Death For Child Molesters?

[Doc]

Clickity

I am all for it. Repeat offenders should never be given the chance to repeat their crime in the first place.

Hang them I say. Preferably publicly. And round up everybody currently on some sex offender list and make them watch.

It's going to be complicated dealing with this, because anybody not voting for it or in support of it will be labeled as being in support of child rapers, which, well, as I am sure you know would be very bad. Political suicide to not support this bill.

There are people around here with four or five strikes against them. I am baffled. I can not see how they are getting out of prison to keep diddling kids. It keeps happening, and sooner or later, some little kid's daddy or mommy takes justice in to their own hands, and blows the kiddie rapist's brains out, and then they go to jail, away from their child, for a very long time. Save the citizens the trouble and just put these sick #$%&s out of their misery. They have a disease in their mind, and they are not going to stop. It is better for everybody in the long run to terminate their lives.

[Occhidiangela]

Clickity

I am all for it. Repeat offenders should never be given the chance to repeat their crime in the first place.

Hang them I say. Preferably publicly. And round up everybody currently on some sex offender list and make them watch.

It's going to be complicated dealing with this, because anybody not voting for it or in support of it will be labeled as being in support of child rapers, which, well, as I am sure you know would be very bad. Political suicide to not support this bill.

There are people around here with four or five strikes against them. I am baffled. I can not see how they are getting out of prison to keep diddling kids. It keeps happening, and sooner or later, some little kid's daddy or mommy takes justice in to their own hands, and blows the kiddie rapist's brains out, and then they go to jail, away from their child, for a very long time. Save the citizens the trouble and just put these sick #$%&s out of their misery. They have a disease in their mind, and they are not going to stop. It is better for everybody in the long run to terminate their lives.
[right][snapback]105346[/snapback][/right]

Define child molester. Like murder, there are varying degrees of that crime.

As to the appeal for public hangings, I'd like to see the criminal justice process judge every case on it merits. Let the punishment fit the crime. Allow for death penalty in capital cases.

The one thing we don't need is mandatory sentencing. All that has done is overcrowd our prisons.

I am also a fan of the death penalty for rapists who commit rape in prison on other prisoners. That too is a sexual offense against persons. How often is that punished? How is it that society condones that crime on its behalf?

Occhi

[Doc]

Define child molester.  Like murder, there are varying degrees of that crime.

As to the appeal for public hangings, I'd like to see the criminal justice process judge every case on it merits.  Let the punishment fit the crime.  Allow for death penalty in capital cases. 

The one thing we don't need is mandatory sentencing.  All that has done is overcrowd our prisons. 

I am also a fan of the death penalty for rapists who commit rape in prison on other prisoners.  That too is a sexual offense against persons.  How often is that punished?  How is it that society condones that crime on its behalf?

Occhi
[right][snapback]105348[/snapback][/right]

Child molester. Any of the sick #$%&s around here that go around raping little kids. People that have sex with 8 year olds... Baby rapers. How else do you define them? Sex with teens is a whole different issue. That... Well that gets complicated. A girl can get married by 13 or so here. And there are teen girls that, um, well, are preditory to older men, seduce them, and blackmail them to get things they want. That's happened more often than you think. But I am talking about people that mess with kids. Single digit ages.

[ShadowHM]

Doc, why the heck do you persist in dragging out the dead horse out to flog yet again? :angry:

We have danced around the mulberry bush over and over and over again on the topic of the death penalty - for any purpose/reason/rationale.

Do you somehow think that you are going to change anyone's mind by chiseling away at the topic?

[Doc]

Doc, why the heck do you persist in dragging out the dead horse out to flog yet again?  :angry:

We have danced around the mulberry bush over and over and over again on the topic of the death penalty - for any purpose/reason/rationale.   

Do you somehow think that you are going to change anyone's mind by chiseling away at the topic?
[right][snapback]105352[/snapback][/right]

Maybe.

I's just pointing out a slice of local life and the issues we face where I live.

Some people deserve to die.

