July 28, 2005
Rape a child, go to hell
Congress is working on new sex offender laws which, among other things, will require states to have a sex offender registry, create a five year federal prison sentence for those who fail to register, and create a national database of sex offenders.
It doesn’t go far enough, frankly. If you rape a child you should be dead. Period.
States are also passing a flurry of legislation regarding sex offenders, including requiring things like lifetime GPS monitoring. But this, to me, is a band-aid solution. Recidivism among child predators is off the charts. There is no excuse for letting these things back out on the street. They are not human. They are sick animals that need to be put down for the sake of society. Rabid dogs are not cured, they are simply put down.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with recent media accounts of child abductions and killings, such as Samantha Runnion, who was abducted from her own front yard.
Avila snatched the kicking and screaming girl as she played outside her Stanton home. Her nude body was found the next day about 50 miles away, left on the ground as if it had been posed. Authorities said she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated. sfgate.com
Then there is Joseph Edward Duncan who killed Dylan and Shasta Groene's family in Idaho, abducted the two children, raped them repeatedly, killed the brother Dylan, and was finally caught with Shasta at a restaurant.
According to the court records and testimony, Shasta's ordeal began when she heard her mother call her into the living room early on the morning of May 16. Her mother, brother and McKenzie were bound with zip-ties and duct tape.Duncan then bound her and Dylan and left them on the ground outside near a swing set. Shasta said she heard McKenzie yell out several times, and at one point they saw Slade stagger, incoherent and bleeding profusely from the head, out of the home. The children yelled for Slade to untie them, but he was unable to respond.
According to the account, Shasta remembered that Duncan wore dark gloves and had a shotgun and night-vision goggles. She also recalled the brand name of the hammer used to bludgeon the victims, which Duncan showed her after the attacks. usatoday
I frankly don't care about Mr. Duncan's pathology, or why he did what he did. I don't care if he's insane. He needs to receive the ultimate punishment and never be able to hurt anyone ever again. The problem is that even if he does receive the death penalty his case will probably go on for years with appeals. And there will be those who will still fight to keep him alive.
As a father of three young daughters myself I have become protectively paranoid about even letting my girls play outside. They will never be allowed to travel any distance alone; never ride their bikes to school without me, and never leave my sight wherever we go. All because there is a cancer in our society which we are unwilling to deal with appropriately.
There should never be any bail for child predators. There should never be any release for such. Of course, some can't help but be soft even on these kinds of criminals. Joseph Edward Duncan had advocates actively working for his freedom. Even in congress, there are some who think these new bills, which do not go far enough, are too harsh.
Democrats came within one vote on Wednesday of amending the registration penalties. Critics called the five-year minimum too harsh, noting that it applied even to people convicted of misdemeanors."Failing to register should not have a minimum sentence," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. "A judge can make that determination."
Under the provision, Nadler said, a person could serve more time in prison for failing to report than for the actual crime committed. "That doesn't make any sense at all," he said. usatoday
Except that we continually let these predators out after numerous convictions. Why? Why are our laws so seriously inadequate? One of the most chilling and upsetting things to me about these cases are the couple of words that are invariably in every one of these tragic news stories, "After being released..."
Duncan was released on $15,000 bail earlier this year in Becker County, Minn., after being charged with molesting a 6-year-old boy. Police in Fargo, N.D., where Duncan lived, had been looking for him since he failed to check in with a probation agent there in May.Duncan had spent more than a decade in prison for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint in Tacoma, Wash. usatoday
Posted by Eric Simonson at July 28, 2005 01:07 PM
Eric-
I agree 100%. Several years ago a tenant of mine asked me about child molesters, concerned about her own 2 children. She was from a small town in rural Mexico and she said that it was unheard of there. We talked at length and it turns out that in another village nearby where she lived there was once a man who raped and killed a little girl. The other men in that village took him out into the woods and came back without him later that day. Never spoke his name again. Our criminal justice system is great for more complicated crimes, but I like theirs a lot more for this kind of crime.
-Monica
Posted by: Monica at July 28, 2005 02:16 PMTranslation: anti-gay Republicans hate pedophiles while pro-gay Liberals love pedophiles.
Posted by: Aldous at July 28, 2005 02:34 PMNazi Germany agreed with Eric. They even went so far as to exterminate anyone with mental or physical defects, to insure that mental illness would not affect them or reproduce. They left no room for mitigating circumstances either.
While most rapists would not fall in the category of having a tumor in the brain, or some other organic mental dysfunction, some rapists have. Your solution suggestion leaves little room for taking that into account, does it. What if after the fact, the brain dysfunction could be cured?
However, I understand your passion on this matter. I share it, being a father of a daughter. But, I try not to let my passions do my thinking for me. My passions would dictate that anyone who cheats on their taxes or otherwise rips off the public at large, should die, since their crime is committed against millions of people. And my passion dictates that anyone who is willing to commit crimes against millions of people should be first order for the death penalty.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2005 02:35 PMAldous,
I think this goes just one step beyond liberal and conservative.
This goes to the area where those labels have no meaning.
This goes to the area of an innocent child who doesn’t even know or care what “liberal” or “conservative” means.
This goes to an area that should never be violated.
Posted by: Jim T at July 28, 2005 02:39 PMYeah, mandatory death-sentences for adults who rape minors! Right on! Fry the bastards!
Oh, wait… don’t our laws regarding statutory rape (a sex offense) also cover that 19 year old who had sex with his seventeen and three-quarters year old girlfriend? Or the eighteen year old who has sex with her boyfriend the day before his eighteenth birthday?
The fact is, some of these are included in the list of those who would have to register as sex offenders or get a mandatory five year imprisonment as it is. As was noted in the article you cited, this law applies even to misdemeanors. That is what makes it too harsh, and why some are trying to change it.
You also assume that every convicted sex offender is, in fact, guilty. You complain about the appeals process dragging things out for years… but what about the people who have been falsely accused? It’s not like wrongful conviction is unheard of, that’s why we have the appeals process in the first place.
Posted by: Jarandhel at July 28, 2005 02:43 PMAmend the Constitution.
It’s well settled that the 8th amendment forbids execution for any crime less than premeditated murder or treason.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 02:45 PMGotta love mob mentality, especially since some people seem to think so highly of vigilanteism as a law enforcement tool.
Remember “The Ox Bow Incident” from high school?
Good article Eric. It is a serious and growing problem here in the US.
As I have stated before, I am a social worker in rural West Virginia. I previously worked for Child Protective Services doing investigations of child abuse and neglect. Before working for the DHHR, I had no idea of the prevalence of sexual abuse of children in this country. I am still in awe at the numbers, even after 10 years.
I agree with most of your article as well. I guess my dilemma with how to deal with these types of offenses lies in what it takes place before someone lashes out like this in the first place.
Let me say, first, that I am NOT, IN ANY WAY advocating for rehabilitation. I DO NOT believe there is any rehabilitation for a sexual predator. I believe that once someone “crosses over that line” and sexually offends, it is like something has snapped somewhere in their psyche and from then on they are “broken”. Therefore, they must be removed from society, permanently.
Like I said though, what made them “break?” After aprox. 10 years of working with families where sexual abuse has occurred, I have to say that without long term therapy that also involves support from the victim’s family , there is ALWAYS lifetime damage to the victim. I can’t stress enough how this seriously injures (physically, psychologically and emotionally) a victim. Can you try to put yourself in the situation of Dylan and Shasta’s family for a moment. Suppose you and your wife and the rest of your family had been the ones murdered and your 2 daughters witnessed the carnage, were kidnapped and repeatedly raped. Suppose one knew (whether they watched or not) what was happening to the other and then one was murdered and the other left with the predator. What consequences would you assign to your daughter later when she acts out? Of course this is just an attempt to explain my position and I understand it is utterly impossible to imagine such a thing, but, would you still claim:
“There is no excuse for letting these things back out on the street. They are not human. They are sick animals that need to be put down for the sake of society. Rabid dogs are not cured, they are simply put down.”
Now, with that said, female victims of childhood sexual abuse usually act out by becoming defiant and sexually promiscuous without all the violence. But, boys in the same situation, ESPECIALLY when the abuse occurs over many years, tend to abuse substances and become violent. In cases where the child suffers through years of physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse (as I believe I read did happen to Joseph Edward Duncan) they tend to develop an unconscious preoccupation with violence to others, including animals. When the abuse has occured throughout the child’s pubescent stages, they often experience inapproppriate sexual stimulation during episodes of violence and never develop a healthy libido at all. This sexual arousal continues to develop until we have a monster on our hands.
We also have to remember that sexual aggression and rape are NOT acts of pleasure, but instead is an act of violence and control.
We must strive to truly understand the causalities if we want to eliminate this violence against us and our children.
