NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41287.htm

Yes, that's right!

There's a legislative battle going on in Washington State over the maximum amount of time a child rapist can spend in jail.

The Republicans say: 30 years EDIT: mininum.
The Democrats say: 25 years maximum IF THEY'RE STRANGERS!
The Democrats also say: If it's family or friend, 7-10 years maximum.

What the FUCK kinda SHIT is THAT?! Now, I know not all democrats are like that... see my democratic friends and family...

And my opinion? 1st offense: Locked up for life in a cell with Big Daddy, who's paid to rape them no less than twice daily for the rest of their pitiful life after their cut off without any medication to numb the pain... 2nd offense, et al: What 2nd or more offense? They will be behind bars forever, and they will only be recieving... after all, they CAN'T give, they've been cut off!

But WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING, 7-10 YEARS MAXIMUM FOR CHILD RAPISTS?!?! Why don't you pay them for every time they rape the kid while you're at it? They probably would if they heard me say that, GODDAMN FUCKERS!

--- Sorry for my language, but that pisses the fuck outta me!

word on the street is that in the Prison society, a child molester/rapist will have a very, very brutal time in jail. for most of the prisoners in jail have children on the outside. any child f*@ker in there is automatically placed in the lowest slot in the food chain.

Not saying 10yrs is plenty mind you...

Meh. And some Bible Belt states have how many years in prison by the sodomy laws?

Before you get all fired up over the evil commie lib demos, you might want to get more details rather then comments of one person. Are they all defining it that way or is it one or two people?

The demos are allowed to have nut cases just like the repubs.....

Is is just me, or is abuse within the family even worse? They should be getting more time, not less. These people should be locked up for 30 years and should have to suffer every minute of it...even that isn't enough justice for the life they destroyed.

Is is just me, or is abuse within the family even worse? They should be getting more time, not less. These people should be locked up for 30 years and should have to suffer every minute of it...even that isn't enough justice for the life they destroyed.


No I think it hasn't changed much. With the information age, you hear about it more........

And my opinion? 1st offense: Locked up for life in a cell with Big Daddy, who's paid to rape them no less than twice daily for the rest of their pitiful life after their cut off without any medication to numb the pain... 2nd offense, et al: What 2nd or more offense? They will be behind bars forever, and they will only be recieving... after all, they CAN'T give, they've been cut off!

Rape should never be used as punishment. Ever.

Also, I don't know what's the reasoning for giving shorter sentences to those who know their victims. If anything, knowing your assailant would make it harder for you to report the crime.

Meh. And some Bible Belt states have how many years in prison of sodomy laws?

Before you get all fired up over the evil commie lib demos, you might want to get more details rather then comments of one person. Are they all defining it that way or is it one or two people?

The demos are allowed to have nut cases just like the repubs.....
I agree, I don't hold all Dems and Repubs in the same group as their outspoken peerage.
However, since the report says...
Right now, lawmakers are in the beginning of a pitched battle over how long a child rapist should be sent to prison.

Republicans say 30 years.

Democrats say 25, but ONLY if the rapist is a stranger.
if it's a Pitched Battle over the established laws, I can't see it being only one or two Democrats.

on the other hand, it also doesn't mean that ALL Reps are for the tougher laws.

Meh. And some Bible Belt states have how many years in prison of sodomy laws?

None anymore.. time to update those stereotypes.. :p

In any case, I predict O'Reilly blows a gasket over this one.. he's already going off on some judge who gave a guy 60 days in jail for raping a girl from age 2-6... (I just got satellite after a year or so of antenna.. lots of channels now. :) )

Life time in prison and getting raped twice daily..... I didn't think we were going to be that lenient.

Rape should never be used as punishment. Ever.

Also, I don't know what's the reasoning for giving shorter sentences to those who know their victims. If anything, knowing your assailant would make it harder for you to report the crime.
the reason is that children won't testify against the rapist if they knew it meant that the person was going away for a long time.

None anymore.. time to update those stereotypes.. :p

In any case, I predict O'Reilly blows a gasket over this one.. he's already going off on some judge who gave a guy 60 days in jail for raping a girl from age 2-6... (I just got satellite after a year or so of antenna.. lots of channels now. :) )
yep... more channels with nuthin on... :D

When it comes to something like this children shouldn't have a say if they testify. If it's proven that they were raped then you gunna have to give them all the candy they want to talk about it.

So let's say that an average law-abiding citizen, Joe, is 19 years old and in his first year of college. He's never broken the law in his life. He met his girlfriend, a 15 year old girl, in high school last year. The are both virgins, and they aren't sexually active, but they want to be. So they do it.

The girl regrets giving her virginity so early, even though she agreed to give it to Joe. Something in the relationship goes awry and and the girl gets bitter and though Joe didn't do anything wrong, the girl accuses him of rape. It's her word against his. He is an adult, she is not. The public can still say it is rape even though it was consentual.

Republicans say: Joe gets the shit end of the stick. 30 years as Bubba's bitch for Joe, because he had took his girlfriend's virginity and she got pissed. Do you think that is fair?

Democrats say: Joe gets 7-10 years in the pen. Still kind of sketchy because they were a couple.

You say: Joe gets a life sentance of confined anal rape after genital mutilation (cruel and unusual punishment).

I say (as a Washington state Democrat): Re-evaluate yourself..

<snip>

There's a difference between statutory rape and child abuse.

Oh, and do you really think Joe deserves seven years in jail for that?

the reason is that children won't testify against the rapist if they knew it meant that the person was going away for a long time.

I doubt that's the reason behind more lenient sentences for rape of a family member.. it's not like kids have a very good sense of time... the difference between 15 and 25 years isn't easily explained to a 5-year old..

yep... more channels with nuthin on... :D

I wouldn't have believed it a month ago, but it really is possible to have 300 channels and be stuck watching "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." :(

Well maybe HE should re-evaluate f**king his girlfriend before she reaches legal age.

So let's say that an average law-abiding citizen, Joe, is 19 years old and in his first year of college. He met his girlfriend, a 15 year old girl, in high school last year. The are both virgins, and they aren't sexually active, but they want to be. So they do it.

Something in the relationship goes awry and and the girl gets bitter and though Joe didn't do anything wrong, the girl accuses him of rape. It's her word against his. He is an adult, she is not. The public can still say it is rape even though it was consentual.

Republicans say: Joe gets the shit end of the stick. 30 years as Bubba's bitch for Joe, because he had took his girlfriend's virginity and she got pissed. Do you think that is fair?

Democrats say: Joe gets 7-10 years in the pen. Still kind of sketchy because they were a couple.

You say: Joe gets genital mutilation and a life consisting of bread, water, and anal rape.

I say (as a Washington state Democrat): Re-evaluate yourself.John is a 35 yr old male. he is asked to house his 14 yr old neice while the parents are away on a funeral. John agrees. in the couple of days that his neice is there, he and his friends rapes her. she reports it in and John gets 7-10 years while his friend, a stranger to the victim, gets 25. is that also fair?

