Recently, a nine-year old girl by the name of Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped,
sexually assaulted and murdered by a known sex offender. The man who
committed the crime had a 30 year criminal history. The Story.
He is yet another example of a criminal who wasn't taken seriously early on.

In response, The House of Representatives has created The Jessica Lunsford Act.
It would provide for more specified sentencing, the implementation of electronic
monitoring, and so forth.

The following questions are geared towards first-time offenses that do
not necessarily result in the death of a child.

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?


Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time)sexual crimes against children?

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?
I have been intrigued by the number of repeat offenders in all manners of crime, stealing, assault, drugs, etc. I amazed that the masses have not been enraged by the fact that the entire judicial system and the police do nothing to curb this type of behavior. In short, it is a failure. Jailing someone has had a pitiful effect on criminals. The idea behind imprisonment is that someone will detest prison so much that they will not go out and commit the same acts again. Has that worked? No, 80% of all inmates return to prison, these statistic were quoted by an instructor who had a doctorate in Political Science and was also a virtuoso in statistics. Take them as you wish, if you have something more official please present them. We need to rethink our entire approach to deviant behavior. I would recommend that the family be allowed to flog the violator. Until they feel he's had enough. Or maybe a tattoo on his forehead to delimit his crime, maybe a big 'R' for rapist. Then maybe as an added measure the police could keep an eye on him instead of stringently regulating the streets as if it really matters if someone drives 80 mph instead of 60 mph on the highway.

Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time)sexual crimes against children?No, people should never be killed. If you are going to sacrifice someone's life, then you may as well make it worth something. How about infecting them with some incurable disease and then have them serve out their sentence with this disease or die from it. Doctors can use this person to try and cure whatever disease they have, if the disease is cured then we set the man or woman free, considering their debt to society repaid and if it can't be cured, then they die anyway. Or send them to Mars or to the outer reaches of the universe to try and give us some answers about our the solar system. Why kill someone when they have so many uses?

While all of us should be concerned with sex crimes against children, you have not provided any workable solutions.

Advocating sending perpetrators to Mars or infecting them with disease are rather petulant statements. While they may attract attention, they are a clear violation of Amendment VIII's sanctions concerning "cruel and unusual punishments." Geez, I wonder how long a good defense attorney could postpone a defendant's trip into space in the unlikely event such a proposal passed constitutional muster?

To answer the second question, I am opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances. Barring the death of a child, this shouldn't even be on the table.

Typical response, continue on with the status quo that doesn't work, or maybe make the penalty stricter that will do. If you could join me in an area outside the box, I would like to consider alternatives to the failing system we have in place. Repeat offenders are the rule, not the exception. Keep quoting the Amendments and the Constitution for arguments sake, but make sure that you understand the limits you place on yourself. You suggest we shouldn't be cruel because the law says so, yet the law also says not to rape or murder, but people do it anyway. I am not advocating Hammurabi's code, just suggesting an alternative to incarceration or the psychological approaches. Those methods DO NOT WORK! Have we not figured that out yet? Is an 80% return rate of prisoners a success?

All these diseases out there that have no cure. We run tests on frogs, dogs, and hogs but that's never going to be the same. Why not allow these people to do some good and give them a chance to earn their freedom back? You would imprison a man that kills his wife and her lover. Would you not then set this man free if he helped cure AIDS and saved millions by risking his life? Would that not be a benefit to society? You would rather they sit in a box, hoping for parole or a pardon wasting tax payer's money doing nothing, but God forbid we be cruel to them, as if no freedom is somehow benign.

Stifle creativity, tow the company line, don't rock the boat.

Thinking outside the box, novel or creative approaches are fine for conversation points.

I doubt, however, that any of your solutions would stand up to legal scrutiny. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I'm not willing to sacrifice the constitution for the sake of "innovation." This is a quite dangerous mindset.