I guess I am saying I strongly believe that once an offender commits an act of sexual violence at all, they must be permanently removed from society, but I think the death penalty is inappropriate (ok so I tend to disagree with the death penalty anyway)in cases like this. I would like to see the “perp” studied, given counseling, or some sort of help to understand what happened to them and how much hurt they themselves have caused while they are secured (either prison or asylum) PERMANENTLY! I realize I am not being too realistic with this, but sticking them in a cell somewhere and nothing else, or putting them to death immediately will do NOTHING to help us as a society to solve this problem and stop this cycle at it’s source.
Thanks Eric, sassyliberal
Jim T:
What high-sounding nonsense. When Eric politicizes Child Molestation into a Red/Blue Issue, we will always have people who are shocked, shocked to find such cynicism.
This is a hot topic for Republicans. It allows them to bash Gays without mentioning them AND lets Conservatives sound good in the process.
Posted by: Aldous at July 28, 2005 03:30 PMJim T,
“This goes to the area of an innocent child who doesn’t even know or care what “liberal” or “conservative” means.
This is exactly what I refer to in my previous post. The “innocent child who doesn’t even know or care what “liberal” or “conservative” means,” who has experienced a lifetime of emotional and physical abuse and neglect while all efforts they made to seek help were rewarded with more of the same. They grew up to become a monster! Who is really to blame? At this point it is too late to blame. We need to act concertedly to stop it BEFORE it is too late. sassyliberal
Posted by: sassyliberal at July 28, 2005 03:31 PM…and the sad thing of it is, many molesters were molested at some point themselves.
Personally, I don’t agree with any use of the death penalty. If this country seriously reevaluated the failed “War on Drugs,” we’d probably have the jail space to lock these offenders up for longer.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 03:33 PMExcellent article Eric!!!
We definately have to voice our concerns to our representatives!!!!
Below is a list of states and their stance on sex offenders:
In the tough category are Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington state, West Virginia and Wisconsin. All of those are tough on sex offenders.
States currently considering new tough laws: Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nebraska, Nevada, and Ohio. And you should urge your governor to support these laws.
States that have soft laws and whose governors are trying to change those laws: Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Montana and Utah. Again, support your governor there.
States that don’t seem to care about this issue at all and their governors: Alabama and Governor Bob Riley; Alaska and Governor Frank Murkowski; Connecticut and Governor Jodi Rell; Hawaii, which may be the worst — and Governor Linda Lingle; Louisiana and Governor Kathleen Blanco; Maine and Governor John Baldacci; Michigan and Governor Jennifer Granholm; Missouri and Governor Matt Blunt; New York and Governor George Pataki; Oregon and Governor Ted Kulongoski; Pennsylvania and Governor Ed Rendell; Texas and Governor Rick Perry; and Wyoming and Governor Dave Freudenthal.
Here’s another heartbreaking story (whether you like O’Reilly or not/who cares)! This affected me having lived in Missouri for 15 yrs.(2 hrs. S. of St.Louis)
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Factor Investigation” segment tonight, we continue to look at the chaotic child sexual offender situation around the country. We are urging every governor to get behind strict mandatory sentences for adults who molest children.
In Missouri, there are no mandatory minimum prison sentences for many sex crimes against children. So stuff like the following happens: 19-year-old Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl over a four-year period, beginning when the girl was eight years old.
Think about the horror that child lived with during that time. It is simply incomprehensible. When Jackson came up for sentencing, Judge Larry Kendrick gave him, ready, four months in prison and five years probation.
Many in St. Louis were outraged. Judge Kendrick refuses to explain himself.
Joining us now from St. Louis, the man who oversaw this case, Missouri prosecuting attorney Robert McCullough.
All right, the little girl, and you correct me if I’m wrong, but just four months? Obviously know much more about this than I do.
From age eight to twelve, this little girl was abused in the worst possible way by this Jackson guy. Am I right so far?
ROBERT MCCOLLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO., PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: That’s correct.
O’REILLY: Four years.
MCCULLOCH: It was sporadic over that four-year period.
O’REILLY: How did he have access to the girl?
MCCULLOCH: Well, without too much detail, he was a friend of the family.
O’REILLY: All right, a friend of family…
MCCULLOCH: Not a stranger at all.
Sporadically over four years, he went in, sodomized the girl, all kinds of unbelievable stuff. How is the girl doing today?
MCCULLOCH: All things considered, she is doing as well as can be expected through our victims’ services unit and other agencies. We made sure that whatever counseling, whatever treatment, whatever help she and the family need will be available to them. And so I think she’s doing as well as can be expected, which is not to say, you know, she’s just perfectly fine.
O’REILLY: No. No child would be. Now, you only learned ? your office only learned about the case through the schools when she was in some kind of class about inappropriate touching. Is that correct?
MCCULLOCH: That how it was brought to the attention of authorities, with the inappropriate, good touching, bad touching lessons and she brought it to the attention of the school counselor.
O’REILLY: All right, now the guy admits this. Jackson doesn’t say he didn’t do it. He says he does it.
MCCULLOCH: And he pled guilty to it.
O’REILLY: Pled guilty. Now, Kendrick ? there’s a law in Missouri where you cannot criticize directly a judge. I want everybody to know that. All right? But Kendrick comes back with four months in prison. When you heard that, sir, what was your reaction?
MCCULLOCH: I met with the family after that, but we were awestruck by that. We had recommend that he go to the penitentiary for 10 years. And frankly, we found it both just outrageous that he not only didn’t go to prison, but didn’t even go to jail that day. The four months, the time that he got, didn’t start for another couple weeks.
O’REILLY: And he walked out. He walked out that day. Now, the judge has never, as far as we can tell, given an explanation for this. Have you heard an explanation for this unbelievable sentence?
MCCULLOCH: Well, and judge I’m sure did what he thought was…
O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what he thought. I mean ? go ahead.
MCCULLOCH: He does not and judges don’t have to explain their decisions. They pronounce sentence and they move on. But no, there’s…
O’REILLY: There’s a moral obligation when you have a little girl brutalized for four years and you give four months to the brutalizer. There is a moral obligation to explain that situation, I believe. Is there any law prohibiting the judge from explaining it?
MCCULLOCH: You know, the case is over and done with now, so certainly anybody can talk about it to whatever extent they see fit.
O’REILLY: Can anybody in St. Louis do anything about this? Does the family have any redress? Can they do anything?
MCCULLOCH: No, no. The sentence is pronounced by the judge. We have no appeal from, you know the prosecution has no appeal in most situations. So unless Jackson violates his probation, you know, there isn’t anything we can do about it.
O’REILLY: So what Missouri and every other state in the union needs is mandatory minimums with this kind of stuff, take out of the judges’ hands.
MCCULLOCH: Well, you know, we do have ? and this, it doesn’t justify this by any stretch, but this is not a common practice.
O’REILLY: Doesn’t matter.
MCCULLOCH: It’s a rarity.
O’REILLY: Doesn’t matter. You’ve got a girl…
MCCULLOCH: … who go to prison.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: If you if you had Jessica’s Law in Missouri, and we’re going to talk to your governor in a couple of weeks, if you had it, this guy would be this jail for 25 years.
Mr. McCulloch, we appreciate you being a standup guy. Most prosecutors wouldn’t come on. We appreciate you coming on.
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Factor Investigation” segment tonight, we continue to look at the chaotic child sexual offender situation around the country. We are urging every governor to get behind strict mandatory sentences for adults who molest children.
In Missouri, there are no mandatory minimum prison sentences for many sex crimes against children. So stuff like the following happens: 19-year-old Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl over a four-year period, beginning when the girl was eight years old.
Think about the horror that child lived with during that time. It is simply incomprehensible. When Jackson came up for sentencing, Judge Larry Kendrick gave him, ready, four months in prison and five years probation.
Many in St. Louis were outraged. Judge Kendrick refuses to explain himself.
Joining us now from St. Louis, the man who oversaw this case, Missouri prosecuting attorney Robert McCullough.
All right, the little girl, and you correct me if I’m wrong, but just four months? Obviously know much more about this than I do.
From age eight to twelve, this little girl was abused in the worst possible way by this Jackson guy. Am I right so far?
ROBERT MCCOLLOCH, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO., PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: That’s correct.
O’REILLY: Four years.
MCCULLOCH: It was sporadic over that four-year period.
O’REILLY: How did he have access to the girl?
MCCULLOCH: Well, without too much detail, he was a friend of the family.
O’REILLY: All right, a friend of family…
MCCULLOCH: Not a stranger at all.
Sporadically over four years, he went in, sodomized the girl, all kinds of unbelievable stuff. How is the girl doing today?
MCCULLOCH: All things considered, she is doing as well as can be expected through our victims’ services unit and other agencies. We made sure that whatever counseling, whatever treatment, whatever help she and the family need will be available to them. And so I think she’s doing as well as can be expected, which is not to say, you know, she’s just perfectly fine.
