kid. What happened to make him that way? I'd really like to know.
My brother ended up a sex offender. Is this why? Is it because the same guy abused him? I've suspected so for years. The boy came from a family that was really bizarre. His sisters also were somewhat sexual towards me, though they weren't violent. What was going on in that house? The answers to these questions would do me more good than revenge ever would.

i'm sorry for whatever you went through, but the cycle has to end somewhere. it really sickens me when perverts, drug dealers and other various scum get off with just a slap on the wrist. it has to end..

Argh! I thought all that therapy was supposed to do something. I can type the post without feeling a thing, but rereading them is making me cry. :gundge:

The other possibility is that he was a preferential pedophile. If this was the case, then this individual actually had a sexual prefference for children. He did what he did because children are what turns him on. There is no other motivation involved in this type of offender. He just got turned on by children, and you were children so you turned him on. There really arent many more motivations to explore in this case. Thats simply the way he is, and unfortunately he chose to act on his feelings.

thats so so wrong and evil. that anyone can actually argue against death for these monsters is beyond me.

thats so so wrong and evil. that anyone can actually argue against death for these monsters is beyond me.
It's wrong, but I don't think another wrong will fix things. Sorry if you don't understand, but no one can make you.