Legal scrutiny? You are still inside the box. What legal scrutiny are you talking about? This mindset you are in allows for NO NEW IDEAS. First get it out of your head that a law means anything at all. How important were laws down in the South during the Civil Rights movement, when lynching and murders were rampant? The Law doesn't mean a thing if people are not willing to or capable of enforcing it. Take the Prohibition Amendment for example, we added another Amendment to stike it down, why? Because we couldn't enforce it. How about in the Medgar Evers case, his murderer was initially set free, why? Because the white people of the South were not willing to prosecute a white man for killing a black man. A law not enforced is a mental construct that means nothing and accomplishes nothing. This is the very construct which you seem to be stuck in.


At least you are off-handedly admitting there is a problem. That is a start.
Use some simple troubleshooting steps
Define your problem
Create a solution
Implement the solution
Review the results
Based on those results, either leave it as it is, or create a new solution

You are not even willing to define our legal system as a problem, so how are you going to come up with a solution for a problem which you think does not exist? You won't, you will stay the course. All you are doing is is contradicting any proposed solutions. That won't work, that's petulant, that won't stand up to scrutiny. Defeatist do-nothing attitude.


Was the Constitution written by men or by Gods? It seems like people think the Constitution is akin to the Bible. How did this happen? Were the people that wrote this Bible still using medical methods like leeching? And we are not to alter or even question this document. One word: BOX

Both the bible and the constitution were written by men. Adherence to the bible is optional, but not the constitution. As interpreted by the courts, the constitution is law, but not the bible.

Sometimes when one "thinks" they are outside the box, they are merely out of step.

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?

It depends on the severity of the circumstances. And, the circustances.
But, one thing is for sure, the only way to stop sexual predators who prey on
children is to make sure that the first time they get caught is also the last time
they get caught. And the only way to do that is to lock them up indefinitely,
or to maim them in some way that would make it phisically impossible for
them to commit future sexual crimes.

Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time)sexual crimes against
children?

I do believe that there are cases that would best be taken care of with the death
penalty. For example: Priests who molest little boys (or girls). That is
about the sickest and most heinous thing a man "of god" could ever do to another
human being. He is not only obliterating the vows he solemnly swore to (as a
messenger of God), he is also ripping to shreds the future of an innocent child.
That is deserving of the death penalty. Too often, such sexual predators go
completely free, or they get a very light punishment. Furthermore, there is no
rehabilitating them, so eventually they go on to commit similar crimes over and
over again, until one day they cross over that threshhold of what society will
tolerate in its exploitation of our innocent kids.

The above was one example, but there are many cases that involve unthinkable
acts againsts children. Acts that do not result in a physical death, but acts that
make a peaceful and happy life impossible for a victimized child to ever attain.



Agreed. The system, as it stands, is not working. That is why cases such as
the one mentioned in this thread often become a catalyst for changing laws.
It is not right that a man can commit crime after crime against children and
only when he actually kills one is he taken as a serious threat.

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?

First, sex offenses need to be better classified. Currently, in some states, a teenage boy can be labeled a sex offender for consensual sex with his slightly underage girlfriend. That is hardly the same as a sexual predator raping a pre-teen. The first happens a lot and never gets reported. The second, in my opinion, is the real deal, the guy who needs to spend serious time in prison, and have his 'weapon' surgically removed. Chemicals have shown to be unreliable when it comes to suppressing the desires of this kind of creep.

Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time)sexual crimes against children?

Non-fatal, probably not. But repeat offenders, definitely. The sanctity of life, IMHO, is only an issue when dealing with those who share that bit of idealism.
Someone who can kill a child is not worthy of life among the rest of us.

You are not offering any alternatives, just a series of contradictions. Are you satisfied with 80% repeat offenders? I guess you are. If we are so BOUND to obey the Constitution, then how come it was by-passed during the Terry Schiavo fiasco? This goes back to the mental construct. If you cannot enforce something or don't want to, it doesn't exist.

I suggested that you tattoo rapists. What is the deterrent method in place today? Sex offenders have to report to a local authority and identify them self. That's full proof. They also have to check in at regular intervals. What if they don't and move to another state? Oops, another one got away. Tattoo their forehead, people would know they were a rapist then. But that does infringe on their civil liberties. Maybe they'll get better? Sure they will, all sex offenders get cured and never submit to their carnal desires again. We could implant a chip in their back and do GPS tracking on them, that might work. The point I am trying to make and that you refuse to acknowledge is that the legal system is a FAILURE. Something needs to change, what do you suggest? Nothing, that's what I thought.