O’REILLY: No. No child would be. Now, you only learned ? your office only learned about the case through the schools when she was in some kind of class about inappropriate touching. Is that correct?
MCCULLOCH: That how it was brought to the attention of authorities, with the inappropriate, good touching, bad touching lessons and she brought it to the attention of the school counselor.
O’REILLY: All right, now the guy admits this. Jackson doesn’t say he didn’t do it. He says he does it.
MCCULLOCH: And he pled guilty to it.
O’REILLY: Pled guilty. Now, Kendrick ? there’s a law in Missouri where you cannot criticize directly a judge. I want everybody to know that. All right? But Kendrick comes back with four months in prison. When you heard that, sir, what was your reaction?
MCCULLOCH: I met with the family after that, but we were awestruck by that. We had recommend that he go to the penitentiary for 10 years. And frankly, we found it both just outrageous that he not only didn’t go to prison, but didn’t even go to jail that day. The four months, the time that he got, didn’t start for another couple weeks.
O’REILLY: And he walked out. He walked out that day. Now, the judge has never, as far as we can tell, given an explanation for this. Have you heard an explanation for this unbelievable sentence?
MCCULLOCH: Well, and judge I’m sure did what he thought was…
O’REILLY: It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what he thought. I mean ? go ahead.
MCCULLOCH: He does not and judges don’t have to explain their decisions. They pronounce sentence and they move on. But no, there’s…
O’REILLY: There’s a moral obligation when you have a little girl brutalized for four years and you give four months to the brutalizer. There is a moral obligation to explain that situation, I believe. Is there any law prohibiting the judge from explaining it?
MCCULLOCH: You know, the case is over and done with now, so certainly anybody can talk about it to whatever extent they see fit.
O’REILLY: Can anybody in St. Louis do anything about this? Does the family have any redress? Can they do anything?
MCCULLOCH: No, no. The sentence is pronounced by the judge. We have no appeal from, you know the prosecution has no appeal in most situations. So unless Jackson violates his probation, you know, there isn’t anything we can do about it.
O’REILLY: So what Missouri and every other state in the union needs is mandatory minimums with this kind of stuff, take out of the judges’ hands.
MCCULLOCH: Well, you know, we do have ? and this, it doesn’t justify this by any stretch, but this is not a common practice.
O’REILLY: Doesn’t matter.
MCCULLOCH: It’s a rarity.
O’REILLY: Doesn’t matter. You’ve got a girl…
MCCULLOCH: … who go to prison.
(CROSSTALK)
O’REILLY: If you if you had Jessica’s Law in Missouri, and we’re going to talk to your governor in a couple of weeks, if you had it, this guy would be this jail for 25 years.
Mr. McCulloch, we appreciate you being a standup guy. Most prosecutors wouldn’t come on. We appreciate you coming on.
SORRY…….I WOULD HAVE JUST DONE A LINK BUT I’M STILL JUST LEARNING!!
Posted by: Traci at July 28, 2005 04:20 PMSorry Guys….Bad enough that it was that long….but then it went twice!!!Please don’t get upset w/ me!!
Posted by: Traci at July 28, 2005 04:26 PMAldous,
Why….where….how….What in the world goes on in your mind?!? This has NOTHING to do with gay bashing and everything to do with saving innocent children. Not all sex offenders commit crimes with their own sex. They are sick and something needs to be done, period! There is no room for politics, if you use this for your political agenda you are only slightly more human than the monsters who commit these crimes. I have never lost more respect for a person than I have for you.
Raping/molesting a child should be a trial-less crime. Immediately to jail to the first cell on death row. If that one is occupied give the person a chair outside the execution chamber. This only applies if the person is apprehended a few days or weeks after the crime.
If by chance he or she is apprehended at the scene two choices are offered : 1) we are going to beat you to death or, 2) we can shoot you in the head.
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 04:49 PMRaping/molesting a child should be a trial-less crime. Immediately to jail to the first cell on death row. If that one is occupied give the person a chair outside the execution chamber. This only applies if the person is apprehended a few days or weeks after the crime.If by chance he or she is apprehended at the scene two choices are offered : 1) we are going to beat you to death or, 2) we can shoot you in the head.
Not a fan of that pesky Constitution, are we?
THIS is probably the most disgusting post I’ve read on this board! “Trial-less crime???”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 05:16 PMmattLaw,
There have been far more disgusting posts. In fact I myself have had some that are considered by most bleeding heart liberals to be worse. For example, I have the infamous “leave a big hole where the country used to be” post to my credit.
I have reformed since then however.
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 05:27 PM“Translation: anti-gay Republicans hate pedophiles while pro-gay Liberals love pedophiles.
Posted by Aldous at July 28, 2005 02:34 PM”
Aldous,
Can you tell me how you interpet this as such?
The only one who has mentioned gay is you. Are you a little paranoid maybe?
I don’t think supporting one’s right to due process makes me a “bleeding-heart liberal.”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 05:33 PMMattLaw-
A lot of what you’re reading here is an emotional reaction to what many see as a complete lack of common sense in our criminal justice system. Jarandhal mentioned the fact that the current sexual assault laws can treat teenagers having their first experiences as offenders if one is 18 and the other a few months under 18. Then we read in the paper that the social service agencies are having a hard go finding a convicted child molester a place to live when he gets out of prison.
We look at these things and they are so crazy we just want to scream! Where is the common sense and where is the justice? Common sense would dictate that the matter between teenagers is their business and that of their families. It would also prevent the use of tax dollars and public resources for the convenience of a criminal’s housing needs.
A childhood is destroyed even if the child physically survives the assault. The value of a
young life is diminished when we fail to punish these crimes and fail to protect other children in the future.
What a lot of us would really like to see is a system that punishes crime and protects law abiding citizens, especially the young, helpless, weak, or easily intimidated among us.
Is that too much to ask?
-Monica
I have no compasssion what so ever for these bastareds.
Why spend money on studying them? Let’s just shoot these assholes and be done with them.
Aldous
I had a comeback for your comments, but on second thought they aint worth it.
Aldous,
“Liberals love gays and pedophiles?”
How do you respond to something like that?
This issue is so difficult for me to wrap my head around because I am a father of two children and a 4th Grade teacher, therefor have no tolerance for pedophiles. My gut reaction is that they should all be killed. I know that sounds terrible but it’s true. I don’t need to see statistics on repeat offender rates to know that pedophiles cannot change their sick desire to rape children.
But I also know that my gut reaction is based on fear. Pure paternal, I can see my childrens faces right now in my head and love them so much, fear.
Therefore I am the last person to try to debate, or give opinion on this issue.
I would welcome laws that would protect ALL children but I don’t think that we should react out of fear but logically and contemplatively.
mattLaw,
What about the rights of the victim who was denied life (quality), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These children are never the same.
Aldous,
A report by Focus on the Family says :
[1] Studies indicate that around 35% of pedophiles are homosexuals
[2] a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual
[3] heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of 20 acts of child molestation, for homosexuals the number is 150
[4] in terms of the liklihood and the extent of child molestation, homosexuals, as a group, represent a serious threat
Reference http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 06:34 PMAldous
Politicizing child molestation is so out of mainstream, and common sense.
mattLaw
The death penalty should be used as a penalty that fits the crime. Putting someone away for life costs far too much in taxpayer revenue. The money could be used for a much more rewarding endeavor.
There is no exuse for child molestation. None whatsoever. If one is convicted of such crimes then the death penalty should be excercised absolutely. To my knowledge there has never been a pedophile cured. The whole subject is so outrageous.
MattLaw,
Amend the Constitution.
It’s well settled that the 8th amendment forbids execution for any crime less than premeditated murder or treason.
Please try to be accurate when discussing the constitution. Unless you were talking about a court ruling based on the amendment?
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That being said, this amendment does have bearing on this discussion. Is it cruel and unusual to sentence a child molester to the death penalty? I don’t think so, given the nature of the crime. I don’t particularly care for the death penalty, but these people need to be removed from society. Perhaps we should make it a mandatory sentence for anyone convicted of multiple offences. The multiple offences part would significantly reduce the chances of a mistake being made.
Posted by: The Traveler at July 28, 2005 07:58 PMI think the standard positions should be obvious: tough prison sentences, a microscope on their activities for the rest of their lives, etc, etc.
This is not the sort of argument where people are going to jump to the defense of the offender. There really is no excuse here.
What people are doing here is romanticizing frontier justice, and assuming that it’s effective, and forgetting that people can be ignorant, corrupt, stupid, and all kinds of other things, and that innocent people can unfortunately get in the way of the rage involved in these cases.