Tell me. Would you want a four or five time convicted kiddie rapist moving in to your neighborhood? Do you really think those sex offender lists keep your kids safe? These guys don't plan on stopping any time soon. Going to prison isn't a bad thing for them. In prison, they are often introduced to new networks and groups of people who have more effective means of luring children in. Most of these guys come out prison far more dangerous than when they went in. It's like a school for them.

Like it or not, there are people that just do not deserve to live. The greater good dictates that a few must die on occasion for the benefit of many.

[ShadowHM]

Like it or not, there are people that just do not deserve to live. The greater good dictates that a few must die on occasion for the benefit of many.
[right][snapback]105354[/snapback][/right]

Blah blah blah - again ! <_<

Doc, as long as you choose to keep repeating this drivel, I will muster the patience to stay and disagree, lest you or someone else think that you have actually changed my mind. :rolleyes:

Some people do not deserve to live. But I will never condone the notion that the 'greater good' is served when you have a legal system that will certainly kill some innocents while trying to benefit the many. Collateral damage is unacceptable.

[Doc]

Blah blah blah - again !&nbsp; <_<

Doc, as long as you choose to keep repeating this drivel, I will muster the patience to stay and disagree, lest you or someone else think that you have actually changed my mind.&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:

Some people do not deserve to live.&nbsp; &nbsp; But I will never condone the notion that the 'greater good' is served when you have a legal system that will certainly kill some innocents while trying to benefit the many.&nbsp; &nbsp; Collateral damage is unacceptable.
[right][snapback]105363[/snapback][/right]

And what of the cases where the evidence is undeniable? Where there can be no mistaking who did it? The repeat offenders who just keep doing it? Oh, he's raped four other little girls, but this time, he might be innocent. Let him live. Horse crap.

Maybe not death on the go round, but by the second or third, what is the point of keeping this person alive and releasing them just so they can do it again? Prisons are so crowded around here that most child molesters only spend maybe a year or so at most. And they are back out on the street again.

Fine. So be it. Let them out. And let them know that the second offense will cost them their life.

If I could get away with it, I would just go down the conviently provided lists made by the sex offender registries and remove them my self.

Castration doesn't work because most people like this will simply find another way to diddle kids and get their kicks.

No, I fear the only real solution here is removal.

[ShadowHM]

Prisons are so crowded around here that most child molesters only spend maybe a year or so at most. And they are back out on the street again.

[right][snapback]105366[/snapback][/right]

Implication: Your government imprisons too many people, so you cannot impose life sentences (with no chance of parole)? So you have to kill them! :blink:

[Occhidiangela]

Blah blah blah - again !   <_<

Collateral damage is unacceptable.
[right][snapback]105363[/snapback][/right]

*John Cleese Voice*

"Oh, don't be sentimental, Shadow, people die everyday."

Your admirably consistent "blah blah zero defects" position noted, I'll offer you another platitude related to the root causes of crime.

"Raising children badly so that they become criminals is unacceptable." :o

Platitudes of the world, unite! :w00t:

*sips coffee*

On second thought, your initial reaction to this topic, "Oh no, not again" is a superior reaction to my having bitten the flame bait.

Foolish rogue, I must have been drinking decaffeinated coffee this morning.

*Emperor Ming the Merciless voice*

Someone is going to pay with their life for this: decaffeinated coffee is unacceptable! :rolleyes:

Occhi

[Doc]

Implication:&nbsp; Your government imprisons too many people, so you cannot impose life sentences (with no chance of parole)?&nbsp; So you have to kill them!&nbsp; :blink:
[right][snapback]105368[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps. Fair play point there.

There are people spending life in prison for a quarter of an ounce of pot. Yeah. No joke. With a measly quarter of an ounce around here, they can nail you for intent to distribute and lock you away in the name of the war on drugs.

That said, what right does a repeat offender child rapist have to live? What useful purpose might this person serve? And what of their victims? The lives they ruin. Is there no justice?

Back in about... Hrm, what was it, 97, 98? There was a big ruckus here about a man living with his mother that molested the next door neighbor's kids. He went to jail, and after about six months, guess where he went? Back home to his mother. Next door to the kids he had been molesting. The family was outraged, but there was nothing they could do. They moved away rather than live next to this horrible man.