<vulgar snip>
The fact that you're suggesting that rape is a possible punishment for rape makes me think that perhaps you don't understand a goddamn thing about how horrible rape really is. Speaking from the point of view of a rape victim, that's something that I would never wish upon the person that took advantage of me. Frankly, I've got a feeling that my mentality of it is going to be more predominant in older cases of rape (obviously not young children) than not.

I doubt that's the reason behind more lenient sentences for rape of a family member.. it's not like kids have a very good sense of time... the difference between 15 and 25 years isn't easily explained to a 5-year old..
not my reasoning but it's in the article.

They contend that kids and other family members will be less willing to testify against someone they know if it means that someone will be sent to prison for a long time.

Simonist']The fact that you're suggesting that rape is a possible punishment for rape makes me think that perhaps you don't understand a goddamn thing about how horrible rape really is. Speaking from the point of view of a rape victim, that's something that I would never wish upon the person that took advantage of me. Frankly, I've got a feeling that my mentality of it is going to be more predominant in older cases of rape (obviously not young children) than not.

Well.... you can't argue with someone who has experienced rape....

None anymore.. time to update those stereotypes.. :p

In any case, I predict O'Reilly blows a gasket over this one.. he's already going off on some judge who gave a guy 60 days in jail for raping a girl from age 2-6... (I just got satellite after a year or so of antenna.. lots of channels now. :) )

Ahh but they did exist! ;) Buy you are right. Me bad I should have looked before speaking. I think the last one struck down was in 2003?

Bill blow a gasket?!?!?!? Say it isn't so! ;)

What ever happened to his "incident?"

Oh, and do you really think Joe deserves seven years in jail for that?

I do not think Joe deserves seven years in Jail for that. On the other hand, I agree with Simonist, that rape should not be a punishment for rape. I will go out on a limb and say that rape is not a suitable punishment for anything. Just my opinion.

Rapists should have their genitals ripped off (without anesthesia), their anuses sewn shut, and their arms amputated. That way, they'll never be able to repeat their crime. If the victim is a child, add scaphism to the punishment.

I've never supported rape as a punishment for rape myself, although there's certainly some sense of poetic justice in hearing about it happening..

I personally advocate the "catch and release" system for rapists, the 2-step plan, simple and effective for felons classified as likely repeat offenders:

1. castration (as many others have suggested, total removal, not chemical injection)
2. blinding (permanent, inserting the tip of a soldering iron 3/4 inch into each eye for a few seconds is effective)

Minimal jailtime would be required.

I do not think Joe deserves seven years in Jail for that. On the other hand, I agree with Simonist, that rape should not be a punishment for rape. I will go out on a limb and say that rape is not a suitable punishment for anything. Just my opinion.
I don't think anyone really believes in Rape as a punnishment. however, what isn't being commented on is the fact that Lawmakers want the 7-10 years max if the perp is someone the victim knew. (which I think was the real message behind the first post.)

Rapists should have their genitals ripped off (without anesthesia), their anuses sewn shut, and their arms amputated. That way, they'll never be able to repeat their crime. If the victim is a child, add scaphism to the punishment.

I
I personally advocate the "catch and release" system for rapists, the 2-step plan, simple and effective for felons classified as likely repeat offenders:

1. castration (as many others have suggested, total removal, not chemical injection)
2. blinding (permanent, inserting the tip of a soldering iron 3/4 inch into each eye for a few seconds is effective)

And what do you both do if the rapist is found innocent on appeal? Say "sorry"?

not my reasoning but it's in the article.

Ah, sorry about that.. must've skimmed over that bit.. my mistake.

I personally advocate the "catch and release" system for rapists, the 2-step plan, simple and effective for felons classified as likely repeat offenders:

1. castration (as many others have suggested, total removal, not chemical injection)
2. blinding (permanent, inserting the tip of a soldering iron 3/4 inch into each eye for a few seconds is effective)

Minimal jailtime would be required.
What are you trying to accomplish with these punishments? If it's safety for society or something of the sort, I don't think your plan would work.
I don't think that rapists would just turn into nice people if you removed their sexual organs. I thought I heard that violent rape is the most common type (or maybe it was only the most reported? Don't quote me on it), and I'd imagine that some violent rapists would just carry on with the "vioence" bit if you let them go.
You mentioned repeat offenders, but your plan seems to allow repeat offenses. Why not keep them from harming others again after the first time?

And what do you both do if the rapist is found innocent on appeal? Say "sorry"?

Well it would cause a fear of being convicted of rape even if it was consensual and would probably lowerd STD's. But I think we are also forgetting that women can commit rape just as much as men.

And what do you both do if the rapist is found innocent on appeal? Say "sorry"?

It will only be done if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rapist is guilty. If there is even the slightest chance he is not, keep him in jail until his innocence or guilt is confirmed.

I still say we should bring back crucifixion for pedophiles.

And what do you both do if the rapist is found innocent on appeal? Say "sorry"?

First off, I don't advocate cruelty (lack of anesthesia, "ripping" off body parts, etc.) so although I understand the other poster's comments, I'm not advocating similar methods, only a more assured incapacitation effect.

Second, I'd only advocate my method for those offenders deemed highly likely to re-offend.. this usually means repeat offenders or criminals with an obvious obsession with rape.. there'd be little chance of falsely incapacitating an innocent person.

It will only be done if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rapist is guilty. If there is even the slightest chance he is not, keep him in jail until his innocence or guilt is confirmed.

What an excellent reason for the rapist to kill the victim.

This plan may need more work.

I still say we should bring back crucifixion for pedophiles.

That'd certainly solve the "nails through the hands/nails through the wrists" debate once and for all.. :p

there'd be little chance of falsely incapacitating an innocent person.

But it is still possible, right?

That'd certainly solve the "nails through the hands/nails through the wrists" debate once and for all.. :p
I thought I proved that the other day, on camera, with a smelly hobo.

I mean......what?

Humour aside....I don't believe castration would be the greatest option, really. There's something wrong in these peoples' heads that makes them do what they do -- therefore, ripping off the wee-wee isn't going to solve the problem, merely open the door for more problems.

Simonist']I thought I proved that the other day, on camera, with a smelly hobo.

I mean......what?

Humour aside....I don't believe castration would be the greatest option, really. There's something wrong in these peoples' heads that makes them do what they do -- therefore, ripping off the wee-wee isn't going to solve the problem, merely open the door for more problems.

Thats a very sexist thing to say. Women are just as capable of rape as men.

Thats a very sexist thing to say. Women are just as capable of rape as men.
Um....that's not at all the point I was trying to dispute. How is my arguing AGAINST castration of male offenders a "sexist" thing to say? I'm sorry, here, I'll be equal opportunity.

What I really meant, apparently, is that men should not be the only ones suffering genital mutilation. Let's fuck up the girls, while we're at it.

Thanks for correcting me, Kinwara. I was WAY off-base with what I thought I meant. Jesus....where would I be without you?