The other danger is letting the fear of these crimes, and the fear of what the daily news convinces us is the fall of civilization push us to ignore the standards of fairness and justice that do prevent that fall.
If you want to help the children, push to make sure that these people are monitored, that they are not simply put back into environments where the kids are easy targets for them. No system will run perfectly, but many systems can be made to run better.
And above all else, make sure your children know they can confide in you on issues of sexuality. The number one defense for these criminals throughout history has been the shame of being such a victim, and the fear that an adult will not believe them when they try to tell. You can’t do anything to a pedophile who’s never caught.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2005 08:20 PM
Is it cruel and unusual to sentence a child molester to the death penalty? I don’t think so, given the nature of the crime.
Agree with you 1000%
I’m the father of five 21-34. I know they’re not kids any more but I would’ve personally killed anyone who harmed them when they were.
Four of them have children and I can gaurentee that if some bastard lays a hand on one of my grandchildren their parents will have to get in line behind me to kill them.
There’s a big old swamp near, and I understand there are some hungry alligators in there.
Raping/molesting a child should be a trial-less crime. Immediately to jail to the first cell on death row. If that one is occupied give the person a chair outside the execution chamber. This only applies if the person is apprehended a few days or weeks after the crime.
If by chance he or she is apprehended at the scene two choices are offered : 1) we are going to beat you to death or, 2) we can shoot you in the head.
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 04:49 PM
Personally I would prefer just beating them to death.
These last few comments reflect the abject lack of understanding and respect for our Constitution, the rule of law, and any sense of justice, which cannot be meted out by grieving parents without those parents becoming criminals themselves when their revenge is executed upon an individual of mistaken identity. I have yet to see this kind lack of respect for what makes America the great nation it is from numbers of folks on the left, only on the right.
Posted by: David R Remer at July 28, 2005 10:03 PMThere is one argument for not using the death penalty for crimes short of murder that I have always found persuasive. It’s about deterrence. If someone will face the same sentence if caught whether they molest a child or kill a child, then, assuming that killing the child will reduce their chances of being detected, there is more incentive to commit murder. I think there is a plausible argument to be made that imposing the death penalty for sexual abuse of minors could increase murders. Would that be an acceptable outcome, even for someone who believes strongly that justice requires the death penalty for sexual abuse of minors?
Posted by: KAF at July 28, 2005 10:21 PMThere seems to be a consensus opinion among those who feel that raping/molesting a child is a serious enough offense to merit the death penalty. Some are of the opinion, as I am, that they would even like to be the one that pulls the switch or might even consider taking matters into their own hands. Personally I applaud each and every one who has so stated.
I am sad to see that we have been identified as
people who lack understanding and respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and any sense of justice. Further, we lack respect for what makes America the great nation it is and, so that the issue takes once again a political spin, only people on the right share the views expressed in the paragraph above but, not the folks on the left.
As a right wing Conservative Republican my prayers go out to all left wing Democrats, Liberals and any other political party members who are parents in the hope that their children remain safe from the predators at large.
Posted by: steve smith at July 28, 2005 10:39 PMSteve, I used to be staunchly opposed to the death penalty. I am ambivalent these days. The death penalty is not what I railed against above. (In fact I wrote an article not long ago advocating the death penalty for rapers in prisons). I was referring to those who would administer justice upon apprehension foregoing due process and trial in our courts, in my comment above. I assumed I made that clear by referring to the last few comments before mine.
Amen to your prayer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2005 11:30 PMSteve Smith—
I can’t believe you would be so foolish as to link to information that actually completely contradicts what you’re attempting to claim!
This is quite humorous. From the exact page you quoted, this paragraph follows the “statistics” you posted, listed under the section called “Example of Misinformation on Pederasty”:
They cite three reports to support their assertions. 3,4,5 They make two very serious errors in this section of their report: they assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals. This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls. they assume that all homosexuals are males. They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included. It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals.Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 11:33 PMOh, from further up on the page YOU quoted:
If we define the phrase “homosexual abuse of children” in the first statement to mean adults molesting and abusing children of the same sex, then this statement is true: Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are boys. Data relating to men abusing boys is hungrily pounced upon by opponents to equal rights for homosexuals, who often use it against both gays and lesbians in civil rights battles. But it is not homosexuals, as the term is generally understood, who are responsible for the abuse. It is rather pedophiles who are attracted to children, and have decided to abuse them. However, if we define the phrase “abuse of boys by gays”, and “abuse of girls by lesbians” to mean adult persons with a homosexual orientation abusing children of the same sex, then these statements 2 and 3 above are also true. Gays and lesbians rarely abuse children.The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.
Nice try.
MattLaw,Amend the Constitution.
It’s well settled that the 8th amendment forbids execution for any crime less than premeditated murder or treason.Please try to be accurate when discussing the constitution. Unless you were talking about a court ruling based on the amendment?
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
I have been completely accurate in describing the 8th Amendment.
The Supreme Court decision in the 1977 case Coker v. Georgia states that punishment by the death penalty for the crime of rape (there, only a 6-year-old girl) was unconstitutional under the 8th amendment.
Thus, I said “amend the Constitution” if you want to execute child molesters.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 28, 2005 11:39 PMMattLaw, one of the many reasons I am addicted to Watchblog is the large amount of researched facts which come to bear on debates here, as you cited in the case above.
My thanks for your contribution to my knowledge as I grow and learn here at WatchBlog. Ditto for all others here who research their arguments and positions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 29, 2005 12:36 AMLet me get this straight. Most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals. Is that like most coca-cola is not drank by drinkers of coca-cola. Why is it that John Gacy was homosexual, Jeffery Dammer was homosexual, pedophiles generally prey on children because they are vulnerable to the pedophiles perversion. They are helpless. They have no defense. They are taken advantage of. They are scarred for life. Their adult life is a life that carries with it the stigma from their youth. Anybody that harms a child to that extent needs the death penalty applied as an absolute and mandatory measure. No ifs ands or buts. They are not curable. To pay for their existence for the rest of their life is a sorry way to carry out justice. They do need a court appearance and one appeal. They carry out the sentence.
Posted by: tom at July 29, 2005 01:49 AMLet me get this straight. Most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals. Is that like most coca-cola is not drank by drinkers of coca-cola. Why is it that John Gacy was homosexual, Jeffery Dammer was homosexual, pedophiles generally prey on children because they are vulnerable to the pedophiles perversion.
Sexual molestation is a crime of opportunity. Though many child molesters will molest either boys OR girls, most of them are not attracted to adults (meaning someone who is post-pubescent). Both Gacy’s and Dahmer’s victims were post-pubescent, I believe (so I’m not sure whey they’re being brought up here).
If you’re going to insist that the sex of a child that one molests dictates their sexual orientation, there’s not going to be anything I can say to stop you. It doesn’t really make sense to do so, though, because most pedophiles have little real interest in either a relationship or sexual activity with a consenting adult.
More females are molested than males, by the way…and males molest much more often than females.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:38 AM” Is that like most coca-cola is not drank by drinkers of coca-cola.”
wow…what a thought out arguement to his statement…
yeah you got me convinced.
actually what mattlaw says is true…according to most doctors in the psychiatric field, people who molest children are most typically heterosexual.
that does not mean however, that they are not seriously disturbed.
i find it more irritating that people immediatly look to blame a molester’s sexual orientation for his/her behavior over the obvious deeper and much darker elements of their psyche.
Posted by: views at July 29, 2005 02:43 AMHere’s a good explanation of what I’m talking about, at least as it refers to the sexual molestation scandal in the Catholic Church:
Sipe says that the reason so many boys are targets of priest abuse is because priests have the closest contact with boys and young men in seminaries and in parishes where, until recently, girls were not allowed to be altar servers. Sipe calls the priesthood a homosocial culture,” not unlike a men’s prison. “Think what kind of sex is available to men in prison. Just because prisoners are committing homosexual acts doesn’t mean they are all homosexuals. It’s what’s available to them,” Sipe says. “Boys and men are more available to priests socially.Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:52 AM
Aldous,
Translation: anti-gay Republicans hate pedophiles while pro-gay Liberals love pedophiles.
I honestly have no idea what that means.
David,
Nazi Germany agreed with Eric. They even went so far as to exterminate anyone with mental or physical defects, to insure that mental illness would not affect them or reproduce. They left no room for mitigating circumstances either.
Way to go for once again working the Nazi angle in there!
David, the Nazi’s pretty much killed anyone who opposed them. If they happened to kill child molesters then kudos for the Nazi’s for doing one right thing amid all the other evil things.
Let me ask you a question: If the Nazi’s raised taxes, does that mean that raising taxes is evil?
Or if the Nazi’s had strict anti-smoking campaigns? Is that now anathema as well?
Let’s see, the Nazi’s also had police! They had laws! They had automobiles and paper! We certainly don’t want to be like the Nazi’s do we? Should we not have police, or laws, automobiles or paper?