The kicker? He had done this before. TWICE. That's why he was living at home with his mother. Nobody would hire the worthless piece of crap because he was a sex offender. He collected welfare. Lived at the governments expense. Also saw a therapist several times a week, at medicare's expense.

What sort of useful life could this man possibly have? Be honest. Would you want him living next to you? Would YOU hire him and give him a job? If he did something to your kids, would you want him set free in six months to move right back in next door to you? Especially if he had previous convictions?

That man will never have a normal life. Neither will any of the others. They have a disease of the mind, and there is no cure. They are sexually attracted to kids, and nothing can stop them from their desires.

It would be better for them to tie a millstone around their neck and throw themselves in to the sea.

[Maitre]

That man will never have a normal life. Neither will any of the others. They have a disease of the mind, and there is no cure. They are sexually attracted to kids, and nothing can stop them from their desires.

It would be better for them to tie a millstone around their neck and throw themselves in to the sea.
[right][snapback]105374[/snapback][/right]

Two points:

1) sex offender lists can include lost of people who have not committed offenses against children, and some whose only crime landed them on the list (soliciting a prostitute forces you to register if I'm not mistaken, and I think peeping might as well). And I'm not sure about this, but it seems like the lists would not tell you what offences were committed, so before you go checking off your local list, make sure you feel that 1-time lonely folks deserve the same fate as the 4-time child rapists.

2) I want to make sure I'm not taking you too far out of context here, and I know that this will come off as an attempt to trap you on your position, but I do want to make sure I understand. When you say "they have a disease of the mind," are you condemning them to die because you find their specific disease reprehensible, or are you condemning them to death because they have a disease? I'm not trying to trap you into a line drawing discussion here, I just want to understand: my brother, at 23, lives at home with his mother and father, will never have a normal life, he is not likely to be hired becuase of his "disease of the mind which has no cure," very little can stop him from indulging in that which he disires, he recieves a monthly entitlement payment, and his healthcare is provided by Medicare.

I'm not sure why I'm so irked by this discussion, but I think it has to do with the way you phrased that last statement that hits a little too close to home.

edit: It occurs to me that the following clarifying statement may be warrented: my brother is not a sex offender. I purposely did not specify the root of his predicament because I want to know whether Doc's more concerned about a specific "disease" or "disease" in general.

[Doc]

Two points:

1) sex offender lists can include lost of people who have not committed offenses against children, and some whose only crime landed them on the list (soliciting a prostitute forces you to register if I'm not mistaken, and I think peeping might as well).&nbsp; And I'm not sure about this, but it seems like the lists would not tell you what offences were committed, so before you go checking off your local list, make sure you feel that 1-time lonely folks deserve the same fate as the 4-time child rapists.

2) I want to make sure I'm not taking you too far out of context here, and I know that this will come off as an attempt to trap you on your position, but I do want to make sure I understand.&nbsp; When you say "they have a disease of the mind," are you condemning them to die because you find their specific disease reprehensible, or are you condemning them to death because they have a disease?&nbsp; I'm not trying to trap you into a line drawing discussion here, I just want to understand: my brother, at 23, lives at home with his mother and father, will never have a normal life, he is not likely to be hired becuase of his "disease of the mind which has no cure," very little can stop him from indulging in that which he disires, he recieves a monthly entitlement payment, and his healthcare is provided by Medicare.

I'm not sure why I'm so irked by this discussion, but I think it has to do with the way you phrased that last statement that hits a little too close to home.

edit: It occurs to me that the following clarifying statement may be warrented: my brother is not a sex offender.&nbsp; I purposely did not specify the root of his predicament because I want to know whether Doc's more concerned about a specific "disease" or "disease" in general.
[right][snapback]105378[/snapback][/right]

Their disease causes them to be monsters.

So the specific disease line of thinking applies here.

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure why I'm so irked by this discussion, but I think it has to do with the way you phrased that last statement that hits a little too close to home.
[right][snapback]105378[/snapback][/right]

Probably because your gut instinct is compassion.

