NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261767/

A few months ago, there seemed to be a rash of child abductions/killings. Some threads on the topic here on NS went toward 600+ posts. Many were angry at the system that allowed molesters to walk free.. there was a lot of outrage at the lapses in judgment that allowed parole for the killers, and I'll admit, I was pretty angry myself, and suggested some harsh punishments based mostly on that anger. So today I read in the news that some guy finally acted on some similar anger and took the law into his own hands. I don't approve, of course, but the story reminded me that, despite all the outrage by so many, I can't recall any legitimate action being taken, or anything at all being done to prevent the sort of sex crimes that we were all horrified by.

So, my question is this: has anything been done since then? In your town or state? The hurricane and its political consequences dominate the news cycle today, so it's possible that legal action and reform is occurring under the radar, so to speak - it's possible. But I personally don't see it. It would kill me to think that no reforms were made after so many obvious flaws in the criminal system were revealed, but this seems to be the case. So I'm asking, has anyone seen any progress take place?

They are trying. There are discussing some new things but it's pretty much the same as before.

One thing I saw and have been pondering....I recognized a pedophile from the megan site. A neighbor told me we have a couple near by so I had a looksy. What struck me was that his car had Warner Brother stickers on it.

I was wondering if a convicted pedophile should be allowed to have stuff that could be used to entice children? Should it be an offense to find stuff like that in their possession?

They are trying. There are discussing some new things but it's pretty much the same as before.

One thing I saw and have been pondering....I recognized a pedophile from the megan site. A neighbor told me we have a couple near by so I had a looksy. What struck me was that his car had Warner Brother stickers on it.

I was wondering if a convicted pedophile should be allowed to have stuff that could be used to entice children? Should it be an offense to find stuff like that in their possession?

I think he's within his rights if he stays away from schools and such.. it seems that in that guy's case, he's probably not "cured" and doesn't want to be, which is probably true of just about every sex offender..

It's bound to happen eventually when someone feels either they or society is unprotected by law from a threat.

Some years ago in a neighboring small village, a homosexual abused a young boy. Unknown parties ambushed him while he was picking berries and nearly killed him. He was in the hospital for six months.

The guy stayed in the community for years and no further harm came his way. But he knew what would happen if he strayed - at least in that town. I suspect he feared local justice more than the law.

The law never became involved. It was frontier justice, but while it solved the problem locally we have no way to know whether he completely gave up the practice - he could have been committing crimes elsewhere.

I live in NYC, so obviously nothing has been done. Although a mentally ill man did stab a baby in the face today.

I'm not worried though, we have DA Morgenthau on the case, making sure that those Rockerfeller drug laws are enforced to the letter, but he won't ask for the death penalty for mass-murderers. (Jackass).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261767/

A few months ago, there seemed to be a rash of child abductions/killings. Some threads on the topic here on NS went toward 600+ posts. Many were angry at the system that allowed molesters to walk free.. there was a lot of outrage at the lapses in judgment that allowed parole for the killers, and I'll admit, I was pretty angry myself, and suggested some harsh punishments based mostly on that anger. So today I read in the news that some guy finally acted on some similar anger and took the law into his own hands. I don't approve, of course, but the story reminded me that, despite all the outrage by so many, I can't recall any legitimate action being taken, or anything at all being done to prevent the sort of sex crimes that we were all horrified by.

So, my question is this: has anything been done since then? In your town or state? The hurricane and its political consequences dominate the news cycle today, so it's possible that legal action and reform is occurring under the radar, so to speak - it's possible. But I personally don't see it. It would kill me to think that no reforms were made after so many obvious flaws in the criminal system were revealed, but this seems to be the case. So I'm asking, has anyone seen any progress take place?


Some tougher penalties were passed in Florida, but nothing that could actually help solve the problem. This is like the old "let's throw more money into education" routine, it's nice but it doesnt fix a thing.

This is a very tough issue. A lot of people are willing to accept tougher penalties as "doing something about the problem", regardless of whether they actually lower offending rates, which in general they dont.