Newsflash, Kinwara -- I'm a chick. I'm a rape victim. I've sat through both my trial and the trial of my friend, who was raped by a chick. I think I know better than just about anybody else that rapists aren't all big, creepy older men who prey on the weakness of others. So get the fuck over yourself.

But it is still possible, right?

No, nothing's absoutely impossible.. It's not impossible that some sap's long-lost identical twin could rape the woman living next door to him and plant a bunch of evidence in his yard while escaping or something.. you never really know 100%.

Simonist']
Humour aside....I don't believe castration would be the greatest option, really. There's something wrong in these peoples' heads that makes them do what they do -- therefore, ripping off the wee-wee isn't going to solve the problem, merely open the door for more problems.

Castration only takes away much of the motivation, not the ability to commit the crime.. I propose to take away both, via enucleation of the eyes along with jailtime and perhaps removal of the thumbs to the second digit for incorrigible offenders.. all done by doctors under a supervised setting, to be sure.. I'm not advocating a public spectacle.. and physical therapy and job placement would be provided.

For those criticising me on my suggestion for what should happen (raped 2 times day mininum, etc) it was more of a point I was making. But I will say I would have no problem with prison guards turning a blind eye on rapists getting the "eye for an eye" treatment by his fellow inmates. I also say they need to remain locked up for life.

And, yes, my main message was aimed at the 7-10 years issue. If you rape someone - if you force them against their will to have sex - I dont care if you know them or not, you need to be locked up for a long lot longer than 7-10 years.

I've never supported rape as a punishment for rape myself, although there's certainly some sense of poetic justice in hearing about it happening..

I personally advocate the "catch and release" system for rapists, the 2-step plan, simple and effective for felons classified as likely repeat offenders:

1. castration (as many others have suggested, total removal, not chemical injection)
2. blinding (permanent, inserting the tip of a soldering iron 3/4 inch into each eye for a few seconds is effective)

Minimal jailtime would be required.and if the Rapist was a woman? or like someone pointed out, the woman faked the rape to get Revenge! (yeah, I know that last one was out there but it still can happen.) and I believe there was a case where a woman did charge her boyfriend with rape and won... she even admitted that the sex was consetual.

the problem was that the boyfriend didn't get the consent from her "Other Personalities" so her Multilple personalities charged the BF with rape and they all testified against him... and I believe they won.

[NS]Simonist, sorry to hear that, I hope they were convicted to your satisfaction.

Simonist']Um....that's not at all the point I was trying to dispute. How is my arguing AGAINST castration of male offenders a "sexist" thing to say? I'm sorry, here, I'll be equal opportunity.

What I really meant, apparently, is that men should not be the only ones suffering genital mutilation. Let's fuck up the girls, while we're at it.

Thanks for correcting me, Kinwara. I was WAY off-base with what I thought I meant. Jesus....where would I be without you?

Newsflash, Kinwara -- I'm a chick. I'm a rape victim. I've sat through both my trial and the trial of my friend, who was raped by a chick. I think I know better than just about anybody else that rapists aren't all big, creepy older men who prey on the weakness of others. So get the fuck over yourself.
Sorry to hear about what happened to you. I know alotta rape victims, including my niece and nephew, as well as my mother (the 3 of them were all under 10 when they were raped - they also knew the person - their neighbor for my niece and nephew, and her uncle for my mom), among alotta other family and friends. Thus, even though I personally have not been through it, it is among the biggest issues I have, along with child abuse, which isn't to far off the mark as child rape.

And, yes, guys should not be the only ones who recieve punishment. Many people, unfortunately, overlook that. I know a couple friends who were raped by girls, not guys. Don't ask me how, I wont answer that question. Just leave it at they, girls rape as well, and need to be punished as well.

[NS]Simonist, sorry to hear that, I hope they were convicted to your satisfaction.
You know....it was four years ago. I was much younger and honestly, in time I've moved past it for the most part. The only time it's really hard to just sit around and bite my tongue is when people act as if I have a skewed view of the situation or I don't really know what I'm talking about, when they really usually don't have the kind of view I do. They haven't been through the trial process, and most of what they know of rape is what they watch on Court TV. Day to day, I don't think about it -- I carry on my healthy 20 year old life with a good relationship and most people never know.

And imported_ViZion, I'm sorry for what I said, I didn't figure by your early statements that you even had any experience, let alone in the family, of what kind of an impact rape has. I judged you unfairly and I was out of line, and I hope you can forgive me for that.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41287.htm

Yes, that's right!

There's a legislative battle going on in Washington State over the maximum amount of time a child rapist can spend in jail.

The Republicans say: 30 years maximum.

To start, you have the facts wrong. The Republican bill calls for a 30-year MINIMUM.

Come back when you can tell us what 2476 really says.

To start, you have the facts wrong. The Republican bill calls for a 30-year MINIMUM.

Come back when you can tell us what 2476 really says.but do you agree with the 7-10 years if the rapist knew the vic?

Simonist']
And imported_ViZion, I'm sorry for what I said, I didn't figure by your early statements that you even had any experience, let alone in the family, of what kind of an impact rape has. I judged you unfairly and I was out of line, and I hope you can forgive me for that.
That's alright, it's human nature, I've done that before too, and it's a simple misunderstanding. Don't worry about it. :)

To start, you have the facts wrong. The Republican bill calls for a 30-year MINIMUM.

Come back when you can tell us what 2476 really says.
So because he got one fact, that's mostly irrelevant to the point he was trying to make, wrong.....this debate is invalidated?

That's harsh.

To start, you have the facts wrong. The Republican bill calls for a 30-year MINIMUM.

Come back when you can tell us what 2476 really says.
Excuse me for misunderstand that. Don't tell me you've never misunderstand something before.

but do you agree with the 7-10 years if the rapist knew the vic?
Is that minimum? If so, then no.

"Right now, lawmakers are in the beginning of a pitched battle over how long a child rapist should be sent to prison.

Republicans say 30 years.

Democrats say 25, but ONLY if the rapist is a stranger.

If it's a family member, or a friend of the family, Democrats think the current sentence of 7 to 10 years is just fine."

-http://www.komotv.com/stories/41287.htm

Clarifying this for myself and everyone else.

Simonist']So because he got one fact, that's mostly irrelevant to the point he was trying to make, wrong.....this debate is invalidated?

That's harsh.

Well, his level of outrage is a bit extreme for someone who clearly hasn't read the bill, including all of its own fun distinctions... like the exceptions for married people who rape their mentally disabled partner.

This bill is complex (over 100 pages long) and the Democratic objections to it (which have not had a full hearing because the Republicans only just allowed it to go to committee after failing to force a floor vote) are equally complex.

Someone has already mentioned that among these objections are concerns that aspects of the Republican bill will discourage children from reporting their abusers. I don't know, off-hand, how valid these concerns are. But I do know that blind ideological outrage is not the appropriate response to concerns that seem, on their face, to have the victims' well-being at heart.

Well, his level of outrage is a bit extreme for someone who clearly hasn't read the bill, including all of its own fun distinctions... like the exceptions for married people who rape their mentally disabled partner.