Why ask a question if you are going to answer it yourself?

There's always the constitutional amendment route if someone wants to pursue your solutions. Otherwise, I have no doubt the courts would declare all of your proposls unconstitutional. Good luck getting the document amended.

I have no doubt the courts would, blah, blah, blah. Enough of the doubletalk and tap dancing. The Congress responds to the will of the people, these laws that you cling to like a security blanket can be changed if we the people voice our opinion strong enough. But why should we care anyway, there aren't any sex offenders or murderers living near us, but then again, if there were, we wouldn't know it.

And again, I offered an alternative, which you disagreed with. Obviously, you have a better idea. Or do you? Why is it so difficult to get a question answered with you?

I had to answer "other" on the poll, because the question is a little vague. Each case needs to be considered on its own. Someone fondling a twelve-year-old, although a serious offense, is not on exactly the same level as someone raping a five-year-old.

In general, long prison sentences and careful monitoring of future activities seem to be most appropriate for these sorts of crimes.

I oppose the death penalty under all circumstances. I can certainly understand the justifiable rage that is the normal response to serious crimes, but the government should not be in the revenge business. Removing certain liberties from persons who cannot be trusted with those liberties is sometimes necessary, but it should always be done with sorrow.

I have often heard it advocated that men who are found guilty of sexual violence should be castrated. Without even considering the ethics of such a punishment, this idea has always struck me as utterly useless. Minor objection: What about women who are found guilty of sexual violence? Major objection: A castrated male is still capable of sexual violence. I suspect that such a man would be, if anything, more likely to kill his victims because he is not capable of literally raping
them. If such a man is kept safely locked up, what is the point of castration? (The only possible answer is revenge, which I oppose.) If such a man is set free,
how would castration prevent him from attacking victims?

The same objections would apply to the unusual punishments suggested by NeoCon30. (The "trip to Mars" thing, other than the fact that we are nowhere near to having the technological ability to do this, is equivalent to a life sentence, which may be appropriate in some extreme cases.) If criminals are imprisoned, what is the point of infecting them with diseases? (Again, the only possible answer: revenge.) If they are set free, how does this protect anyone?

There will always be horrible acts of violence as long as the human species exists. We can try to prevent them. We can try to protect potential victims from those who commit them. We cannot ever be fully successful.

As other have said, there first needs to be some better classifications of sex crimes, such as statutory rape etc- vs actual pedophilia.

Actual pedophiles I would like to see a constitutional amendment just for them. I am not into really hard core penalties for first time offenders with no other accusations of wrongdoing- and here is why. The prosecutorial/investigative part of our goverment makes mistakes- and we need to build in a "relief valve" to make sure the innocent and wrongly accused do not get caught up in it!

Pedophiles, however, typically have a long string of abuses piled up behind them, and are easy to cull out from the rest of the herd- and here is where our constitutional amendment is needed. There are certain classes of predators, such as sociopaths, borderline personality disorders, sexual deviants, that are incurable monsters, they appear as humans but are not human.

Those we need to deal with, and since they are incurable incorrigibles, this is a good place to experiment with mind wiping and the like, such as Neocon suggested, only more dealing in line with why they are the way they are.

I think a constitutional amendment would be quite correct in dealing with them, stripping them of all protections against "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Definitely. I'm curious, Victoria, what exactly would you deem the appropriate
punishment for the rape of 5-year-old?



Long prison sentences, yes. And, without possibility of parole. As far as close
monitoring of future activities, if we cannot be sure he won't do the same crime
again, there should be no "monitoring of his actions," because he should stay
in prison. Since we know pedophiles are absolutely repeat offenders, the first
time they get caught should be the time when they lose all rights to the outside
world. First strike, they're out.




Revenge may be a factor in why some people support capital punishment,
but it is not the reason why capital punishment is a necessary form of dealing
with certain crimes.



With sorrow? It should be done because if it's not innocent people will
be in danger.