My question here, is did the man actually do any research about these people, or did he just see there names on the list and say "OMGWTF S3X0FF3ND3RS!!!!" and run off to kill them. Not every person on that list is a rapist/murder/hamster/whatever, some of them may simply have got caught flashing people, soliciting a prostitute, etc.
Does anyone seriously think that being a bit too proud of your willy is a shootable offence?

My state, New Jersey, was where Megan's law was first proposed and enacted. Megan Kanka, the girl who was raped and murdered lived about a mile from my mom's house. The federal government has also instituted the "Amber Alert" system, which notifies people when a child has been abducted and gives a description of the child and the person who abducted her if that information is available. One can also ask one's mobile phone company to text message Amber alerts to one's cellular phone. Also people tend to be more alert to suspicious people who pay too much attention to the local kids.

One has to make the observation that dead repeat offenders don't repeat offend.

Also:
"Vazquez was convicted in 1991 of molesting several relatives, according to court documents. He was released from prison about two years ago and remained under state Department of Corrections supervision.

"I worry that the community may feel as if my father's murderer is a social vigilante who is justified in his actions because of the mistakes my father made 17 years ago," Eve Vazquez of Spokane, one of her father's victims, said in a statement her family passed out at the hearing.

"If anyone had the right to be angry with my father, it was me, his primary victim," she said, adding she reconciled with her father three years ago.

Eisses was sentenced to 5 1/2 years in prison in 1997 for raping a 13-year-old boy. He was released from supervision about two years ago, said Kit Bail, Corrections Department field supervisor for the county."
Source (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/state/story/6936623p-6835673c.html)


So they definitely weren't just flashers then.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9261767/

A few months ago, there seemed to be a rash of child abductions/killings. ... today I read in the news that some guy finally acted on some similar anger and took the law into his own hands. I don't approve, of course, but the story reminded me that, despite all the outrage by so many, I can't recall any legitimate action being taken, or anything at all being done to prevent the sort of sex crimes that we were all horrified by.
Good for HIM! I would do the same thing if I didn't have so many grandchildren. I would hate to die in prison without being able to see them grow up.

I hate vigilantes. They think that because someone committed a crime, they forfeit thier human rights, thier constitutional rights, their legal rights and whatnot.

This man is a vigilante and a murderer and deserves to be in prison.

I hate vigilantes. They think that because someone committed a crime, they forfeit thier human rights, thier constitutional rights, their legal rights and whatnot.

This man is a vigilante and a murderer and deserves to be in prison.
Yes, he deserves to be put in prison, but not for too long. It's not like he killed a nun or something. Some people's lives are just worth less than others.

Yes, he deserves to be put in prison, but not for too long. It's not like he killed a nun or something. Some people's lives are just worth less than others.

Not under the law. The registered sex offenders he killed had served their time(I'm assuming, if they were out), they were full citizens and had every right to expect life as the nun mentioned above.

Not under the law. The registered sex offenders he killed had served their time(I'm assuming, if they were out), they were full citizens and had every right to expect life as the nun mentioned above.
If I'm not mistaken a judge can and will take into account who you killed when sentencing you. The fact that the people he killed were convicted sex offenders may be a mitigating factor in sentencing depending on the judge.

If I'm not mistaken a judge can and will take into account who you killed when sentencing you. The fact that the people he killed were convicted sex offenders may be a mitigating factor in sentencing depending on the judge.True, but that doesn't make it much better. If for instance you kill the wrong guy, because he lives in the house now, has a similar name, looks similar, etc., you should get hit with the full brunt of the law. That's the main reason vigilantes are bad. They don't go by the proper rule of law to find out if their target is guilty or not.

If I'm not mistaken a judge can and will take into account who you killed when sentencing you. The fact that the people he killed were convicted sex offenders may be a mitigating factor in sentencing depending on the judge.

Depending on the state the judge may have discrestion in sentancing. It's neccisary sometimes to allow a qualified judge to give lighter/heavier sentances.

I'm not saying he won't recieve a lighter sentance, I'm just saying he shouldn't, because those men had every right to their life under the law.