This bill is complex (over 100 pages long) and the Democratic objections to it (which have not had a full hearing because the Republicans only just allowed it to go to committee after failing to force a floor vote) are equally complex.

Someone has already mentioned that among these objections are concerns that aspects of the Republican bill will discourage children from reporting their abusers. I don't know, off-hand, how valid these concerns are. But I do know that blind ideological outrage is not the appropriate response to concerns that seem, on their face, to have the victims' well-being at heart.
I am not complaining about the Republic's. My complaint is towards the 7-10 years. Please read my posts, and you'll see that. Don't try to turn this into a "ViZion hates what the republicans want" thing, because that's NOT IT AT ALL.

Is that minimum? If so, then no.
no, it's 7-10 year MAX I believe.

Well, his level of outrage is a bit extreme for someone who clearly hasn't read the bill, including all of its own fun distinctions... like the exceptions for married people who rape their mentally disabled partner.

This bill is complex (over 100 pages long) and the Democratic objections to it (which have not had a full hearing because the Republicans only just allowed it to go to committee after failing to force a floor vote) are equally complex.

Someone has already mentioned that among these objections are concerns that aspects of the Republican bill will discourage children from reporting their abusers. I don't know, off-hand, how valid these concerns are. But I do know that blind ideological outrage is not the appropriate response to concerns that seem, on their face, to have the victims' well-being at heart.don't forget to include the author of that peice of opinionated news because he didn't mention that either. and instead of making personal attacks on posters for listening/reading the news (which is supposed to give all the information), you could put up a link to the bill for others, including imported_ViZion to read and get the full story.

I am not complaining about the Republic's. My complaint is towards the 7-10 years.

I know that. Had you read my posts, you would know that I know that.

My complaint is with the mindless outrage with which you respond to Democrats' concerns, without even bothering to read the Republicans' bill, let alone the details of the Democrats' response.

Perhaps we should note that the crime at issue is distinguished in this bill from Sexual Victimization, which is a violent crime. The crime that Republicans want to punish with a 30-year minimum is, according to this bill:

"Rape of a Child (statutory rape) in the first degree: A perpetrator commits this crime if he or she has sexual intercourse with a child under 12 if the perpetrator is at least 24 months older than the victim. Rape of a Child in the first degree is a class A felony with a seriousness level of XII.
It is also a "two strikes" sex offense."

Note that this would apply if, say, a child just under 12 has sex with a child just under 14. The 14-year-old would be guilty of a felony with a minimum sentence of 30 years.

We also have:

"Rape of a Child (statutory rape) in the second degree: A perpetrator commits this crime if he or she has sexual intercourse with a child aged 12 or 13 if the perpetrator is at least 36 months older than the victim. Rape of a Child in the second degree is a class A felony with a seriousness level of XI. It is also a "two strikes" sex offense."

So, a 16-year-old who has sex with a 13-year-old.

Granted, the state has a valid concern here. NO ONE should be having sex with 12- or 13-year-olds.

One of the good things that this bill does is to create two new crimes dealing with the violent (or coerced) rape of children. But these new crimes are NOT what your article was complaining about. It was complaining about the crime "Rape of a Child," otherwise known as "statutory rape."

The sentencing goes as follows:

"For Sexual Victimization in the first degree, the minimum term is life;"

-- That's violent rape of a child under 12.

"For Rape of a Child in the first degree, the minimum term is either 30 years or the maximum of the standard range, whichever is greater;"

That's statutory rape of a child under 12.

"For Child Molestation in the first degree, Kidnapping in the first degree with sexual motivation, Rape of a Child in the second degree, and Sexual Victimization in the second degree, the minimum term is either 25 years or the maximum of the standard range, whichever is greater."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not so sure that "Rape of a Child in the second degree" -- statutory rape of which a 16-year-old could be guilty by having sex with his/her too-young lover--should be in the same sentencing scheme as violent rape and kidnapping.

Also, perhaps when you consider the age-ranges to which this applies, you can begin to understand the concern that some young victims may be deterred from turning in their abuser by a long sentence--especially since their abuser may be a family member or a boyfriend about whom (despite the crime) they nevertheless have ambivalent feelings (including love).

I know that. Had you read my posts, you would know that I know that.

My complaint is with the mindless outrage with which you respond to Democrats' concerns, without even bothering to read the Republicans' bill, let alone the details of the Democrats' response.

Perhaps we should note that the crime at issue is distinguished in this bill from Sexual Victimization, which is a violent crime. The crime that Republicans want to punish with a 30-year minimum is, according to this bill:

"Rape of a Child (statutory rape) in the first degree: A perpetrator commits this crime if he or she has sexual intercourse with a child under 12 if the perpetrator is at least 24 months older than the victim. Rape of a Child in the first degree is a class A felony with a seriousness level of XII.
It is also a "two strikes" sex offense."

Note that this would apply if, say, a child just under 12 has sex with a child just under 14. The 14-year-old would be guilty of a felony with a minimum sentence of 30 years.

We also have:

"Rape of a Child (statutory rape) in the second degree: A perpetrator commits this crime if he or she has sexual intercourse with a child aged 12 or 13 if the perpetrator is at least 36 months older than the victim. Rape of a Child in the second degree is a class A felony with a seriousness level of XI. It is also a "two strikes" sex offense."

So, a 16-year-old who has sex with a 13-year-old.

Granted, the state has a valid concern here. NO ONE should be having sex with 12- or 13-year-olds.

One of the good things that this bill does is to create two new crimes dealing with the violent (or coerced) rape of children. But these new crimes are NOT what your article was complaining about. It was complaining about the crime "Rape of a Child," otherwise known as "statutory rape."

The sentencing goes as follows:

"For Sexual Victimization in the first degree, the minimum term is life;"

-- That's violent rape of a child under 12.

"For Rape of a Child in the first degree, the minimum term is either 30 years or the maximum of the standard range, whichever is greater;"

That's statutory rape of a child under 12.

"For Child Molestation in the first degree, Kidnapping in the first degree with sexual motivation, Rape of a Child in the second degree, and Sexual Victimization in the second degree, the minimum term is either 25 years or the maximum of the standard range, whichever is greater."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not so sure that "Rape of a Child in the second degree" -- statutory rape of which a 16-year-old could be guilty by having sex with his/her too-young lover--should be in the same sentencing scheme as violent rape and kidnapping.

Also, perhaps when you consider the age-ranges to which this applies, you can begin to understand the concern that some young victims may be deterred from turning in their abuser by a long sentence--especially since their abuser may be a family member or a boyfriend about whom (despite the crime) they nevertheless have ambivalent feelings (including love).
Will respond when I get back from dinner... but thanks for posting that link... have a link, book, or other source to cite it by the way?

Will respond when I get back from dinner... but thanks for posting that link... have a link, book, or other source to cite it by the way?

For the Google-impaired:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2476.pdf

Will respond when I get back from dinner... but thanks for posting that link... have a link, book, or other source to cite it by the way?