Germany had the world’s strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world’s most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.…
“Our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler drinks no alcohol and does not smoke…. His performance at work is incredible.”
anti-tobacco?
Hmm, I guess you better start drinking and smoking too…
While most rapists would not fall in the category of having a tumor in the brain, or some other organic mental dysfunction, some rapists have. Your solution suggestion leaves little room for taking that into account, does it. What if after the fact, the brain dysfunction could be cured?
Frankly, I don’t give a damn if tumors, cosmic radiation, or mind control rays from the mothership made them do it. There is no excuse for raping and/or killing a child.
And think about it, David, if you were hypothetically one of these people who somehow had a condition which ‘made them do it’ and you are now miraculously cured and now have a normal morality, you’ve ‘come to your senses’ as it were, and you then realize that you have molested and raped, even perhaps killed a child, wouldn’t you want to dead?
However, I understand your passion on this matter. I share it, being a father of a daughter. But, I try not to let my passions do my thinking for me. My passions would dictate that anyone who cheats on their taxes or otherwise rips off the public at large, should die, since their crime is committed against millions of people. And my passion dictates that anyone who is willing to commit crimes against millions of people should be first order for the death penalty.
What a coincidence, Hitler dodged his taxes!
Seriously though, that passion is not to be thrown away lightly, David. That passion is not irrational, it is the passion of parenthood. It is protectiveness. Something that we should not just say is worthless. I thought it takes a village to raise a child? Does the village lack this protective passion, David?
How can we be turning these ‘persons’ back out into society?
Monica,
A childhood is destroyed even if the child physically survives the assault.
This is exactly the point of my first post.
The value of a young life is diminished when we fail to punish these crimes and fail to protect other children in the future.
What a lot of us would really like to see is a system that punishes crime and protects law abiding citizens, especially the young, helpless, weak, or easily intimidated among us.
EXACTLY!! Pedophiles were once one of these children we are trying to protect. Their families, neighbors and yes, society FAILED THEM! The solution cannot be found by simply locking them up and tossing away the key, sending them to death row or taking them “out back and shooting them in the head.”
I am not saying we need to “forgive” or “try to fix” them, but think about the children we are trying to protect and remember these Pedophilic sexual predators weren’t “born,” they were CREATED as a result of the same horrible thing we now condemn them for.
steve smith,
The problem is that your statistics were provided by a religous
group that bases their data on a flawed concept that an adult male who molests a male child is doing so because he is homosexual. This is an incorrect assumption. Most Pedophiles, while perhaps having a preference for a particular gender, will just as easily settle for the opposite sex as well. Their attraction is to the “type” of child. Physical build, age, vulnerability, and MOST OF ALL, ACCESS to the child. The vast majority of homosexual men are non-violent, non-aggressive and enjoy CONSENSUAL sex ONLY!
Tom,
“Putting someone away for life costs far too much in taxpayer revenue. The money could be used for a much more rewarding endeavor.”
Believe it or not, it costs aproximately 12 times more to execute a prisoner than to house and feed one for life.
“To my knowledge there has never been a pedophile cured. The whole subject is so outrageous.”
I totally agree. Although you might find a differing stat, I routinely deal with this sort of thing and DO NOT believe there is a “cure” for Pedophilia. They have reached a point of no return. But you MUST bear in mind when deciding a route to follow for a solution, that everything you can imagine ( or perhaps is too unimaginable to even think about) happening to one of our precious children, has ALREADY happened to them! No one was there to protect them. IT IS why THEY HAVE BECOME A MONSTER!
Unless we do something “different” today, we will be deciding what to do about the predators of tomorrow who are our children today.
David R.Remer,
Sorry I do not have links posted, (I usually do, however,) I am basing these statements on 10+ years and counting of experience as a social worker and one who reads everything I can get my hands on about this sort of thing in an attemt to learn enough to maybe, just maybe, help some families. I will find and post links for anyone who has questions. Thanks, sassyliberal
Posted by: sassyliberal at July 29, 2005 03:37 AMSassyliberal,
I appreciate your perspective. I really do. Permanent removal from society is definately needed for these kinds of crimes. However, I don’t think we should have to pay for life in prison for these people.
I also recognize that you wouldn’t want innocent people to go to jail. Being accused of child molestation is not enough for me. Do we know that Joseph Duncan is guilty? You bet. We shouldn’t have to pay for him 1) to be studied, and 2) to be fed and clothed for the rest of his life.
Besides which, I think he should suffer some as well.
There are 21 sex offenders, about 10 of which are child molesters registered within my zip code according to the Megan’s Law website. One is quite near my daughter’s school.
Am I fearful? Not exactly. Paranoid? Yes. These are only the ones who are registered. They are only the ones in my zip code. There are 1,105 in my city. This is a disgrace.
When I was a kid, we pretty much roamed the town all day long during summer and after school. That is completely out of the question today because there are way too many sexual predators out there.
mattLaw,
10 to 1, the amendment passes easily.
Should a child molester/rapist/killer just serve his 5, 10, 15 year sentence and then be let out? Less than that because most child molesters are model prisoners. Good behaviour, etc.
At the very least if you’ve raped or murdered a child, you should never see the light of day.
Posted by: ericsimonson at July 29, 2005 03:56 AMeric: so they should be locked up forever, yet we shouldn’t pay for it…
where is the money coming from again?
or should we just throw them in a hole and cover it?
Posted by: views at July 29, 2005 04:15 AMHowever, I don’t think we should have to pay for life in prison for these people.I also recognize that you wouldn’t want innocent people to go to jail. Being accused of child molestation is not enough for me. Do we know that Joseph Duncan is guilty? You bet. We shouldn’t have to pay for him 1) to be studied, and 2) to be fed and clothed for the rest of his life.
…but people HAVE been convicted of such crimes based solely on the accusations of another.
Furthermore, I find the argument that you “don’t want to pay” for such a person’s imprisonment to be unpersuasive. We pay for EVERY inmate’s imprisonment. We pay for the police to catch them, for the courts to sentence them, and for the jails to lock them up.
I agree with the Supreme Court’s previous findings. Lock them up for life. Many states have LWOP sentences.
Of course, as was mentioned previously…we would want to make certain that our statutes differentiate predatory behavior upon children from those cases involving “statutory rape” (where the victim and perpetrator may be only a few years apart).
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 05:10 AMericsimonson, wow, you really missed the point didn’t you. The correlation was between action you propose that is similar to actions Nazi Germany imposed which the world found reviling. I personally loved the VolksWagen - does that mean I should love the Germany deathcamps as well.
Your logic simply fell on its face in that last comment about Germany. Eliminating mentally ill, people with Down’s Syndrome, anyone with a venereal disease were part of the Nazi extermination program to purge society of undesireables and protect progeny from similar afflictions.
You propose doing the same with pedophiles. Who’s next for your extermination camps, eric, mothers and fathers who beat their children. Repeated beatings of a child is just as damaging as children seduced by pedophiles, and in some cases more so. Then we can move on to older children who for years bully younger children in schools… and the list could progress right up to exterminating all those damned socialist, commie, pinko liberals who are ruining the moral fabric of this nation. Where would the list of those to be exterminated end eric. You may draw the line at pedophiles, but many others would certainly want to extend to include child beaters, and so on an so on.
The parallel with Nazi Germany is fitting as I just pointed out.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 29, 2005 05:21 AMRaping/molesting a child should be a trial-less crime.
What about when one of the neighbors(who doesn’t care much for steve smith’s staunch conservatism) tips off Ron Brown that steve smith has been touching one of Ron’s grandkids inappropriately?
Trial-less still good by you?
Posted by: Taylor at July 29, 2005 07:57 AMmattLaw,
Your elequent research is admirable. I however did not post my information in order to make a claim. I was transmitting information to Aldous who had earlier transmiited a claim. You are right, I would not post a reference that made a point and a counterpoint contradicting a claim. My post was for discussion purposes only.
These molesters should be eradicated from the face of the earth.
Trial-less is still OK because the guy who shows up at my front door threatening my life because he heard that I touched his child would be immediately shot in the head in self defense with the weapon that the Constitution entitles me to own.
Posted by: steve smith at July 29, 2005 09:17 AMDavid,
I understand that you were just trying to get a point across, but I see one glaring difference in the Nazi comparison. The Nazi’s were trying “cleanse” the world of people who commited no crimes, whereas the people talked about in your post, I believe we can all agree, are not innocent (Child molesters, physical abusers, etc). Bringing up bullies in school is not in the same realm of what it being discussed, we are talking about abuse, rape, and murder of children from the hands of adults. In that light, I don’t see how that can be fitting.
I think it is funny that people spend so much time worrying about that slim percentage of “innocent” people that may or may not wind up accused of this crime!