The defense will argue that this man was "protecting his family," and appeal to emotion ad nauseum. Any prosecutor worth thier title should be able to prove that niether this man, nor his family, nor his children were in enough danger to justify what this man did. He will probably be convicted, but his sentance will largely depend on whether the defense's appeals to emotion touch the judge significantly.

If I were judge, I'd give the maximum. The message must be sent that going out and killing sex offenders is neither legal, nor moral.

True, but that doesn't make it much better. If for instance you kill the wrong guy, because he lives in the house now, has a similar name, looks similar, etc., you should get hit with the full brunt of the law. That's the main reason vigilantes are bad. They don't go by the proper rule of law to find out if their target is guilty or not.
I don't disagree with you. Vigilaneism, when the legal system is working, is a bad thing and should be punished. I'm just saying that the sentence for a vigilante who removes a sex offender from society shouldn't be as severe as the sentence for a normal killer.

Depending on the state the judge may have discrestion in sentancing. It's neccisary sometimes to allow a qualified judge to give lighter/heavier sentances.

I'm not saying he won't recieve a lighter sentance, I'm just saying he shouldn't, because those men had every right to their life under the law.

The defense will argue that this man was "protecting his family," and appeal to emotion ad nauseum. Any prosecutor worth thier title should be able to prove that niether this man, nor his family, nor his children were in enough danger to justify what this man did. He will probably be convicted, but his sentance will largely depend on whether the defense's appeals to emotion touch the judge significantly.

If I were judge, I'd give the maximum. The message must be sent that going out and killing sex offenders is neither legal, nor moral.
We simply have different values. Extrajudicial killing of sex offenders is immoral, but in my opinion, less immoral than killing ordinary people, and I beleve the sentence should reflect that. I don't think we'll agree because I think our values are different.

Interesting notion, but there's an inheret problem in the system. Some states require you to register as a sex offender if you're homosexual. That's it. No crime, no jail, no molesting kids ... just for being homosexual.

So how would a vigilante, who's only going by a list of names and addresses, know that he's not killling an innocent homosexual?

Interesting notion, but there's an inheret problem in the system. Some states require you to register as a sex offender if you're homosexual. That's it. No crime, no jail, no molesting kids ... just for being homosexual.

One would think that that is extremely unconstutitional. I mean that's like ordering black people to sign up on criminal databases just because they are black.

I don't disagree with you. Vigilaneism, when the legal system is working, is a bad thing and should be punished. I'm just saying that the sentence for a vigilante who removes a sex offender from society shouldn't be as severe as the sentence for a normal killer.I think it should though, because it basically states that it's ok to kill sex offenders. Allowing people to get lighter sentences for things like that creates a mentality that whenever the law fails, citizens should take it in their own hands and they'll be "thanked" for it with a lighter sentence.

Interesting notion, but there's an inheret problem in the system. Some states require you to register as a sex offender if you're homosexual. That's it. No crime, no jail, no molesting kids ... just for being homosexual.

So how would a vigilante, who's only going by a list of names and addresses, know that he's not killling an innocent homosexual?
That doesn't sound right. Where does that happen?

I think it should though, because it basically states that it's ok to kill sex offenders. Allowing people to get lighter sentences for things like that creates a mentality that whenever the law fails, citizens should take it in their own hands and they'll be "thanked" for it with a lighter sentence.
No, see, because they're still being punished. It's not like saying it's OK, it's like saying it's not as bad as killing random people.

One would think that that is extremely unconstutitional. I mean that's like ordering black people to sign up on criminal databases just because they are black.

It is. And it was repealed along with the sodomy laws when SCOTUS made that decision. However, the lists still exist.

How does the vigilante know he's not looking at that particular list?

That doesn't sound right. Where does that happen?

In just about every state where there used to be anti-butt sex laws. SCOTUS repealed that as unconstitutional, but the lists are still there, on the books, just like the laws are actually still on the books, just unenforceable.

In many of those states, a man and his partner (such as the couple in Texas) could be found engaging in sexual activity in their home and fined. Now, what people don't realise from that case is that Lawrence had to register as a sex offender. He's still on the list. A vigilante may not know the difference.