Please snip.

For the Google-impaired:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2476.pdf
Dude, stop with that personal attack crap. Excuse me for getting pissed because I know alotta people who were raped and reading about this on the news. Do you have a fucking problem with that? Excuse me for getting a little pissed, but you could at least stop being an asshole to me.

Dude, stop with that personal attack crap. Excuse me for getting pissed because I know alotta people who were raped and reading about this on the news. Do you have a fucking problem with that? Excuse me for getting a little pissed, but you could at least stop being an asshole to me.

Sorry, I just get impatient with people who think they've scored a point by demanding a link to a file that is easily available. It's like asking me to link you to a dictionary because you don't recognize a word I've used.

Also, I am sorry that you know "alotta" people who were raped. More than likely, there are also a few more who have not come forward. Rape is a horrible crime, and I know it affects everyone who knows the victim.

However, knowing a victim -- or, for that matter, being a victim -- does not magically make you right; indeed, quite the contrary, it has a tendency to cloud your judgment.

As it happens, my girlfriend was raped when she was nineteen... and nearly 14 years later, it still affects her. (I actually guessed that she must have had some sexual trauma in her past, long before she felt comfortable telling me about it.)

My only point being that we both clearly have a sincere interest in solving the problems surrounding rape, its prevention, and its punishment. Getting emotional, however, is not going to help us to perceive the best social policy.

John is a 35 yr old male. he is asked to house his 14 yr old neice while the parents are away on a funeral. John agrees. in the couple of days that his neice is there, he and his friends rapes her. she reports it in and John gets 7-10 years while his friend, a stranger to the victim, gets 25. is that also fair?

That sounds like rape not "rape of a child" (statutory rape) which is what the sentencing issue is about.

Sorry, I just get impatient with people who think they've scored a point by demanding a link to a file that is easily available. It's like asking me to link you to a dictionary because you don't recognize a word I've used.

[snip]

My only point being that we both clearly have a sincere interest in solving the problems surrounding rape, its prevention, and its punishment. Getting emotional, however, is not going to help us to perceive the best social policy.the problem is you're assuming that those asking for the link are "scoring points" and not just asking for a Link.

also, you also conveyed the attitude that the poster ill informed and you didn't provide the link on the onset when the article referenced in the first post doesn't even mention the bill nor it's indentifying number, yet you carried on like it's common knowledge for everyone.

Assumption is a bad thing to do on a forum.

but seeing that you finally did provide the link (Thanks btw), I shall now retire and endevor to inform myself of this bill.

God I hate reading government documents. :rolleyes:

I wasn't "trying to score points", I just was looking to see where it was coming from...

And, indeed, I do know a number of people... my mom, my niece, my nephew, a lot of my cousins, and a few of my friends have come forward about their rapes. And I know there's gotta be more than those who haven't come forward, at least not yet.

But now that we hopefully have gotten out pissiness towards eachother out, how about we put that behind us and start off on a clean slate? Obviously none of us are for rapists, and we shouldn't be fighting eachother over the same 'cause' or whatever you want to call it... plus, I'm sure you're a cool person... ;)

And I agree, assumptions are bad... I assume alotta incorrect things as well... who doesn't? lol

Basically, I feel that they need to be put away for more than 7-10 years. Yes, there's concern that they wont come forward if they know they'll be going away for a looooong time, but honestly, 7-10 years is simply not enough. Especially when raping a child.

Basically, I feel that they need to be put away for more than 7-10 years. Yes, there's concern that they wont come forward if they know they'll be going away for a looooong time, but honestly, 7-10 years is simply not enough. Especially when raping a child.

Just to clarify, when you say that are you talking about coercive rape of a child, or simply statutory rape? The issue here, though obscured by the reactionary article cited in the original post, is statutory rape--which would include cases in which the victim is a willing (if not legally consenting) participant.

Not even the bloodiest heart among the Democrats would suggest that someone who coerces a person into sexual activity--let alone doing that to a child--should get at most 7-10 years. They are only arguing that when it comes to statutory rape, the issues get murkier.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41287.htm

Yes, that's right!

There's a legislative battle going on in Washington State over the maximum amount of time a child rapist can spend in jail.

The Republicans say: 30 years EDIT: mininum.
The Democrats say: 25 years maximum IF THEY'RE STRANGERS!
The Democrats also say: If it's family or friend, 7-10 years maximum.

What the FUCK kinda SHIT is THAT?! Now, I know not all democrats are like that... see my democratic friends and family...

And my opinion? 1st offense: Locked up for life in a cell with Big Daddy, who's paid to rape them no less than twice daily for the rest of their pitiful life after their cut off without any medication to numb the pain... 2nd offense, et al: What 2nd or more offense? They will be behind bars forever, and they will only be recieving... after all, they CAN'T give, they've been cut off!

But WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING, 7-10 YEARS MAXIMUM FOR CHILD RAPISTS?!?! Why don't you pay them for every time they rape the kid while you're at it? They probably would if they heard me say that, GODDAMN FUCKERS!

--- Sorry for my language, but that pisses the fuck outta me!

This is spin by one local TV reporter.

As AnarchyeL has documented in the thread, this spin is innaccurate.

Just to clarify, when you say that are you talking about coercive rape of a child, or simply statutory rape? The issue here, though obscured by the reactionary article cited in the original post, is statutory rape--which would include cases in which the victim is a willing (if not legally consenting) participant.

Not even the bloodiest heart among the Democrats would suggest that someone who coerces a person into sexual activity--let alone doing that to a child--should get at most 7-10 years. They are only arguing that when it comes to statutory rape, the issues get murkier.
No, no, I'm not talking about a 16 year old and 18 year old couple having sex willingly... I'm talking about forced, against-your-will rape.

No, no, I'm not talking about a 16 year old and 18 year old couple having sex willingly... I'm talking about forced, against-your-will rape.

But the statute you are complaining about does NOT match your examples.

I think you got heated up by the slanted opinion piece from the OP and you haven't calmed down enough to realize you've been misled.

But the statute you are complaining about does NOT match your examples.

I think you got heated up by the slanted opinion piece from the OP and you haven't calmed down enough to realize you've been misled.
Gimme the night to sleep it out, and then when I come back and reread everything maybe so, but it wont happen til tomorrow... ;) It usually takes sleeping something out to get me calmed down like that

No, no, I'm not talking about a 16 year old and 18 year old couple having sex willingly... I'm talking about forced, against-your-will rape.

Exactly. Good luck finding anyone who disagrees with you. ;)

Exactly. Good luck finding anyone who disagrees with you. ;)
Huh? Wait, did we just misunderstand eachother? 7-10 years is to short a jail time for someone who forces a child to have sex.

From a less biased sources, with internal links to the actual bills:
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060113/NEWS/60113002

Bills in play

Democrats and Republicans have more than a dozen bills addressing various issues, but two key measures are at the center of a dispute:

HB 2411: The Democrats’ alternative, it seeks 25-year minimum prison terms for offenders convicted of first-degree rape of a child younger than 12, if the perpetrator is a stranger. A separate bill in the works might create another category to single out teachers, priests, coaches and others in positions of trust for more severe punishment.