Yeah, I worry about the innocents also……THE VICTIMS that are 100% innocent!
Traci,
As usual you make a good point. Who gives a crap about due process when our children are at stake? Innocent or not, who cares? So long as we get all the guilty ones what’s a few more suspects?
eric,
Why LWOP only for child killers? What happened to eye-for-an-eye? Why not every killer? I have a special hatred for drunk drivers, I think if they kill someone, they should be put away for ever. Again, why just for child abusers?
steve,
And if this guy at your door had no gun, you would still feel justified in killing him in cold blood? Even though he is protecting his children?
Finaly,
I think this disucssion continues to overlook the fact that most abusers were victims of abuse themselves. When people are victims of their environments do we kill them or help them? Are we applying eugenics or culling theories here?
I want to be clear on two things,
- As a parent, I could in an individual circumstance be violent in defence of my children. But, when the immediate threat is not there, I don’t think violence is an acceptable response.
- I am not advocating release of Class 3, or even class 2, offenders back into the general population. I’m only saying there’s an element of victimization across multiple generations and mercy seems applicable in some of these cases.
Dave:
I can appreciate your sense of “mercy” since there is the element of victimization. This brings up the question of how to administer “mercy”.
If “mercy” is allowing a convicted child molester back into society freely, with no regard to the high rate of recidivism, then I’d be against that kind of mercy.
I’d argue that there are different legal levels of child molestation, just as there are different levels of murder and other crimes. And therefore I’d guess there are different punishments. For instance, exposing oneself to a child is different than raping a child, though both are examples of molestation or abuse.
I think its possible to feel mercy for someone, but to recognize that allowing them to go free is not the proper course of action.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 29, 2005 10:08 AMTraci,
What if that slim percentage you? Would you be o.k. with going to jail for the rest of your life or even put to death as long as the majority of offenders were? I firmly believe we need to protect our children and yes they are 100% innocent, but so are the people that are wrongly accused. The percentage may be low, but it is still there. I think instead of the “kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out” philosophy, we all need to find a way to protect our children as well as protect all innocent people. I haven’t come up with a foolproof solution but I’m all ears to one that works for everybody.
At the very least, child molesters should never be let loose into society again to perpetrate the crime again.
Perhaps, we need to do the same to the judges and parole board members that keep letting these molesters loose to commit more crimes ?
Why is it no one ever scrutinizes the judges and parole boards and the perverted legal system that keeps letting these monsters loose ?
And what about the lawyers that get paid by tax payers to keep filing appeals over and over and over?
Sadly, almost every time you hear about these crimes in the news, it’s rarely their first offense. That’s a crime that never should have happened.
What’s up with the judges, lawyers, law makers, and government that permit this?
Child molesters are like rabid dogs.
There’s no cure.
They can’t be given a second chance.
Statistics show that most repeat the crime later. They can’t help it.
They can’t be allowed to run loose.
There’s ample evidence and data that they are incurable.
If it were my child, I’d be insanely furious at the judges and parole board members that released the monster back on the street to molest my child. That’s a tragedy that never should have happened. Perhaps our focus should be on the judges and parole board members ? Perhaps they are accomplices? Perhaps people (at the very least) should start suing these judges and parole boards and lawyers that keep releasing these monsters, child molesters, rapists, murderers, and terrorists back into society to molest, rape, and kill some more ?
Jarandthl make some good points about what is and isn’t molestation of a child.
Before we pass a law to kill child molesters we need to define it a little better.
Statutory rape varys from state to state and I’m not ready to classify the punishment for that the same as a slimeball raping ang molesting little children.
If a 15 yr old girl that looks 19 seduces your 17-18 yr old son, should we kill him too?
She may have lied her age, or even had a false ID. What if she was an underage hooker?
Sorry folks, its not even close to being in the same league.
When it comes to the REAL child molesters that the liberal judges seem to let out again and again, I agree 100%.
I’m to the right of Atilla the Hun when it comes to them!
After the trial, take them to the street, shoot them behind the ear and force people to drive around them like a dead raccoon, untill a semi squashes them flat and they dry up and blow away.
Make it a crime to remove them from the road!
d.a.n
No matter what the price, I think due process is a necessary element of a just society. As far as the punsihements, I agree we should up the sentencing requirements for sexually based crimes against children, the disabled, and all others who are not in a position to defend themselves. I guess it’s a difficult legal challenge to create sentence guidelines based on psychological assesments. The prosecutors always say “This guy(girl) is hopeless” and the defense always says “(S)he’ll never do it again”
jbod
If “mercy” is allowing a convicted child molester back into society freely, with no regard to the high rate of recidivism, then I’d be against that kind of mercy.I with you on that one:
I am not advocating release of Class 3, or even class 2, offenders back into the general population.Class 3 is the highest threat level: Near certain to reoffend and harm. Posted by: Dave at July 29, 2005 11:18 AM
Beagle,
You’re reading too much Ann Coulter and watching too much Faux News. Liberalism has nothing to do with this. Conservatives have as much stupidity in this arena as any liberal. Just look at the Schiavo case.
Posted by: Dave at July 29, 2005 11:21 AMBeagle, fabulous post above. Great job.
If these child molesters are to be let out into society they should be made to wear a full body yellow suit with stay away from me, I molest children written on it. A target should be on the back.
A sign should be put in front of their homes stating that they are child molesters. This helps property values and improves the school system. People would be praying for the eminent domain action that they so hate otherwise.
They should be made to wear a device that tracks their every movement. (It must be Constitutional, police use it now)
A “no go zone” should be established. To ensure adherence, a small lethal substance should be set to activate when the zone has been compromised.
Once a child molester, always a child molester. This is the same logic that applies to alchoholics. A wild animal in captivity is still a wild animal. (Sigfried and Roy).
Posted by: steve smith at July 29, 2005 11:31 AMSteve Smith—
Trial-less is still OK because the guy who shows up at my front door threatening my life because he heard that I touched his child would be immediately shot in the head in self defense with the weapon that the Constitution entitles me to own.
First of all, I’m guessing you’re not dumb enough to think that this scenario would ever be considered a valid use of “self defense.”
Secondly, no…”trial-less” is NOT okay. You seem to know what the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is…now try familiarizing yourself with the 5th and 6th amendments.
Traci—
I think it is funny that people spend so much time worrying about that slim percentage of “innocent” people that may or may not wind up accused of this crime! Yeah, I worry about the innocents also……THE VICTIMS that are 100% innocent!
Something tells me you’d be singing a different tune if the person wrongly convicted was yourself or a family member.
There have been numerous cases of people accusing others of past molestation that did not occur…either because the idea was ‘given’ to them in therapy, or because they compelled to go along with the accusations of other children. Certainly most reported cases ARE true (and many go unreported), but not all of them.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 11:43 AMKevin~
I tell you what…..having been a part of the 100% status of victims(molestation), you really will be hard pressed to get any sympathy out of me and I acknowledge that!
What I want is good common sense, not one size fits all, idiot laws!! God gave us brains to use them…not hide behind technicalities!!!
Check out my 4:20 post….who on earth did this judge protect? It seems to me as if he didn’t care much about anything!!
I also find it interesting that we are lead to believe that there are millions of people just being accused for no good reason. I haven’t witnessed this…..why? Because regular people are not even in situations that could even be construed as such!!! And…sorry Michael Jackson but a good way to stop looking guilty is to stop sleeping w/ children!!!!!No matter how he feels about it, it’s no longer acceptable and if he plays w/ fire again I hope he gets nailed for being an idiot!!!!
It’s kind of like the whole “you can’t punish your kids anymore” deal, People have heard stories but rarely have witnessed someone being falsely accused!!!I know I spank my son and the wrath of social services has not came down on me!
Common sense that’s all I’m asking for from everyone!
As far as those that victimize because they were victims……..I seem to be able to control myself as most others do also….so that leads me to believe that there are other issues at hand!! Besides my perpetraitor was a victim also……….Oh, well I guess that makes a big difference in how I should feel about it? Give me a break….like I said: victims do not just become victimizers because of there crime….otherwise we would have lots of old ladies mugging people on the streets of New York!
You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me!!!!This has to be applied to our justice system!!!
I’m still all for these lenient judges taking the people home that they are releasing……..Right back to their neighborhoods…….If they feel they pose no threat this should not be a problem for them!
Seems to be tangents being gone to that don’t have anything relevent with this topic.
Schiavo case? I don’t even get that one.
Alcoholics? There have been numorous alcoholics that never drink again even when around alcohol.
Once a child molester, always a child molester? Steve, are you a Christian? Do you believe God can do anything?