Yes, a constitutional ammendment is necessary. As far as the first-time offenders,
it really does depend on the circumstances. There will be cases of first timers
(it's not their first time, necessarily, it's just the first time in getting caught) who
need to have the severest punishment possible. If that's not an option because
it's "only his first time," then we are setting ourselves up for cases like the one
mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

I do agree, however, that each case must be thoroughly and completely
examined to ensure that mistakes and wrongful convictions don't occur.




Yeah, but that's because they weren't given the long sentences the first, second,
third time they were caught. If we would understand that such behavior is
going to be repeated then we might take such crimes more seriously the first time
they occur.

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?


If the evidence is strong, life with no parole.

Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time)sexual crimes against children?

Yes. After we clean up our criminal justice system to ensure innocent people aren't sentenced.

Also, let me make it clear: I'm not talking about statuatory rape here, where 21 year old Bob has sex with his sixteen year old girlfrield, Mindy, or where they're both fourteen, and end up on some sex offender registry because they get busted doing what unsupervised fourteen year olds will sometimes do. That's a ridiculous use of the registry. Now if she's thirty and he's fourteen, that's a good reason to put her in jail for a good while.

What is the appropriate punishment for first time offenders?

Depends on the specifics of the case. Two teenagers having sex is one thing, but a 50 year old man molesting a 7 year old girl is something else. For more serious offenses, I would suggest stiffer prison sentences followed by electronic monitoring after their release.


Should the death penalty be an option for (first time) sexual crimes against children?

No. Absolutely not. Regardless of the circumstances of any case, the death penalty should not ever be an option.

Stiffer prison sentences? What is that going to accomplish that short prison sentences couldn't? Instead of 5 years, give them 10, that will do it. NO IT WON'T!!!! Prison doesn't work especially in this situation. We are talking about a lustful desire. The same lustful desire that causes a man to cheat on his beautiful wife and jeopordize his family. The same lustful desires that had Hugh Grant getting a prostitute instead of going home to Elizabeth Hurley. The same lustful desires that has a preacher on the pulpit addicted to Internet porn. The same lustful desire that has a person forego the condom and risk pregnancy, disease, or both for sexual satisfaction. You cannot rationalize an irrational behavior. More prison, less prison, a registry it isn't working. How about you give the father 5 minutes and a ball bat and say 'GO!' But that's cruel, so what! Is it cruel for an adult to stick his thumbs into your child's orifices? Behavior like that doesn't rate compassion. New methods are needed. The electronic monitoring is a start, but the prison sentence is just more of the same.

Ok, you don't think that prison is working. You've stated this a few times in this thread. You've also thrown out a few ideas that, though creative, wouldn't stand up against the Constitution. Now how about suggesting a solution that wouldn't violate the 8th Amendment.

I get it already, my ideas don't stand up to the Constitution. I don't really care. My ideas are not shaped and constrained by men that wore periwigs and knickers.

Let me just ask you this, if the Constitution didn't exist, what ideas would you propose? BoF wouldn't answer this question, let's see if you will. And remember, assume the Constitution never existed.

To begin with, the premise is irrelevant because the Constitution does, in fact, exist. That being said, I'll answer your hypothetical. I would propose exile from the country. I don't really care where we exile them to, just as long as they are removed from our society. Of course, that may not stop them from committing the same acts in other countries, but then that wouldn't be our problem.

We've had a Constitution for more than 200 years. Assuming there is no Constitution is an exercise in futility.

I gave you an answer based on the fact that we do have Constitution. Sorry, but I'm not necessarily going to give you an answer you want.

Quite frankly your proposals about sending people to Mars or infecting them with diseases smacks of the human experimentation that went on in places like Auschwitz and Treblinka. One of my uncles lost his life fighting such things in World War II. I really don't have much tolerance for such misanthropic thought 60 years later.

BTW: NeoCon30 your Constitutional rights may be violated someday. If that happens, I'll bet you'll be singing a different tune.

Edited to correct sentence structure and typos.