HB 2476: The Republicans’ version, “Jessica’s Law Plus,” provides numerous sentencing changes:

A mandatory lifetime sentence for the new crime of first-degree sexual victimization (raping a child younger than 12).

A minimum term of 30 years for first-degree rape of a child.

A minimum 25 years for first-degree child molestation or second-degree victimization (sexual intercourse or contact with a physically helpless or mentally incapacitated victim).

The bill adds the death penalty for several crimes, including murder with a sexual motivation.

And the bill has several other elements:

Higher penalties for failure to register as a sex offender.

Required sex-offender registration for those convicted of possessing child pornography.

GPS monitoring of those who commit certain “two strike” sex offenses such as child rape and are released into the community.

Making it a crime to knowingly help a sex offender who isn’t registered with police in his community.

Democrats have several other bills that deal separately with home monitoring for offenders, use of DNA evidence and the statute of limitations, broadening the crime of failing to register as an offender, requiring offender registration for those convicted of possessing child pornography, failing to register as a sex offender, a pilot program for electronic monitoring of offenders, protecting conversations between a victim and advocate from disclosure, and creating sexual-assault protection or no-contact orders.


Comments

The Democrats’ lead lawmaker, Rep. Al O’Brien of Mountlake Terrace, said his proposal is bipartisan, including at least one Republican, and increases the chance that offenders will be off the street.

“If you go too far ... you lower the number of people convicted of the crime,” O’Brien, a retired policeman, explained at a news conference after the first day of hearings concluded before his committee.

One advocate for victims testified in favor of that concept — Suzanne Brown McBride of the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs.

“All things being equal we would all like these sentences to be longer,” McBride said. But the state needs to look at improving the entire system of reporting assaults and helping victims with their trauma, she said.

Several experts from law enforcement also testified on Democrats’ behalf, saying there is a risk of fewer crime reports and fewer criminal convictions with the Republican measure, sponsored by Reps. Jan Shabro of Bonney Lake and Kirk Pearson of Monroe.

“The situation we want to avoid is this: We have an allegation that a young girl — we’ll make her 7 years old — is molested by her grandfather. Her mother brings her in for an interview; the investigation is under way,” testified Russ Hauge, the Kitsap County prosecutor. “Then the mother finds that the grandfather is facing a minimum prison sentence of 25 years. ... The next time we talk to the 7-year-old, her story has changed. That is the dynamic we are trying to avoid. We are trying to strike a balance. ... We want to encourage reporting.”

Tom McBride, representing the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, agreed, saying he preferred the approach taken by O’Brien, who had consulted with victim groups and police before writing his bill.

Notes:

1. The Democrats' bill is more realistic and is bipartisan.

2. The Democrats' bill is based on consultation with victim rights groups and police.

3. The Democrats' bill is preferred by the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs.

Thanks for link :)

Note: The democrats bill is the one prefered by most offenders.

Note: The democrats bill is the one prefered by most offenders.

Bullshit.

I know you are trying your best to be clever, but offenders would rather not get caught or be let go than serve any time. The Democrats' bill seeks to maximize convictions as well as increase sentences.

The Republicans just want to mindlessly look tough.


Some minority Republicans are pushing a bill they call "Jessica's Law Plus." Among other things, it would impose a minimum 30-year sentence for any rape of a child under 12 years old, regardless of whether the perpetrator was a family member or a stranger. If the perpetrator used a weapon or other means of force, the minimum sentence would be life.

But Democrats and a few Republican lawmakers worry such sentences are too extreme. Their bill would impose a minimum 25-year sentence, but only if the perpetrator was a stranger or if force was used.
"I know it's easy for politicians to talk tough," said Rep. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek. "But talk-tough legislation doesn't solve problems."

County prosecutors, police and some victim advocates are backing the lesser sentences, because they fear the Republicans' approach would lead to fewer convictions. They say in many cases where the perpetrator is a family member or someone close to the victim, the threat of an extreme sentence could make the child reluctant to testify.

"You need to leave a little bit of flexibility in the system," said Tom McBride, executive secretary of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and a former child-abuse prosecutor. "Fifty sex offenders in prison for life doesn't protect the community as much as 300 in prison for 10 years."

When the prosecutors, police, and victim advocates agree with a bipartisan approach that increases the minimum sentence for the rape of a child by force or by a stranger, why are a minority of Republicans against it?

Bullshit.

I know you are trying your best to be clever, but offenders would rather not get caught or be let go than serve any time. The Democrats' bill seeks to maximize convictions as well as increase sentences.

The Republicans just want to mindlessly look tough.

Exactly. What made me suspicious of the OP in the first place was that the article to which it referred construed Democrats as simply defending a low sentence for violent criminals... a virtually impossible political position, and therefore a very unlikely one. As a rule of thumb, no politician ever defends "criminal's rights."

Thus, I looked into it and discovered that, in fact, the article was guilty of the most vicious kind of spin.

The first rule of democratic politics, like the first rule of a good debate, is this: always assume that your opponent is just as reasonable as you are. If her/his position seems to be patently absurd, there is probably a misunderstanding somewhere.

This story is exactly why that the public has taken it upon themselves to kill these people. One was burned alive in a house. The other was shot over the past year. Every year in Washington at least one of these monsters are killed by the public. I have no problem with this style of justice. Thing is that the government needs to put them away longer. I don't want to see people put away for murder when they kill one of these pukes. A note on the case where the guy was burned alive in his house. None of the neighbors seen or heard a thing.;) At least that is what they told the police when they started questioning everyone.

This story is exactly why that the public has taken it upon themselves to kill these people. One was burned alive in a house. The other was shot over the past year. Every year in Washington at least one of these monsters are killed by the public. I have no problem with this style of justice. Thing is that the government needs to put them away longer. I don't want to see people put away for murder when they kill one of these pukes. A note on the case where the guy was burned alive in his house. None of the neighbors seen or heard a thing.;) At least that is what they told the police when they started questioning everyone.

You mean this type of irresponsible reporting fuels vigilantism.

I think you'd have a problem with that "style of justice" if the vigilante guns were pointed at you or a friend. No due process. No trial. They just get to shoot you for whatever they think you've done.

I doubt you could really support mob justice if you were present. Ever seen The Ox-Bow Incident (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/)?

You mean this type of irresponsible reporting fuels vigilantism.

I think you'd have a problem with that "style of justice" if the vigilante guns were pointed at you or a friend. No due process. No trial. They just get to shoot you for whatever they think you've done.

I doubt you could really support mob justice if you were present. Ever seen The Ox-Bow Incident (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036244/)?


Well the individuals that were killed were convicted and let out with short sentances. Revenge killing ensued. I do in fact support this type of justice if the government will not protect its citizens against the worst of society. In my opinion these people that do these crimes are not fit to live. But again that is my opinion. These were not people accused and had no trial. Will try to find a couple of links so you can actually read the details.