When dealing with folks whose situation falls outside three standard deviations from the norm, there is no cookie cutter solution. Some approaches tend toward the purely rational, others the purely emotional, many fall somewhere in between.

A recent defector, one Ri Kwang-chol, alleges that the North Koreans use a scientifically efficient approach, euginics driven I suspect, to treat birth defects. He did not indicate (per the rather short article) if this is applied this to later "defects," be they genetic, behavioral, or otherwise acquired, nor where the line is drawn on how far along in the growth process a "birth defect" is considered to be "manageable" versus "grounds for disposal."

Doc might appreciate thenip it in the bud optoin, or a "prune the tree when a sickened branch grows from it." Or not.

I tend to the "pest control" school of thought on capital punishment.

Another application of science and judgment include the use of ultrasound to key the decision to terminate a pregnancy early -- if the gender of the prospective child is undesirable. About 10 years ago I saw a documentary on that issue in India. Not sure if that situation continues.

Judgment and decision making: what do you do, and why? Is it for emotional reasons, rational reasons, or some of both?

Occhi

[Doc]

Probably because your gut instinct is compassion.

When dealing with folks whose situation falls outside three standard deviations from the norm, there is no cookie cutter solution.&nbsp; Some approaches tend toward&nbsp; the purely rational, others the purely emotional, many fall somewhere in between.&nbsp;

A recent defector, one Ri Kwang-chol, alleges that the North Koreans use a scientifically efficient approach, euginics driven I suspect, to treat birth defects.&nbsp; He did not indicate (per the rather short article) if this is applied this to later "defects," be they genetic, behavioral, or otherwise acquired, nor where the line is drawn on how far along in the growth process a "birth defect" is considered to be "manageable" versus "grounds for disposal."&nbsp;

Doc might appreciate thenip it in the bud optoin, or a "prune the tree when a sickened branch grows from it."&nbsp; Or not.

I tend to the "pest control" school of thought on capital punishment.

Another application of science and judgment include the use of ultrasound to key the decision to terminate a pregnancy early -- if the gender of the prospective child is undesirable.&nbsp; About 10 years ago I saw a documentary on that issue in India.&nbsp; Not sure if that situation continues.

Judgment and decision making: what do you do, and why?&nbsp; Is it for emotional reasons, rational reasons, or some of both?

Occhi
[right][snapback]105382[/snapback][/right]

Ugh, no. That's just wrong. Those babies killed have done no wrong.

I could never support something like that.

[Maitre]

Their disease causes them to be monsters.

So the specific disease line of thinking applies here.
[right][snapback]105380[/snapback][/right]

To whom are they "monsters?" (Yeah, okay, don't answer that, its rhetorical). You've pronounced your judgement, based on your moral convictions. Upon whose moral convictions does the law reside? I don't have an answer to that, but I find a definition similar to that used by the Supreme Court to identify pornography (I'll know it when I see it) to be insufficient in determining who deserves death.

I started out in the mood to get into a line drawing discussion but I couldn't stick carry it out. Simply put, my problem is who would do the line drawing about what offenses deserve death. Yeah, sure, a jury of my peers. I wouldn't trust em as far as they could throw me.

[Occhidiangela]

Ugh, no. That's just wrong. Those babies killed have done no wrong.
[right][snapback]105383[/snapback][/right]

They have done no wrong -- yet. Perhaps an exorcism would be more to your liking? Ya know, in case they had been criminals in a previous life?

No one is born innocent, Doc. :rolleyes: Ever heard George Carlin's take on "innocence" and "the sanctity of life?" His curmudgeonly line on that seems to be one you could get a grip on.

Occhi

[Doc]

To whom are they "monsters?"&nbsp; (Yeah, okay, don't answer that, its rhetorical).&nbsp; You've pronounced your judgement, based on your moral convictions.&nbsp; Upon whose moral convictions does the law reside?&nbsp; I don't have an answer to that, but I find a definition similar to that used by the Supreme Court to identify pornography (I'll know it when I see it) to be insufficient in determining who deserves death.