The premise is only irrelevant because you want it to be. If you wanted to change the Constitution you could do that. Regardless of the rigamarole, the Constitution can be changed. The Constitution is a document of the people, if you, (a member of the people) wanted it changed, you could get it changed if there were a majority of people like you. First, you have to realize our legal system has a problem. Then you have to take the steps to make the change. You can be like BoF and concede defeat and give up, or you can do something about it. BoF is older, so he may be content to ride off into the sunset. So be it, but for some of us who still have about a half century left in this country and on this planet you may want to do something about our legal system. But if you limit yourself and your ideas then there will be no change only more of the same.

Last night I watched a police officer pull up to a red light, wait for traffic to pass and then ran the red light, no sirens, no cherries, just ran it. Now, legally he was wrong, but since I can't enforce that law over a man with a 9 mm and a shotgun, then the law was as useful as Mini-Me on a basketball court. Laws are made by people, people can change the laws, get rid of them, enforce them, ignore them, or wipe themselves with them. Laws are nothing. Get it?

EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK the Constitution belongs to you. It is yours to mold and shape, think it, and make it so. Instead of asking, what will the Constitution allow me to do? Ask yourself, what can I make the Constitution do? It is your document, not the government's.

My proposals smack of Nazism? Your banality knows no depth. "You are like a Nazi. You think like Hitler." Sure I am, and yes I do, please. The people I am talking about sending away, or infecting are people like Dahmer, or Ted Bundy, not your uncle. Do you have a problem sending Charles Manson to Mars? I know people probably are mocking me, ha ha ha, send someone to Mars, how ridiculous. Sure, but wouldn't it be nice to have some answers about our solar system or some cure to AIDS or cancer? Instead you want these people to pay their debt to society by SITTING IN A BOX. How appropriate a suggestion coming from you.

Sure, the Constitution belongs to the people. That is why we have an amendment process.

You must have missed where I said that last night.





It's a little late for Dahmer or Bundy and you completely misunderstood what I said about my uncle. My uncle died fighting in WWII. Why would anyone send him away?

I don't want to change the Constitution as far as the 8th Amendment is concerned. I believe that defendants' rights against cruel and unusual punishment is fine the way it is. Now, knowing that you have to deal with the Constitution (as it currently is), what solutions do you have to better prevent child molesters and the like from repeating their crimes?

I did miss it, in between all of your statements about how you can't do this, or you can't do that, or standing up to legal scrutiny, I did miss your one disclaimer sentence. The amendment process just doesn't seem to be something people are interested in. Like changing the Constitution will somehow alter our society and lead to anarchy. It just isn't so, change is good if it is to solve a problem, and we can always change back. Why the aversion to change? Why the limitations on your ideas? You advertise your political position as liberal yet you write like a conformist.

From Nu Marx

I had suggested something similar to what you had said about electronic monitoring. My specific verbiage was 'GPS tracking device' which I am assuming is the same as your idea. I had also suggested 'branding' criminals that commit egregious crimes with a delimiting character, such as 'R' for Rapist, or 'M' for Murderer. Sure, those people will become a pariah, but they would also be free and anytime someone dealt with them you would know the evil they are capable of doing. The benefit and safety of our society is paramount. We should not sacrifice the safety of 98% of our population because of the civil liberties of 2% who just don't get it.

You don't agree with cruel and unusual punishment, fine, but then what is your response to solitary confinement? Have you seen what that does to a person? It transforms them from man to beast. It is appalling. Cruel and unusual is a subjective phrase, who defines cruel? Maybe cruel and unusual would be more effective than incarceration? Most prison guards are cruel, treating prisoners in unusual ways. Who knows if any of my ideas would work? Maybe we should ask a rapist these questions? Or a murderer? Or a thief? That would be novel.

Maybe in your ideal society, but not mine. To me, civil rights will always trump safety regardless of the situation.



Its still imprisonment, which is neither cruel nor unusual. What is cruel and unusual is determined by society and precedence. Most any punishment may seem cruel to the person(s) it is being applied to, but not to the rest of society which has been wronged, in some way, by the punished.

I am not compassionate toward child rapists. For thieves, or drug users, we can educate them, their problem is poverty, but not a rapist. Their behavior is driven by lustful desires. Our approach must be different.