Well the individuals that were killed were convicted and let out with short sentances. Revenge killing ensued. I do in fact support this type of justice if the government will not protect its citizens against the worst of society. In my opinion these people that do these crimes are not fit to live. But again that is my opinion. These were not people accused and had no trial. Will try to find a couple of links so you can actually read the details.

So, in any case where the defendant was not sentenced to death and someone thought he/she should be executed, would you support such vigilante execution?

Or do you have some criteria for when it is OK to kill in the name of justice?

I believe if they're put into general population they get shanked/kilt pretty quick.

So, in any case where the defendant was not sentenced to death and someone thought he/she should be executed, would you support such vigilante execution?

Or do you have some criteria for when it is OK to kill in the name of justice?

In the case of child molesters and child murderers I can clearly understand why someone would kill them. If someone did that to one of my children I would kill them if the state did not do justice. I am being serious about this. This is how alot of people think. My main point to this is that the "State" needs to put these people away for life. Therefore there is not a breakdown in law and order. Vigilante justice should not be needed. I personally do not want to see more anguish and possible jail time for the families of the children.

On another note there was a neighbor where I was living as a child that was covicted of this type of act. After he served only 5 years he was relocated to our neighborhood. The neighborhood was notified due to the notification laws in Washington state. The neighbors picketed this guy's house almost 24hrs a day until he moved. I don't recall him being attacked but this was an outrage to everyone. There was also a fairly large school bus stop in front of this home.

In the case of child molesters and child murderers I can clearly understand why someone would kill them. If someone did that to one of my children I would kill them if the state did not do justice. I am being serious about this. This is how alot of people think. My main point to this is that the "State" needs to put these people away for life. Therefore there is not a breakdown in law and order. Vigilante justice should not be needed. I personally do not want to see more anguish and possible jail time for the families of the children.

On another note there was a neighbor where I was living as a child that was covicted of this type of act. After he served only 5 years he was relocated to our neighborhood. The neighborhood was notified due to the notification laws in Washington state. The neighbors picketed this guy's house almost 24hrs a day until he moved. I don't recall him being attacked but this was an outrage to everyone. There was also a fairly large school bus stop in front of this home.

so no matter what the crime exactly (murder, rape, molestation) so long as it involves a child

and no matter what the circumstances of the perpetrator -- such as age

either lock'em up and throw away the key or let vigilantes kill them.

(In addition to human rights, nevermind that this would put an end to conviction rates.)

In the case of child molesters and child murderers I can clearly understand why someone would kill them. If someone did that to one of my children I would kill them if the state did not do justice.

If political association is to mean anything, then you have no right to kill them if the state does not execute what you consider "justice".

I am being serious about this. This is how alot of people think.

Yes. And they are inherently antisocial; their mode of thought is abhorrent to the very notion of "justice."

If anyone who thinks he is justified in killing, actually goes out and kills, then the whole point of law has been superceded. There are no exceptions.

My main point to this is that the "State" needs to put these people away for life.

You are entitled to this opinion, and you may exercise every political right you have to encourage its general acceptance.

Therefore there is not a breakdown in law and order. Vigilante justice should not be needed.

This, however, does not support your case. One may as well have argued that the state should have enforced segregation so as to avoid racial lynch mobs.

What if you get two gangs who disagree on the notion, one gang kills him, the other gang thinks it's murder so they the people who killed him, and so on ad infinitum

The first rule of democratic politics, like the first rule of a good debate, is this: always assume that your opponent is just as reasonable as you are. If her/his position seems to be patently absurd, there is probably a misunderstanding somewhere.

I think you ought to clarify that that's the first rule of understanding Democratic politics. If you, as a Democrat, try running on the assumption that your Republican opponent is as reasonable as you are, your head will explode.

Concerned White Citizens of America, Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth, Projects for a New American Century, Newsmax.com etc.

I think you ought to clarify that that's the first rule of understanding Democratic politics. If you, as a Democrat, try running on the assumption that your Republican opponent is as reasonable as you are, your head will explode.

Concerned White Citizens of America, Swift Boat Vetrans for Truth, Projects for a New American Century, Newsmax.com etc.

By "reasonable", I mean only this: Your opponent, most likely, actually believes the apparently absurd things he/she is saying. Moreover, he/she probably believes that he/she has genuinely good reasons for saying them.

In other words, your opponent is not, in fact, evil. And although you may be able to get a long way with tactics that do not involve convincing her/him that he/she is wrong, in the long run if you do not believe it is possible to convince (and, for that matter, be convinced), then you have already given up on democratic politics in advance.

(Note that this includes, as a matter of course, the understanding that however certain you are, it is always possible that you are the one who is wrong.)

Rational politics may not, in fact, always be possible. But it is the faith that it can be that keeps democracy alive.

The Democrats’ lead lawmaker, Rep. Al O’Brien of Mountlake Terrace, said his proposal is bipartisan, including at least one Republican, and increases the chance that offenders will be off the street.
[/I]

:p I like that.. it's a bipartisan proposal, since one republican has signed on.. I think GOP senators should start using this definition.. just think of the things we could label bipartisan with the help of a Joe Lieberman or a Ben Nelson.. :)

:p I like that.. it's a bipartisan proposal, since one republican has signed on.. I think GOP senators should start using this definition.. just think of the things we could label bipartisan with the help of a Joe Lieberman or a Ben Nelson.. :)

Hmm... I'm actually not sure why the article says "including at least one" Republican. In fact, 8 of 28 sponsors of the Democrat-backed bill are Republicans.

Meanwhile, only 1 of 20 sponsors of the Republican bill is a Democrat.

I'd say the former certainly has bipartisanship going for it.

Well maybe HE should re-evaluate f**king his girlfriend before she reaches legal age.

Just because the law says it's wrong doesn't mean it is. There's plenty of people under 18 who are wise enough to consent.

:fluffle:

<snippity>

I think they're both mental. 30 years for child rape? Minimum? Why not make it the death penalty?!? It's a heinous crime and all, but nobody died, did they? 30 years is way too long.

However... Family friends get lighter sentences??? I don't get that! Doesn't the betrayal of trust mean anything? It seems to me that if you know the child you raped, that makes the crime MORE evil, not less.

Maybe I'm the ccrazy one. :(

I think they're both mental. 30 years for child rape? Minimum? Why not make it the death penalty?!? It's a heinous crime and all, but nobody died, did they? 30 years is way too long.

However... Family friends get lighter sentences??? I don't get that! Doesn't the betrayal of trust mean anything? It seems to me that if you know the child you raped, that makes the crime MORE evil, not less.

Maybe I'm the ccrazy one. :(

I'm opposed to mandatory minimums, especially when the minimums are more than 10 years. Every case is unique, and should be treated that way.

Also, many of the posters in this thread worries me. Advocating rape and extrajudicial killing as a way of dispensing "justice" is troubling.