As far as those that victimize because they were victims……..I seem to be able to control myself as most others do also….so that leads me to believe that there are other issues at hand!! Besides my perpetraitor was a victim also……….Oh, well I guess that makes a big difference in how I should feel about it? Give me a break….like I said: victims do not just become victimizers because of there crime….otherwise we would have lots of old ladies mugging people on the streets of New York!
I’m pretty sure that concept applies to situations of abuse…not simply ANY crime.
I’m still all for these lenient judges taking the people home that they are releasing……..Right back to their neighborhoods…….If they feel they pose no threat this should not be a problem for them!
Talk to your state government. Judges often must give mandatory sentences for drug crimes, though often for little else. Overcrowded prisons make the problem worse.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 11:56 AMmattLaw,
Once I put a weapon in his hand and inflict a wound on myself and drag him inside the house, I think I would have a case. I think this would qualify to his right of a speedy trial.(or the equivalent of)
You also said :
“First of all, I’m guessing you’re not dumb enough to think that this scenario would ever be considered a valid use of “self defense”
Actually mattLaw, I do not think I am “dumb” at all.
Dave,
Yes I am aware that Bush is an alchoholic.
Dave,you wrote;
“You’re reading too much Ann Coulter and watching too much Faux News. Liberalism has nothing to do with this. Conservatives have as much stupidity in this arena as any liberal. Just look at the Schiavo case.”
I watch/read news from all points of view, and your post doesn’t seem to relate to anything I posted.
I didn’t attack Democrats or political liberal leaning persons in general, I was talking about liberal judges.
If I’m wrong and its really the more conservative judges that are letting the child molesters loose into society, I stand corrected.
I’m sure you have some links to post proving that conservative judges most often let molesters off easy, and I wait with baited breath, to read and expand my knowledge on that subject.
(And no, nobody needs to post a link for only an opinion.)
BTW…Who did Schivo rape? Or was it she that was raped? I guess I did miss that on the news.
Posted by: Beagle at July 29, 2005 12:13 PM
Kevin,
My reference to alchoholics, once a child molester, always a child molester, etc. was not a comparison between the two. I was making a point that rehabilitation does not change the fact that the ultimate test remains with the person for the rest of his/her life.
There are some who believe that a child molester can be rehabilitated. My point is that for the rest of his life the best he can achieve is to be a “recovering child molester”.
Also, I believe that child molestation is a far more serious offense than punishing ones own body with alchohol abuse.
Posted by: steve smith at July 29, 2005 12:29 PMSteve,
I didn’t think you were comparing the two, I give you more credit than that. I guess my question is, what proof do we have that once a person is a child molester, like an alcoholic, they always are?
Just for the record, I also honestly don’t know if these people can be rehabed or not, that is the purpose of my questions, it does not mean I endorse any type of rehab or not.
Posted by: Kevin at July 29, 2005 01:07 PMMy appologies for the abbreviated responses, I will elaborate:
Kevin;
steve smith posted:
Once a child molester, always a child molester. This is the same logic that applies to alchoholics.As steven pointed out, there are “dry” alcoholics. Some are high achieving, even if IMO the referenced one is still a loser. In the same way I’m sure there are “dry” celibate pedophiles and those that have adult sex as a “treatment”. Basically, I felt the analogy and it’s implications were invalid. High recidivism only means ineffective treatment, not necessarily an inability to cure.
Beagle;
You posted:
When it comes to the REAL child molesters that the liberal judges seem to let out again and again, I agree 100%That is rhetorical and irrelevant. My point with Schiavo was that the Bush’es, Frist and DeLay were as political, stupid and abusive of the legal system as this superficial case of a 4 months sentence in MO seems to be. Do you know the R/L standing of the judge or are you just assuming? What is the average sentence for child abuse? How does it distribute between states and political leanings of the courts?
Posted by: Dave at July 29, 2005 01:18 PM
Dave~
What makes that 4 mo. sentence “superficial”?
Posted by: Traci at July 29, 2005 01:24 PMSteve Smith—
Once I put a weapon in his hand and inflict a wound on myself and drag him inside the house, I think I would have a case. I think this would qualify to his right of a speedy trial.(or the equivalent of)
Wow…so you’re going to commit murder and then lie and claim it was self-defense. What makes you so much better than the other criminals we’re talking about, here?
Actually mattLaw, I do not think I am “dumb” at all.
Well, many of the views you’re expressing suggest a supreme ignorance of the Constitution.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:29 PMDave wrote: d.a.nNo matter what the price, I think due process is a necessary element of a just society.
Due process ?
They’ve all had plenty of time to end this problem.
I’ll give ‘em some due process.
All of ‘em. The molestor, judges, lawyers, and parole board members that let the monster loose to do it again.
mattLaw,
If the legal system weren’t so perverted, Steve Smith wouldn’t have to take the law into his own hands.
Beagle—
If I’m wrong and its really the more conservative judges that are letting the child molesters loose into society, I stand corrected.
I really don’t think one’s sentencing is dictated by whether they’re “liberal” or “conservative.” In most cases, the law of the state sets the guidelines. Parole decisions are not going to be made by a judge.
Consider this: You may think that a Judge who proclaims themself to be “tough on crime” as positive for our society, but being “tough on crime” has it’s own problems.
When a felon (and I’m talking about crime generally, here) is forced to serve their entire sentence, the state has no ability to monitor them later through either a parole program or something similar. Additionally, many of these judges inflict maximum penalties for drug crimes. Someone who possesses an illegal drug may not break any other crimes, but going to prison creates REAL CRIMINALS out of simple drug offenders.
Drug crime dominates in our legal system. These are the felons who are taking up cell spaces and causing rapists, child molesters, etc. to be put back out on the street.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:35 PMSomeone please explain to me how putting the burden on society to constantly be looking over their shoulders for criminals that should be locked up but played the “game” correctly is any different or less cruel than the so-called rights of the criminals?????????
That is what confuses me when people(that argue for them) say that their sympathy is not w/ the criminal but the victim!! BULLSHIT is what I say…..AAWWWWW I’m so f****** sorry your life is more difficult because of the stigmatisms you are now facing because you’re sick in the head!!!!Don’t wanna do the time….DON’T DO THE CRIME!!!!
I remember several years ago there was that inmate that was a sexual predator and he was begging for casteration, because he admitted that he would never lose the urge!! There were actually protesters outside screaming that it was inhumane and should not be allowed!??????????????????????????? Some people are just dumb asses, what dog did they even have in that race to care??? Sad thing is…..I think it’s that group of assholes they pull juries from!!
If the legal system weren’t so perverted, Steve Smith wouldn’t have to take the law into his own hands.
If you’d care to read through the thread, you’ll see that he was claiming he’d murder a man who’s child falsely accused him (Steve) of child molestation (because in his fantasy world, accused child molesters don’t get trials).
You seem to have an equal disdain for the Constitution (which was rather obvious from reading your webpage, I’ll admit).
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:38 PMDue process ?
Heard of that? See the 5th amendment.
Is that right?
Because you already said before you agreed with a lot of it.
mattLaw,
I know the Amendments. What good are they though if the legal system is perverted?
BTW, What law case are you working on today?
What makes me ill are the lawyers that make a career of making appeal after appeal after appeal, endlessly, at the tax payers expense, trying to get these child molestors released.
Is that right? Because you already said before you agreed with a lot of it.
I remember that I said I agreed with the bit about the two major political parties in this country, right?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:45 PMIs mattLaw your name?
What’s the significance of Law at the end of your name?
mattLaw, I know the Amendments. What good are they though if the legal system is perverted?
You keep making sweeping statements about how “perverted” the legal system is. What are you talking about? Which part of the legal system? HOW is it “perverted?”
BTW, What law case are you working on today? What makes me ill are the lawyers that make a career of making appeal after appeal after appeal, endlessly, at the tax payers expense, trying to get these child molestors released.
That sentence doesn’t even make sense. If their client can afford the services of the lawyer, then it is not occurring at the “taxpayers” expense. If the “taxpayer” is paying for it, then the lawyer is certainly not “making a career” off of it. Public attorneys are paid very little.
That said, you can only appeal so many things, and so many times (the fact-finding of a jury is NEVER overturned on appeal). Do you have any evidence that there are lawyers making “endless” appeals trying to get child molesters out of prison? Anything to back that up?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:50 PMIs mattLaw your name? What’s the significance of Law at the end of your name?
I’m a law student…
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:51 PMWhat’s perverted?
The list is too long.
You’re a lawyer.
You should know.
What’s perverted? The list is too long. You’re a lawyer. You should know.
Oh, I do love the old “the list is so long that I can’t name one” response.
Humor me. Let’s talk about our criminal justice system. What’s your beef?
(I’m a law student, I am not a lawyer.)
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 01:55 PMAlready told you.
Obviously, if the legal system worked, we wouldn’t have this problem with child molestors getting released over and over, and lawyers helping them get released over and over.