How are you giving priority to civil rights by supporting a system of perpetual imprisonment? An ex-con has the same options as a stray dog. They can't get a job, eventually returning to prison, so they can sit in their box waiting to start the cycle all over again. Also, during their sojourn in free society, their civil rights are reduced.


Solitary confinement is extremely cruel. Watch an HBO documentary on prison and see what thought comes to mind when you see the people in solitary confinement: ANIMALS. That is how they are treated and eventually how they behave.

I'll answer each of these in turn.

1. A very long prison sentence -- for decades. Possibly life. Not death.

2. All I can say here is that I do not agree. I don't see the death penalty as necessary.

3. I certainly agree that this is the reason why the government must, at times, use force to remove liberties from certain individuals. My only point was that this should never be done with joy or celebration on the part of the government; it must always -- always -- be done with regret. This may not seem like a very important point, but I think it is vital, in order to minimize the very great risk of the abuse of power in the criminal justice system. Judges should never enjoy sending people to prison; guards should never enjoy keeping people locked up; if we must have the death penalty, the executioners should hate their jobs.

A child rapist is not only filled with lustful desires. His actions cause irreperable
damage to innocent children who are unable to defend themselves. Yes,
our approach must be different. Crimes of this nature should be at the top
of the list of "worst crimes".

Another barrier to overcome is the stigma that is involved with victims of
these types of crimes. They feel personally ashamed (those lucky enough
to survive), and often they stay quiet. So, we end up with countless voiceless
victims to go along with the known cases. Perhaps we should make it a
nationwide priority to get the message out that this crime will not be tolerated.
1st strike, you're out for good - life in prison, without chance of parole.
And, reserving the option of the Death Penalty, where it is appropriate.



For the rape of a five-year-old a life sentence would be necessary. Who, for
the love of God, could do such a thing? A monster! Lock him up, throw away
the key, and that's that. And do it with the understanding that it is necessary.




I don't know what reason there would be to celebrate. It's a necessary action,
that's all.

The fact that the most hardened criminals, who are themselves locked away,
feel hatred and contempt for pedophiles says a lot. They truly are the lowest
of the low. Children are the future. If we cannot protect them, we cannot
protect our future.

Life in prison would be fine but in America, sex offenders don't get life sentences. Many of those who receive life sentences for other crimes don't die in prison.

I've never met a child molester who was cured. I recently met a man who had been convicted of child molest five times. The most recent conviction got him 15 years executed. He never served more than 2 for the previous four. I think he still has a hard-on for kids.

The only way to prevent this man from hurting children is to kill him. I'm curious. Those of you with children who are opposed to capitol punishment: Would you kill a man to prevent him from raping your child? Because a life sentence doesn't really mean life in many cases, I am sometimes in favor of capitol punishment. For me it's a matter of prevention, not revenge.

The sure fire way to prevent any person from committing a crime in the future is to execute him today.

The above question is a good one to use. And I often find it surprising when I answer questions like this and see the shock, disbelief, and disgust on people's face.

I would not kill a man to prevent him from raping my son or daughters. I am opposed to capital punishment.

Child molestation like many other crimes are very serious, but in a discussion like this I think many people lose sight of the rights that they value in the United States.

Our freedoms and civil liberties do make us less safe in terms of crime by fellow members of our society in comparison with less free societies. So if we wish to discard the Constitution, of course we can create a world in which a convicted child molester will never molest again. We would also save a lot of time and money. One trial, execution on the way out.

We can brand symbols on people, lock them up for life, chemically castrate, send to no pun-intended penal colonies on islands or into space. It is not hard to think outside of the box, but you have to understand that then you will live outside the box.

Opposed to capital punishment is one thing, but opposed to protecting your
children, even if it means taking the life of another, to do it, that's another
thing. I find it very hard to believe that you would just stand by and let
someone do that.



Child molestation is like no other crime. It is in a league all its own. We can
strengthen the laws to better protect our children, without losing the liberties
that the Constitution grants us. Life in prison, on the first strike. There's no
reason to give a pedophile a second chance.

I think life in prison might be a little harsh if we compare it to murder, which also normally gives life. If murder is a great deal worse than rape, why would we punish them equally?