I'm opposed to mandatory minimums, especially when the minimums are more than 10 years. Every case is unique, and should be treated that way.

Also, many of the posters in this thread worries me. Advocating rape and extrajudicial killing as a way of dispensing "justice" is troubling.

Maybe it's the barbarian in me, or maybe I just have a sick sense of humor... or maybe both but I think that nothing says 'You're in deep shit' better than a large hairy man who wants you to toss his salad. :p

Child rapists should be jailed for as long as it takes to prepare the appropriate means of execution. Then kill them.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41287.htm

Yes, that's right!

There's a legislative battle going on in Washington State over the maximum amount of time a child rapist can spend in jail.

The Republicans say: 30 years EDIT: mininum.
The Democrats say: 25 years maximum IF THEY'RE STRANGERS!
The Democrats also say: If it's family or friend, 7-10 years maximum.

What the FUCK kinda SHIT is THAT?! Now, I know not all democrats are like that... see my democratic friends and family...

And my opinion? 1st offense: Locked up for life in a cell with Big Daddy, who's paid to rape them no less than twice daily for the rest of their pitiful life after their cut off without any medication to numb the pain... 2nd offense, et al: What 2nd or more offense? They will be behind bars forever, and they will only be recieving... after all, they CAN'T give, they've been cut off!

But WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING, 7-10 YEARS MAXIMUM FOR CHILD RAPISTS?!?! Why don't you pay them for every time they rape the kid while you're at it? They probably would if they heard me say that, GODDAMN FUCKERS!

--- Sorry for my language, but that pisses the fuck outta me!
Frankly, I'm with you...I believe that all rape should carry a mandatory minimum life sentence with no possibility of parole. I believe this sentence should be served in a forced labor camp, with the convicted working 14 hours every day of the year, and with their pay going directly to victim's support organizations.

Child rapists should be jailed for as long as it takes to prepare the appropriate means of execution. Then kill them.

Frankly, I'm with you...I believe that all rape should carry a mandatory minimum life sentence with no possibility of parole. I believe this sentence should be served in a forced labor camp, with the convicted working 14 hours every day of the year, and with their pay going directly to victim's support organizations.

Punishment ought to be proportional to the crime. None of these suggestions are, in my opinion. Also, the punishment should be humane and not violate human rights.

I do not believe that harsher punishments necessarily would reduce crime, which, after all, is one of the primary goals of punishment in the first place.

I think they're both mental. 30 years for child rape? Minimum? Why not make it the death penalty?!? It's a heinous crime and all, but nobody died, did they? 30 years is way too long.

However... Family friends get lighter sentences??? I don't get that! Doesn't the betrayal of trust mean anything? It seems to me that if you know the child you raped, that makes the crime MORE evil, not less.

Maybe I'm the ccrazy one. :(
They're talking about statutorary rape, not forced. I mean, think about it. It's not a good thing, but why happens if a 11 and 13 year old get a little...let's say, involved, and they have sex. Does the 13 year old deserve to leave prison when they're 43?

Rapists should have their genitals ripped off (without anesthesia), their anuses sewn shut, and their arms amputated. That way, they'll never be able to repeat their crime. If the victim is a child, add scaphism to the punishment.

Wait a second... how does having a rapists' anus sewn shut have anything to do with their ability to rape?

I've never heard of anyone being raped BY a rapist's rectum...

Frankly, I'm with you...I believe that all rape should carry a mandatory minimum life sentence with no possibility of parole. I believe this sentence should be served in a forced labor camp, with the convicted working 14 hours every day of the year, and with their pay going directly to victim's support organizations.

*sigh*

Perhaps the original post should be edited to indicate the fact that the sentencing issue is over statutory rape. (Granted, statutory rape of extremely young children; nevertheless, I feel that the moral outrage in your post is generated largely by the image of someone violently or coercively sticking things into little children.)

No one disagrees with the principle that violent rapists should be punished as severely as possible. (With "as possible" including public policy considerations as to how potential sentences may affect reporting and convinction rates. In addition to the concerns about reporting already mentioned, a long-running criticism of mandatory minimums has been that juries are less likely to convict in cases with some mitigating evidence, or in which the defense has been able to generate any measure of sympathy for the defendant.)

Which would you prefer: one rapist out of thirty in prison for life (the Republican's recommended minimum for child victimization in the first degree)... or all thirty behind bars for a minimum of 25 years?

I've never heard of anyone being raped BY a rapist's rectum...

A high percentage of abusers were abused themselves, if I remember correctly.

Pedophiles should get life inprisonment at the least. Statutory rape - where the "child" was physically old enough and was consenting - different matter, but still wrong - just because someone is physically ready for sex and wants it, doesn't mean that they are emotionally ready for it or that they are ready for the consequences.

Which would you prefer: one rapist out of thirty in prison for life (the Republican's recommended minimum for child victimization in the first degree)... or all thirty behind bars for a minimum of 25 years?

I'd prefer thirty behind bars with different sentances decided by the judge, thanks.

I'd prefer thirty behind bars with different sentances decided by the judge, thanks.

You'll get no argument from me... too bad it's not a realistic possibility, from what I understand, in Washington. Both bills appear to set minimums for violent offenders.

I think they're both mental. 30 years for child rape? Minimum? Why not make it the death penalty?!? It's a heinous crime and all, but nobody died, did they? 30 years is way too long.
:(


30 years = 20 years, give or take, in California (CA, TX and FL house most inmates), where you normally get one conduct day (day off your sentence) every two days, unless you're caught smoking or something.. 25 years = 16 1/2 years in jail, etc. Unless the House bill eliminates conduct days for sex offenders, I'd say 30 years should be minimum..

It's interesting how worked up a lot of western countries have gotten about child abuse and child rape in the past, what, 20 years, say? Certainly in my lifetime.

What other sociological trends does it correlate with? What's caused _this_ offence to be the _worst_ thing that can possibly happen to anyone in the last generation or so? Any ideas?

Elgesh']
What other sociological trends does it correlate with? What's caused _this_ offence to be the _worst_ thing that can possibly happen to anyone in the last generation or so? Any ideas?

Lessing of taboo. Back in the good old days these problems were usually shoved under the carpet rather than acted upon.

Lessing of taboo. Back in the good old days these problems were usually shoved under the carpet rather than acted upon.

Interesting if true :) But why's that particular taboo picked up on the most?

30 years = 20 years, give or take, in California (CA, TX and FL house most inmates), where you normally get one conduct day (day off your sentence) every two days, unless you're caught smoking or something..

True, but there is a growing movement toward "accuracy" in sentencing. The apparent sentences are going down, but prison systems are being held more strictly to the sentence... so, in fact, time served has been getting somewhat longer. It makes for very interesting politics: everyone gets to accuse someone of something...

Also, don't forget that the federal prison system has more prisoners than California (though only barely). But it may be a little misleading to rank them by numbers... prisoners per 100,000 population would more accurately portray the sentencing practices of various states.

In this case, I believe the front-runners are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Yep, Texas is still up there. Big surprise!