I started out in the mood to get into a line drawing discussion but I couldn't stick carry it out.&nbsp; Simply put, my problem is who would do the line drawing about what offenses deserve death.&nbsp; Yeah, sure, a jury of my peers.&nbsp; I wouldn't trust em as far as they could throw me.
[right][snapback]105384[/snapback][/right]

In short, anybody that repeats the offense of permanately screwing up the life of another human being.

In the cases of child rape, those kids will never be normal. There is a good chance of them becoming child rapists themselves. (Don't go there, whole different can of worms) Their life, growing up and trying to be normal, get married, and do all the things that other human beings tend to do, will be forever tainted because of somebody's sexual disfunction. Now, it's bad enough when it is done once, but to allow it to keep happening repeatedly is just plain wrong.

If they do it once, and never do it again, and actually get help for condition, and follow through with their treatment program, and never become a threat again, hey, that's a storybook ending. It can happen. That is the ending that most people would like to see. And for these folk, more power to them. Let them live and try to make up for their mistake. But never trust them and always be watchful.

For the guys that do it for the second or third time... These guys are like mass murderers. Their compulsion can not be curbed. The only humane thing to do for them, and for everybody else around them, is to terminate them. You don't let mass murderers like Ted Bundy go free do you? Why is that? Anybody want to answer that question? You don't keep them alive in prison very long either. Why do you think that is? Do you think they will ever be rehabilitated? Do you think after 50 years, you might appeal somehow to their reason and make them feel a twinge of guilt? Would you coddle and pity them for their affliction and cry them a river? Hell no. You gas them and go on living.

The law does not treat serial child rapists as mass murderers though. They coddle the sick bastards, and they are the victim. They had a bad childhood. They have a mental illness. Oh, they can't help themselves, and prison is bad for them, so they should be put in a mental hospital for a few months till they are "stable" and then released. They load them up on Prozac or Lithium or Zyprexa and send them home. Or whatever the hell it is they give them. And the cycle continues.

Sickens me.

[Any1]

This ones going to end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Executing people for any kind of rape is pretty common place in a lot of under-developed countries. It doesn't make it right however.

[Guest]

Doc, why the heck do you persist in dragging out the dead horse out to flog yet again?&nbsp; :angry:

We have danced around the mulberry bush over and over and over again on the topic of the death penalty - for any purpose/reason/rationale.&nbsp; &nbsp;

Do you somehow think that you are going to change anyone's mind by chiseling away at the topic?
[right][snapback]105352[/snapback][/right]

I think youre misunderstanding his point - namely because your a Canuk..

I dont think Doc was addressing people who are agsint the death penalty itself. I think he was addressing the majority of American who are ok with it if its applied clearly proven first degree murderers.


Myself I favor the death penalty in concept but feel it fails in application in most cases - see Texas.

[Occhidiangela]

I think youre misunderstanding his point - namely because your a Canuk..

I dont think Doc was addressing people who are agsint the death penalty itself. I think he was addressing the majority of American who are ok with it if its applied clearly proven first degree murderers.
Myself I favor the death penalty in concept but feel it fails in application in most cases - see Texas.
[right][snapback]105402[/snapback][/right]

I will disagree with a nod and a wink, Ghostiger. The death penalty works just fine down here in Texas. We have a death penalty, and we use it!. (Ron White likes to use that as a punchline.)

South Carolina has it, but seems reluctant to use it. The Susan Smith case seems an opportunity lost. Texas' recent failure to bury the lady who killed her five kids, Andrea Yates, lends some weight to your point, however. Her attorney's "The Devil Made Me Do It" defense should have been laughed out of court. As Dick Deadeye once opined:"My, it's a queer world." (Gilbert and Sullivan reference, Pinafore)

60 people were executed in America last year. 59 in 2004. (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org and DOJ web site)

Over 16,000 were murdered. (FBI)

Roughly 42,000 died in traffic accidents, 2004, the 2005 stats are apparently still in work. (DoT) About 17,000 of those to impaired drivers, alcohol.

Given those orders of magnitude, the death penalty is hardly the issue when it comes to "death at the hands of someone else."

One could suggest that you are safer on death row than on the open road, however, the numbers don't support that due to the relatively small death row population.

Occhi