In fact, the only real damage I can think of that endured by the child are whatever physical wounds are suffered (Not as significant as a gunshot wound, for example) and the mental trauma cause to the child. Someone with proper counseling can get over the worst of it eventually. There are rape survivors that go on to lead prosperous lives. I'm no trying to diminish the severity of the crime, but don't you think life in prison might be a little harsh for something the victim will get over in a decade or two?

I say the perfect punishment for the violater would be rape charges + pedophile charges.

No, probably not. Its simply not a crime that warrants death. There are plenty of worse crimes out there we should reserve execution for mass murders and such.

Eeyore Said



I had to reread this a few times for it to sink in. I hope I am mistaken but if you had the choice of killing a man or him taking one of your children and molesting them, you would chose the later?

What I don't understand is why all the emphasis on the criminals here. What about the victims?

Yes, what about the victims? When the punishment for child molestation equates that of child murder the rational thing to do is to kill all your victims. Why leave a witness?

Eeyore,

I wasn't really expecting that. I would be very sad if someday I woke up and had nothing that was worth a life. Would you kill a man to save your own life?

I think we can execute child molesters, murderers, rapists, and habitual felons without violating the constitution. The constitution was made vauge intentionally. We can interpret it any way we want to. We used to hang horse thieves. Since then society may have become more civilized but I don't think criminals have.

How does killing a sexual predator violate anyones civil rights? How will the rights of Joe be traded for more security? We're not talking about the Patriot Act. I don't get it.

So, tell me, BH, what do you propose is adequate punishment for the criminal
who rapes a five-year-old? (supposing it will take the child one or two decades
to get over the trauma)



What is that exactly?



I had the same reaction. I cannot believe that any parent, who loves his
child, would stand by and allow a rape to take place just so he could stay
true to his anti-death-penalty stance.



1st time pedophile charges = life in prison
murder of child = death penalty

Problem solved!

I'm going to try and stay unpersonal, although I admit that a associate of mine was recently tried and convicted of child molestation despite overwhelming evidence that was not allowed to be admitted proved his innocence.

What do you suppose that a wrongful conviction would do to a persons life? The court costs alone will prevent a man from being able to advance towards retirement and all it takes is a suggestion from a mentally ill child. Then you have the time lost sitting in jail, the stigma of being label a sex offender by your neighbors and coworkers, and on top of that child molesters are at the very bottom of the barrel in the prison system. If a guy is convicted of it beyond a shadow of a doubt then I say throw the book at him, but as it sits now our court system is driven by selfish lawyers that are more driven by greed then morality. If it were the case of repeat offenders then I would agree with your harsh punishment.

Been a LONG time since I was here.

But into the fray...

Firstly, let us be clear, the death penalty is not an option for sexual offences that do NOT include felony-murder. This is not a capitol-punishment issue, it is a common sense and history issue.

Long ago the death penalty was removed for crimes that did not involve murder of the victim. There used to be the death penalty in countries like the US and the UK for kidnapping and rape, but eventually is became clear that this was foolish.

If the kidnapper/rapist is ALREADY facing the death penalty for his crimes, then the logical step is to kill his victim and eliminate the witness, after all it makes no difference whatsoever in terms of his eventual punishment...

Thus while the appropriate punishment for child molesters is a valid topic for debate, the death penalty should not be on the table unless you want more dead children.

As an aside, I personally don't think the death penalty should be on the table at all for any crime, judicial revenge killings are pointless and savage, but that is not really the topic of the thread.

Supreme Court decision in Furman..problem back on the table.

What is the appropriate punishment for first-time offenders?
For molestation one life sentence. Don’t guffaw. Nobody serves one life sentence to full term. For rape consecutive life sentences without possibility of parole.

Should the death penalty be an option for (first-time) sexual crimes against children?
While my personal preference is handing out the death penalty for henious sexual crimes my answer is no. In a recorded tape in 1999 John Couey, accused killer of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, told police:



The officer’s report:


Link


The CNN article doesn’t indicate whether the officer provided information to Couey about programs at the state or federal level. Assuming the officer didn’t, then, I would be furious if I were Jessica’s parent.

