A cause for celebration.

[Occhidiangela]

1. As for the sex crimes, a sex crime is a sex crime is a sex crime. Raping a little kid is evil. Dungeons and what not might make it seem more so, or playing dress up, or whatever it is those sick bastards do, but I don't care if it's a case of snatch and go rape or dragging a kid in to a dungeon, it's all evil to me, all a sign of a diseased mind that will never know a cure.


2. I am sorry to keep rehashing this issue...

1. No, no, and triple no. Some are felonious, some are misdemeanors, and some are capital offenses. You can't tar them all with the same brush, you must take each case on it merits.

2. Should have ended at the dots. I like kittens, I don't much care for cats, I own a dog. ;)

Occhi

[Doc]

Looky here.

See, more of the problem that I keep chattering on about. They are doing everything they can to get themselves elevated to victim status... They want to go to playgrounds, probably to pick out their next victim. They want to have access to public areas with kids... Well, if you don't want to lose access, here is a novel idea, don't rape children.

Personally, I don't think these people have any business having access to playgrounds. Frankly, most of them belong in a deep dark hole some place.

I mean, where do these people get off suing for their so called right to access playgrounds and places of public gathering where children are?

[SwissMercenary]

Hey, that dangerous offender bit is pretty cool, allowing for people to stay in prison even if their offense doesn't seem to actually warrant a lifetime behind bars, like certain violent types or sexual offenders.

And I personally consider the money to be spent on keeping them where they are a drop in the bucket. I subscribe to the opinion that there's much better ways to cut down on 'waste' in our government's spending (Or any government's spending, mind you) then 'send em to the chair.'

Hence, the 'burn em because its a waste of money' doesn't fly with me, considering that it generally doesn't come attached with 'reduce waste everywhere' plans and ideas. If you are seriously fighting a war against waste, then that's at least a passable argument. If you're just using it as an excuse to lash out for emotionally-charged crimes, no thanks.

[Doc]

And I personally consider the money to be spent on keeping them where they are a drop in the bucket. I subscribe to the opinion that there's much better ways to cut down on 'waste' in our government's spending (Or any government's spending, mind you) then 'send em to the chair.'

Hence, the 'burn em because its a waste of money' doesn't fly with me, considering that it generally doesn't come attached with 'reduce waste everywhere' plans and ideas. If you are seriously fighting a war against waste, then that's at least a passable argument. If you're just using it as an excuse to lash out for emotionally-charged crimes, no thanks.

I am a hardcore pragmatist. I live by squeezing pennies, nickles, and dimes. Everything has to have a practical angle to become ok in my mind. Call me cold and calculating, but I do value some human life more than others. Some people honestly have no redeemable value... They are a waste of life, space, money, and valuable services. A waste of air. Not to many people fit this catagory with me. I believe that most people are redeemable... I'd say 95% of them are. People can change... People can change the direction of their lives.

Kiddie rapists are beyond this I am afraid. The numbers, the statistics are against them. The repeat offenders are just to many. There is a short in their brain that causes them to find young children sexually attractive... And a possibility that they might breed and pass this trait on somehow disturbs me. No good at all can come from this... None. They are not going to stop, they can not be reasoned with. They are preditory and dangerous. The greater good demands that they are either locked away or killed. Locking them up requires many resources... Special protection. Health care. Since many of them wind up in some kind of isolation, they get tvs and video games and all kinds of things to do that allow their brains to be pacified. In general, many get to live a pretty good life all things considered... Better lives than some of their tortured victims. They are frequently kept on very expensive mental medications, which is just plain wrong when there are people who deserve medications, like the elderly, that can not even get what they need.

Castration, while a novel concept, isn't going to do much in the long run. Death however can not be cheated. It is the ultimate solution to the problem. It is a final solution. It is the cure, and nothing can go wrong after somebody is dead. There is no second chance for them to harm.

Not everybody deserves to die... I realise that some people wind up on sex offender lists because they are some 18 year old kid that slept with some 17 year old girl and somebody's overly puritanical parents wigged out when they found their sweet little girl was getting her hedges trimmed by the neighbor boy. Those types have no business being on these lists, and it is not fair for their lives to be ruined.


However, when a grown adult knowingly has sex with a child... Somebody of a young age, when somebody does this intentional act, they need to be removed from society permanantly. Either through death or being locked in a deep dark hole. I dare say that death is more merciful when you look at the bigger picture.