Due process is one thing, but abuse of due process is another.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2005 01:58 PMTraci,
I don’t think anyone in here is disagreeing with you that the victims are the ones who do the suffering and that some sort of punishment should be given to the people that commit these crimes and what is happening now just isn’t working.
I’m curious as to what Mattlaw would change in a legal matter to make sure children are safe from any further crimes while not infringing on peoples constitutional rights. Is this possible, and if not, at what point do we say certain rights not worth the lives of our children?
Posted by: Kevin at July 29, 2005 01:59 PMI’ll tell you what’s perverted…
Having to defend a client that personally tells you they are guilty because that is the law!!!
Not being able to retry someone for the same crime because a bunch of idiots let them off!!!
Technicalities that set criminals free despite the HARD evidence against them!
The money making machine that turns people greedy for a win rather than justice!
Supreme court judges that rake in big bucks(which is fine) but than are to lazy to even do their job, such as, request background information on the clients before them!!! I’m sick of hearing “I was not aware of their past offenses”!!! Get off your big fat ass and request a file or make a phone call!!!Trust me the citizens will be happier w/ a slower more efficient process than simply cranking them out to see them return later!
Good behavior/early release….how hard is it to keep your nose clean in prison? (Again I am referring to harden criminals not drug users)!Like Chris Rock says…”I hate people that want credit for things they are suppose to do, like….”I take care of my kids” good you dumb motherf***** you’re suppose to!!!”
I could go on and on, but these are just a few
Mattlaw,
I agree with you on these points. However, I will tell you one of my beefs. What is with making deals with people who commit crimes that lessen there sentence? If you have a case against them why not take it to trial and give them the max sentence as opposed to lessening it to avoid a lengthy trial?
mattLaw wrote: Let’s talk about our criminal justice system. What’s your beef?
OK. If you insist.
Please, others feel free to contribute.
mattLaw,
(1) This very topic is, in my opinion, due to a perverted legal system. The judges, lawyers, parole boards, and law makers have had plenty of time to resolve this problem, and haven’t.
(2) Lawyers get paid by the tax payers to defend criminals. OK, everyone deserves a defense. But, once again, it’s often perverted to point that our prisons are revolving doors, where repeat offenders get released over and over and over. And you say they don’t get paid much? Right. They do it out of the goodness of their heart.
(3) I’m sick of presidents pardoning criminals. It seems to me, that’s a slap in the face of judge, lawyers, and jury.
(4) “When the devil takes shape, it’s under the pretense of a lawyer.” — Spanish proverb
____________________________________________
NOTE: We should never advocate the denigration of any profession, race, religion, etc. This merely points out that parasites are attracted to certain professions (e.g. law, politics, clergy, media, etc.) more so than other professions (e.g. fire fighter, paramedic, doctor, engineer, construction worker, farmer/rancher, etc.). The reasons are obvious. Some professions simply offer many more opportunities for abuse.
Already told you. Obviously, if the legal system worked, we wouldn’t have this problem with child molestors getting released over and over, and lawyers helping them get released over and over.
Perhaps the problem is with our LAWS? Infractions of law come with a range of sentences.
If you have a problem with an advocate assisting one in the legal process, then I don’t really know what to say. It is uncommonly silly to blame a criminal defense attorney in this matter. Even the most vile, mass-murderer deserves legal counsel. Don’t like that fact? Petition the government for a Constitutional amendment (won’t happen), or move somewhere where convicted criminals are not allowed legal counsel.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:19 PMI’m curious as to what Mattlaw would change in a legal matter to make sure children are safe from any further crimes while not infringing on peoples constitutional rights. Is this possible, and if not, at what point do we say certain rights not worth the lives of our children?
I have no problem with mandatory life sentences for such offenders.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:20 PMmattLaw wrote: If you have a problem with an advocate assisting one in the legal process, then I don’t really know what to say. It is uncommonly silly to blame a criminal defense attorney in this matter. Even the most vile, mass-murderer deserves legal counsel. Don’t like that fact? Petition the government for a Constitutional amendment (won’t happen), or move somewhere where convicted criminals are not allowed legal counsel.
mattLaw,
Attempts to cloud and skirt the issues, twist and obscure the facts, avoid questions, be on all sides of the issues, answer questions with non-sequiturs, change the subject (all typical lawyer tactics) won’t fool me or most here.
I already said defendants deserve counsel, but you say I said otherwise.
I never blamed a defense attorney for defending a criminal. I blame them for abusing due process by making a career of it.
I already petition the government all the time.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2005 02:26 PM1) This very topic is, in my opinion, due to a perverted legal system. The judges, lawyers, parole boards, and law makers have had plenty of time to resolve this problem, and haven’t.
That’s begging the question. The system is perverted because it’s perverted? GIVE REASONS.
(2) Lawyers get paid by the tax payers to defend criminals. OK, everyone deserves a defense. But, once again, it’s often perverted to point that our prisons are revolving doors, where repeat offenders get released over and over and over. And you say they don’t get paid much? Right. They do it out of the goodness of their heart.
Do you have any information to back your claims that public defense attorneys are making mountains of money? I work along side many of these people. There are 10 public defenders in my county…we work in a cramped office, our resources are miniscule compared to the State, and no…the lawyers who work there are NOT highly paid.
If you’re going to continue and insist that these attorneys that solely defend the indigent are somehow simply ‘greedy’ evil lawyers, then present some evidence showing how overpaid they are. Put up or shut up.
(3) I’m sick of presidents pardoning criminals. It seems to me, that’s a slap in the face of judge, lawyers, and jury.
The ability of the President to pardon was quite clearly written into our Constitution. Complain about it all you want, but I don’t see how that qualifies as a “perversion” of the system.
(4) “When the devil takes shape, it’s under the pretense of a lawyer.” — Spanish proverb
Enough with the cute quotes. You seem to be more style than substance on this issue of “perversion.”
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:27 PMttempts to cloud and skirt the issues, twist and obscure the facts, avoid questions, be on all sides of the issues, answer questions with non-sequiturs, change the subject (all typical lawyer tactics) won’t fool me or most here.
Please…I’m being completely straightforward with you and answering all of your questions head on.
I never blamed a defense attorney for defending a criminal. I blame them for abusing due process by making a career of it.
Concrete examples? Anything?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:30 PMmattLaw
Who you tellin’ to shut up?
Gee. Did I strike a nerve.
COMMON SENSE
Once again a lot of things the people should contact their representatives for!!
WHY should law abiding citizens have to spend their free time from their jobs chasing around politicians to do theirs?
It seems to me their way of thinking is…..”lets just let this broken system keep churning unless people put up to much of a stink!”
Common sense…if it’s broken fix it….you don’t need someone to nag you over it!
Posted by: Traci at July 29, 2005 02:32 PMMattlaw, you posted;
“I really don’t think one’s sentencing is dictated by whether they’re “liberal” or “conservative.” In most cases, the law of the state sets the guidelines. Parole decisions are not going to be made by a judge.”
Some states have no written guidlines.
If a judge gives someone ; 99 years to life, with no chance of parole, do you really think most people would believe that the judge was quite liberal?
Save that for the disney channel, most will go with the looks, walks, quacks, like a duck to determine the leanings of that judge.
If there was no such thing as conservative/liberal judges, what the hell are we wasting senate time for with hearings for the USSC?
Posted by: Beagle at July 29, 2005 02:33 PMWho you tellin’ to shut up? Gee. Did I strike a nerve.
Nothing to back up your claims, then?
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:33 PMmattLaw
You’re the lawyer.
Why don’t you tell us first?
Then, perhaps, I’ll give you numerous examples.
This subject of this entire thread demonstrates the problem with the legal system.
The subject of many threads on this entire blog web-site demonstrate the problem with the legal system.
What more proof do you need?
Mattlaw~
I posted several reasons why its perverted.
Posted by: Traci at July 29, 2005 02:38 PMDan,
You obviously and intelligent person. I’m not the biggest fan of lawyers mostly because I feel some make money on other peoples misfortune, but that is a different type of lawyer (Right Mattlaw?). Mattlaw does have a point when he says your lacking facts, do you have any, even one?
If there was no such thing as conservative/liberal judges, what the hell are we wasting senate time for with hearings for the USSC?
That debate is over varying methods of Constitutional interpretation…not sentencing of criminals.
Constitutionally, only a jury can sentence a convicted criminal to death.
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:40 PMmattLaw You’re the lawyer. Why don’t you tell us first? Then, perhaps, I’ll give you numerous examples.
*scratches head*
It’s YOUR claim!
Posted by: mattLaw at July 29, 2005 02:41 PMTraci—
Having to defend a client that personally tells you they are guilty because that is the law!!!
A lawyer is NOT required to defend someone who they know is guilty, and it is wrong to let your client kn