In cases like Jessica’s I believe we’re all a little complicit for not willing to fork up the taxes to keep predators like Couey behind bars or in a mental health institution for life. It’s as if we bide our time until the sexual predator commits murder along with rape to shine the spotlight on them and finally get the show we’ve been waiting for to teach ‘em good—capital punishment.

Asinine.

The problem with asking for stiffer sentances is someone else will pick up the cry and add their own pet peeves to the list. I’m concerned that the theory in economics that says rising water lifts all boats (I’m not sure how the exact phrase goes) is true for criminal sentences as well, and John Smith can end up serving a decade without parole for—oh the horror—selling pot.

I’m also concerned about the wrong wo/men being convicted. One of the nicest guys I met through online gaming told me his sex offender story. Thanks to a state appointed counselor who urged him to take the guilty plea instead of fighting inconclusive DNA test results he’s a registered sex offender in a he-said she-said trial of a 14 or 15 year-old’s mother and will probably spend the rest of his life trying to clear his record.

I don’t buy into statutory rape laws, either. I’ve always thought of them as legal therapy for parents that can’t deal with their daughter losing her virginity and demeaning to infants/girls/women who live through rape.

I answered life in prison without the possibility of parole.

But I still think we focus too much on criminal. Instead of focusing more tax dollars on them I believe those tax dollars need to be spent on the victims of the sexual crimes. People keep talking about rehabilitation. These people don't deserve rehabilitation. Most of the criminals have RUINED a child's(or children's) life. But all I hear from the liberal side is rehabilitate.

I would like to see a study or statistics. Because I can almost damn well guarantee more tax dollars are spent on a convicted criminal than on his/her victim. now that is truly sad.

As a side note... Eeyore.. I think there are some of us who want clarification on your earlier statements..

I answered life in prison without the possibility of parole.

I would further ask in regards to treatment of sexual offenders in the cases of the pervs that target children

Should I be asked to sacrifice the safety of my children for your idealogy?

Do you mean programs designed to help him overcome his urge to have sex with
children? I've never heard of a "program" that has cured pedophiles. It is
a deep-seated aberration that cannot be dealt with in a one-hour therapy session,
or any type mental-health treatment. That's the real reason why first-time
offenders need to be put away for life. There is no cure, and they will do it again,
if given the chance.

You mentioned in your post that if you were Jessica's parents you'd be furious
if the officer hadn't provided information about programs to the accused. How
about directing your anger at the one responsible for the crime.



I think most of us are willing to pay to keep criminals of this nature behind bars.
The laws need to be stiffened so that they have no way out.




Ted Bundy was also a very nice guy. Nice guys do very bad things to children.
They become Boy Scout Leaders, they become teachers, they join the clergy.
They surf the internet.



I totally agree. We need to stop spending time and energy trying to pull
these darkened criminals up from the muck. They are responsible for their
actions, and they don't deserve "treatment" for crimes they consciously commit.

Any rehabilitation efforts should be directed towards the victims.

I do not understand. These people have an urge that they most likely did not choose to have, and they're most going to have it for the rest of their life. It's incurable, as you say. How is it fair to punish these people for the rest of their lives because of this? While no one can dispute the evil of their crimes, I must dispute the evil of all people who commit them (excepting some, of course).

How can you separate the evil of the crime from the evil of the person? If someone commits an evil crime, that person is evil, regardless of the reason or motivation behind the crime. I also think that we must take a pragmatic approach to this problem and acknowledge that these people will almost certainly not be able to control their actions. In which case, they must be taken out of society so that they can not harm any more children.

I disagree. I think that if a person commits a crime when they feel they have no choice (i.e. stealing bread to save your staving family) they are still guilty of the crime, but are not necessarily evil people. If your definition of an evil person is simply someone who has commited an evil act, then let me rephrase: while I do no dispute the evil child molesters do, not all of them have evil in their souls. Not every child molester wishes to hurt children, and I am sure that many have a great deal of self-loathing, even if that self-loathing is justified . What happens to these people should be decided on a case-by-case basis, instead of just labling them all as evil.

And you again say that they cannot control their actions. How is it right to subject a human being to the brutality of prison for the rest of their life for something they cannot control?