I have funny views on the death penalty. For many crimes, I do not believe it to be the answer. For some crimes, it is the only answer.

[Munkay]

There is a short in their brain that causes them to find young children sexually attractive... And a possibility that they might breed and pass this trait on somehow disturbs me. No good at all can come from this... None.

Shake off the dust on that Eugenics program, neh?;)

As Occhi replied to you earlier Doc, every sex crime isn't the same. It'd be great if there were black and white lines between "Kiddie rapists" and

[those people who] wind up on sex offender lists because they are some 18 year old kid that slept with some 17 year old girl and somebody's overly puritanical parents wigged out when they found their sweet little girl was getting her hedges trimmed by the neighbor boy.

Each crime and corresponding criminal are different, murder isn't just murder, and a sex crime isn't the same as another sex crime. There is a whole lot of shades of grey mixed in there, even if they do all closely resemble pitch black;).

(If you do disagree with this, and view all crime as black and white, I'll respectfully agree to disagree to nip in the bud an already beaten dead horse).

With that said, most of your post have been filled with lengthy paragraphs expressing your deep emotional hatred for child molesters. One one hand, these are fair enough. But on the other hand, these aren't helping your argument, no one here is defending child molestation as something good. If anything, they are hurting your argument. You attempt to argue that its pure logistics to sentence every molester to death, since they can't be helped. But then in the same token you go on about how you hate them so much, and you end up reading more like an overly passionate person defending the death penatly based on your emotions.

As SwissMercenary said,

If you're just using it as an excuse to lash out for emotionally-charged crimes, no thanks.

The argument that child sex crimes is very bad, is a very dead horse. We all generally agree.

If your argument is pure logical, please disentangle it from your emotions and state it clearly.

Your conclusion seems to be Draconian laws against any single time offending child sex crime offender, due to poor rehabilitation percentages. Rather than another argument about how bad child sex crimes are, let's get some real statistics in this discussion. What are the estimated rehab percentages, Doc?

My two cents is incredibly simple, as long as there is a rehabilitation percentage, a uniqueness to each crime, and a problem of false sentencing, sweeping Draconian laws get a big thumbs down.

Cheers,

Munk

[SwissMercenary]

I am a hardcore pragmatist. I live by squeezing pennies, nickles, and dimes.

And if I were looking for them, the Canadian Dangerous Offenders incarcerations is about the last place I'd look. On average, 24 people are labeled as such, per year. It's not breaking anyone's piggy banks. If you are serious about saving money, go look in places where it can be measured in something above pennies and dimes. Once you're through with them, please come back to the subject of gassing convicts.

If you are so pragmatical, why waste effort on catching that penny, when the 20$ bill is swirling down the toilet?

[kandrathe]

If you are so pragmatical, why waste effort on catching that penny, when the 20$ bill is swirling down the toilet?

Hear, hear! In general we could save BILLIONS in federal and state prison costs by pragmatically reviewing incarceration laws. But, you might have been thinking about other areas of bloated government waste. I agree either way.

[SwissMercenary]

Hear, hear! In general we could save BILLIONS in federal and state prison costs by pragmatically reviewing incarceration laws. But, you might have been thinking about other areas of bloated government waste. I agree either way.

Since I don't have any personal experience with waste in our prison system, I was very much thinking of other fields of government, but sure thing.

[Dixen Andomiel]

I don't quite understand the need to change this sentence. Under existing law he goes into a deep dark hole and never comes out, and I've heard stories about how fellow inmates would treat a convicted child rapist.

And why, praytell, should I pay taxes to keep this SOB alive until one of the other inmates does what the State should have done in the first place?

As a father of 4 children I can guarentee that something like this ever happens to one of my kids there will only be *ONE* trial ... Mine.

[SwissMercenary]

And why, praytell, should I pay taxes to keep this SOB alive until one of the other inmates does what the State should have done in the first place?

Because he could have been wrongly convincted. Those taxes are a drop in the bucket. Convictions for murder (In this country at least, I can't speak for you) have been overturned in the past, in light of new evidence. I'd be willing to pay that drop, on the possibility that the sentence was not warranted.

And am I the only one who noted the slight problem in Doc's reasoning of 'Death penalty for paedophilia', in that if that's what'll happen to the child molester, isn't that just incentive for him to dispose of the witnesses, so to speak? :rolleyes:

It's not like they'll be able to execute him twice.