No, see, because they're still being punished. It's not like saying it's OK, it's like saying it's not as bad as killing random people.No, it is saying it's ok because it's not being treated as though he killed someone. Killing random people doesn't compare. Killing a relative because they've been incredibly hateful towards you would be closer, and that isn't acceptable either.

In just about every state where there used to be anti-butt sex laws. SCOTUS repealed that as unconstitutional, but the lists are still there, on the books, just like the laws are actually still on the books, just unenforceable.

In many of those states, a man and his partner (such as the couple in Texas) could be found engaging in sexual activity in their home and fined. Now, what people don't realise from that case is that Lawrence had to register as a sex offender. He's still on the list. A vigilante may not know the difference.
Well that's pretty fucked up.

No, it is saying it's ok because it's not being treated as though he killed someone. Killing random people doesn't compare. Killing a relative because they've been incredibly hateful towards you would be closer, and that isn't acceptable either.
Saying it's OK would be letting the guy walk. Punishing him, even lightly, is saying that it's not OK.

Its hard for me to judge this man, having never been abused or molested and not knowing anyone that has.

I do think the fact he turned himself in and confessed to the murders does count for something. Its likely it will cost far less in time and money to prosecute and punish this man, than it did to the two sexual predators he killed. And I'm willing to bet when he has served his time and is released, he likely wont kill again. According to statistics, its safe to imagine the two predators are likely to have molested again-but not anymore.

Also-the online sexual offender sites are pretty detailed- they have a photo of the criminal as well as their address, year, make, model and plate number of the vehicle they drive. It also lists their MO, so. if it is a fact that homosexuals are listed here, just because they are homosexuals, it wouldnt really have an MO unless they had been convicted of a crime.
I dont believe that homosexuals are listed simply because they are homosexuals. If that were true, its wrong, I dont agree with it. I would need to see proof though.

Saying it's OK would be letting the guy walk. Punishing him, even lightly, is saying that it's not OK.I think this is degenerating into a semantics debate on the meaning of OK...
Basically, what I'm saying is that it gets a certain degree of toleration by allowing for lighter sentences for someone that murders a man under no direct provocation.
If they're really interested in "justice", the vigilantes can group together and organize a neighborhood watch of the offender.

Well that's pretty fucked up.

Yup ... which is one of the reasons I'm against people going after sex offenders. Oh, I have daughters and I know that if anyone ever did anything to them, I'd find 'em before the cops and they wouldn't like the results; however, I don't think it's anyone else's business in that matter. It's a family issue.

It's also a matter of picking and choosing. Let's say a man gets drunk and comes home one night and gets a little rough with his wife. She decides it was rape, reports it, has him arrested. He does some time, gets divorced, and life moves on. He's a sex offender. He's on the list for life.

40 years later, long after the one time incident, some 20 year old with a pistol comes knockin' on his door and shoots him for being on a list of sex offenders. Just not right in my book.

Another prime example: A 22 year old and a 17 year old get married. Even with parental consent, the 22 year old can still be convicted of statuatory rape. He's a sex offender for making love to his wife.

These things happen. I say leave law enforcement to the trained professionals.

I dont believe that homosexuals are listed simply because they are homosexuals. If that were true, its wrong, I dont agree with it. I would need to see proof though.

Just look up the details on the SCOTUS case "Lawrence, et al vs Texas".

Just look up the details on the SCOTUS case "Lawrence, et al vs Texas".

I had posted before I had read you mentioning a specific circumstance.

I hesitate to condone or criticize this guy or a vigilante in general. I dont want random nuts running around dealing their own justice.

I dont miss two convicted child predators.

I know what I would do if someone I cared about was victimized. I would be certain my facts were straight and I've never had a problem with guilt.

Its a tough discussion.

I dont miss two convicted child predators.I don't think anybody does. It's the security afforded by rule of law that is being eroded that people miss.

I know what I would do if someone I cared about was victimized. I would be certain my facts were straight and I've never had a problem with guilt.

