A "Let Them Rot" bill for Repeat Sexual Offenders

[mrhnau]

I'm for having "Child Molester" tattooed across his forehead before being released into GP..

Why wait? Tattoo it before getting into jail. That would make them popular with the inmates.

 

[JBrainard]

I'm all for additional time. Sexual predators are among the most heinous criminals out there, and pedophiles - especially violent pedophiles - are the scum of the earth. I also have no problem with using them for experimentation, to determine what causes them to act the way they do, and to try to find ways to stop them (although the method used in A Clockwork Orange is not acceptable)... and while I know that some have had horrible childhoods, and that being perpetrated on during childhood makes one more likely to be a perpetrator, that is an explanation, and not an excuse. In the meantime, being in prison is an effective deterrent, as it is hard to perpetrate on children when there are none available.

As far as the death penalty goes, I have no problem with it in the case of violent offenders, and, in some cases, in the case of repeat or long-term offenders.

Yes, almost all pedophiles were abused as children themselves. But, as 1 out of 4 women and 1 out of 5 men were sexually abused as children, they certainly don't all turn into pedophiles. It would be interesting to study these people hopefully discover what makes a pedophile what they are.
I am opposed to the death penalty, but this thread isn't about that. That being said, I have to say something. Using the fact that prisons cost money as an argument for the death penalty really creaps me out. What is the logical conclusion of this argument? That the lives of people who are a drain on the tax-payer's dollars are worth less than ours? Just some food for thought.

 

[mrhnau]

Using the fact that prisons cost money as an argument for the death penalty really creaps me out. What is the logical conclusion of this argument? That the lives of people who are a drain on the tax-payer's dollars are worth less than ours? Just some food for thought.

Not really relevant. There is a huge difference between someone using Social Security and someone abusing children. I don't have that much of a problem letting my tax dollars be spent on Social Security (well, I do, but thats another thread). I do have a problem letting my tax dollars be spent on criminals, expenses that include cable, weight equipment and better food than I normally eat (guess certain things depend on the prison).

I don't think people are endorsing the death penalty simply because its cheaper either. From my understanding, the death penalty is actually more expensive, with all of the mandatory appeals and such. Many people wind up sitting on death row for 20+ years.

I'm not sure if its a matter of "worth less". Thats an interesting thought, and worth discussion. Shouldn't the justice system be blind with regards to a humans worth, and just seek justice? I don't think is ascribes value to a human, but appropriate punishment based on the severity of the crime. Or at least thats how it should be.

 

[Drac]

Why wait? Tattoo it before getting into jail. That would make them popular with the inmates.

I have no problem with that...There was a case up here were a convicted CM's sins were kept outta the news..I retired Dep Sheriff contacted an inmate inside and let him know that the "new fish" was a child molester...As the Sheriff said "they were waiting for his butt to show up"...Take that anyway you want..

 

[Infinite]

Ok so you guys are confusing about 3 different mental architypes into this.

1) Pedophile, Defined as a person who is attracted to pre-pubesant children.
2) Serial Killers aka compulsive killers defined as a person who kills with a cooling off period and a return to killing.
3) Rapists defined as a person who uses violence to gain sex.


Pedophiles typically do not intentionally harm their children. The act of killing them is usually a secondary action based on some sort of other trigger. Meaning the kid tries to escape and he accidental kills him. They rarely if ever take their own life. These type of cases show that castration to some extent has an effect but the data still remains inconclusive.

Serial Killers aka Compulsive killers are incurable. These are your Dahmer's and your Gacy's. They can be detected at a very early age by primary behaviors during pre-pubecents. These traits include torturing of animals, failure to accurately predict cause and effect and often setting fires. The awareness of these traits increase our catching of potential serial killers at a young age. Castration has no effect.

There are two types of rapists. The first type is the lesser of two evils and is the opportunist rapist. These would be like the football player taking advantage of a girl at a party or a man on a date that doesn't take no for an answer. These types tend not to repeat the behavior when caught. Their behavior is usually driven by a self worth issue projected onto the women.

The second type is the serial rapist and they are much like serial killers. We can't cure them and castration doesn't really stop them. Even if they are castrated they just use an implament to do the raping because for them it is about power and control not about sex.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is far more complicated than it firsts appears. Serial offenders are by definition more likely to repeat the crime. The rights of these people prevent us from throwing them into a lab and disecting them and personally I think thats a good thing.

Anyway carry on.

--Infy

 

[Kacey]

I never could understand that one. There has to be some kind of logical provision for that... I can imagine a scenario with two 17 year olds going out for the prom, getting a room. They go to sleep legitimate (both 17) and one has a birthday the next day and its immediately illegal. *shrugs* I don't get that. Not endorsing it, just saying its illogical.

You can get married before 18, so how do laws work with that? What about people from other countries that get married really early (pre-teens). Are those marriages accepted here? Subject to statutory rape if they move here?

Just a side note on this issue - statutory rape generally includes an age difference as well - so the examples you gave are not relevant; the age range I'm most familiar with is 4 years, if the younger person is 16 or over, and 2-3 if the younger person is under 16, although it varies by state.

As far as married couples go, there are no laws about the ages of the spouses except those laws that prevent marriage entirely - once married, statutory rape laws do not apply.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Here is a section of the article:



For the entire article, click on the link below:

http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660192594,00.html

*******************

I'm for additional time. In certain situations, I probably wouldn't mind if the death penalty is applied, especially if torture, mutilation, and/or death is involved. What do you think of the bill? Suppose the bill did include the possibility of death penalty, would you be for or against this?

- Ceicei

All I have to say is this is much nicer than I would be to the repeat offender. My idea involves sharks and low tide on the Great Barrier Reef.