Its a tough discussion.

Nod. Agreed. That's why I say it's a family issue with me. If someone molests one of my children, there will be no police involvement.

I don't think, however, a random person should go about with a printed list and a gun. I desperately want to applaud the guy and I wish the court system had a better means of dealing with criminal offenders in the first place ... but you know what they say ... wish in one hand, etc etc ...

Nod. Agreed. That's why I say it's a family issue with me. If someone molests one of my children, there will be no police involvement.

I don't think, however, a random person should go about with a printed list and a gun. I desperately want to applaud the guy and I wish the court system had a better means of dealing with criminal offenders in the first place ... but you know what they say ... wish in one hand, etc etc ...

I'm agreeing with you on both as well.

I'm against a vigilante picking criminals at random and carrying out what hefeels to be justice. If hes got no involvement to the case or connection to the criminal's victim, it makes me wonder if its just someone looking for a reason to kill. While I dont have sympathy for violent/sex offenders, I dont think we need this type of crusader. Though there is an appeal-your savage side may get a thrill from this type of justice, its wrong in our current society. Its the stuff of comic books.

I don't think anybody does. It's the security afforded by rule of law that is being eroded that people miss.

I'm not missing it myself, just having a hard time deciding-Yes,throw the book at this guy, or No-let him walk with a lighter sentence.


I'm remembering a guy whose young child daughter was visciously raped and killed years ago. Captured on video tape, as marshals brought the suspect through an airport lobby, the victim's father blew the suspect's brains out with a revolver, then dropped the gun and immediately surrendered. He did circumvent the system, broke the law and did what he had to do.
I would have had a hard time sentencing him then and I didnt even have children of my own yet at that time.

I do value human life. But, my definition of "human" may differ from that of others. Some people cease to be human in my eyes after certain crimes. And they become as meaningful to me as an insect.

The laws here in Washington are pretty crazy. They changed after a little boy in my city was raped and had his penis cut off by a repeat offender.
The new law created after this crime is causing all kinds of legal problems because the basic tenet is that these people can be kept in jail because of the risk they pose to society due to the fact that most sexual predators will never be able to control their behavior. These are - roughly - the State's terms, not my own. So, if an offender here can actually get out of the system, I think people around here get worried.

The laws here in Washington are pretty crazy. They changed after a little boy in my city was raped and had his penis cut off by a repeat offender.



Now there is a repeat offender that needs to be hunted down and eradicated. How many more kids have to pay the price before this scum bag is locked away forever?

The worst part is that the man (Earl Shriner) even bragged to fellow inmates that he was going to assault a child as soon as he got out of prison. I think this was the worst part for everyone; that the system had a loophole by which a criminal could confess intent, but not be incarerated for it. I realize that it's a slippery slope, but this man had a long history of this type of behavior. You'd think someone would have taken it into account. Anyway, he got something like 151 years after nearly killing that little boy. The boy himself recovered, and actually just died in a car accident a little while ago.

They should get rid of those lists altogether... either someone has done his time and should be treated like a full citizen with full rights (or in the case of a felony, whatever rights are accorded to released felons), or they haven't. I'm not disagreeing that sex offenders of certain types usually repeat their crimes, but if the best we can come up with to stop repeat offenses is that list then we should keep them in jail.

If we're gonna have lists then why stop at this? If this is viable and not a violation of anyone's rights then I'd like to know the crimes of everyone who lives near me. If someone has a long sheet of misdemeanors, I should have the right to be informed about that, too, if they're living next door to me.

With this particular incident, if that guy doesn't get punished appropriately then that list is gonna basically become a hunting license for every macho, homophobic, gun-toting moron that our society can produce. After a couple of incidents like that, then people on that list are gonna do whatever they can to arm and protect themselves because they'll feel that the law isn't protecting them... then all kinds of wack shit is gonna happen.

Does anyone here think that this vigilante wasn't a violent sort of fellow anyway? If it wasn't for the registry he'd probably have killed someone in a fight at a bar or shot a neighbor for walking on his lawn.