Strange Famous

And if not, what - realistically - is. I know that there will be come who say death, or mutilation/castration and so forth - and those are not invalid arguments, but I am also interested in the opinions of those who take a more liberal view.

My mother was, about a year ago, on the jury in a case. These are the basic details.

A guy was accused of raping 4 girls, aged between 10 and 12 years old. He did not deny havinbg sex with them, but claimed that the sex was consenual and that 1 of the girls had seduced him. This is still a crime of course, but a lesser one. Each of the girls testified basically that he had forced them to have sex, and threatened to kill them if they told anyone. In the end he was found guilty of 3 counts of rape, and 3 counts of indecent assault, on the 4th counts, he was found innocent because teh gury was splut 4 to 8 - the majority believing that the evidence was not sufficient. (incidently, the mother of the 4th alleged victim later recognised my mother in a shop and started screaming at her that she had ruined the daughters life... but that is neither here nor there for this thread)

At sentencing, the judge revealed that this was the man's third conviction for sexual crimes involving children. He had been found guilty of sexually assaulting an 11 year old girl when in his 20's but had not served prison time, he had been found guilty of rape a few years later (involving again an adolescent girl) and served - I think - 5 years.

The judge sentenced the guy to 4 years for each case of indecent assault and 7 years for each rape, but of course for the sentences to run concurrently , so he will serve 11 years - in reality of course, if you behave in prison, you will only serve 1/2 to 2/3 of your sentence... but because of the fact this guy had commited 2 other offense involving children, the judge was able to decree that he must serve 2/3 of his sentence as a minimum.

All of which means, he will be out in 7 years (6 years now), before he is 40 years old. He has been found guilty on 3 occasions of sexually assaulting children, and also found guilty of assaulting 5 gils under the age of 12, and of raping 3 of them.

In 6 years he will be out, he will be forced to sign on to the sex offenders register, but of course it is very easy to disappear from the radar once one is out. I am not one who subcribes to the idea that prison is a holiday camp. Prison life is demeaning and most of all incredibly boring... inmates suffer mental stagnation and boredom... of course, he would be separated from the normal prison population for his own safety, and probably transfered to a low security prison after a little of his sentence. While life will be boring and confined, he will be able to take advantage of open university courses, counselling, recreation and so on.

By the time he is 40, he will be out again. Can such a character be reformed? I dont know. Paedophiles are demonised today to an extent that sometimes seems hysterical, yet I cannot deny that such crimes sicken me, as they do most of society... they are crimes of inhuman violence against the weakest members of society, they are crimes that destroy the lives of the victims and their families, crimes that will still haunt those who suffered them when he is free.

What realistically, do you do with such offenders? Execution? Life inprisonment? Throw them to the mob?

For one, I have no appetite for torture or brutality, even against the most horrible of criminals... for a detah penalty to be acceptable to me, it would have to be removed from any trappings of torture or spectacle... it would have to be a surgical and emotionless action to cleanse society of elements that are unfit to live. Most of the time I am against the death penalty, but sometimes it is not easy.

If they are to kept in prison - then how long for, at what expense? How can people be genuinely reformed? How can those incapable of being reformed be dealt with?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Rlyss

I don't normally like to respond to legal things, but this one (perhaps because I'm the first to respond) caught my attention and got me thinking.

Last year I served on the jury pool for a rape case, and although it was declared a mis-trial (the accusor (?) said some things she shouldn't have, the jury asked a few too many questions), it was a real eye-opener for me. At the point before the mis-trial was declared, we (the jury) were sort of agreeing that the two were an on/off couple, and into some pretty rough sexual play, and there was bitterness involved over a break up, so it was very, very difficult to determine if it was a real case of rape or a case of spite and revenge.

As for your case there, Strange Famous, my first thought is to say that for a first offence, the sentences should perhaps be served concurrently, although to be perfectly honest I've never been able to get my head around concurrent sentences. For subsequent punishments, I see no problem in having them served one after the other. In this guy's case, 43 years altogether (if I have my 3am math correct). In my eyes, your first time in prison is your chance at rehabilitation, and your second (similar) offence is the act of you volunteering that you can't be rehabilitated.

Concurrent sentences for multiple murders or something, where it might add up to 300 years in prison is obviously ridiculous, but for a case like the one you described, I see no point in that guy wandering around the city after only eleven years.

As for the arguments about it costing so much to keep people in prison, I think almost every country on earth spends far too much on military spending, and far too much on other various things. It sounds barbaric, I know, but I think that if the United States, Great Britain, Australia, etc. were to be more efficient with their budgets, they might be able to afford to keep their prisoners in prison, instead of letting them out early because it's cheaper. There IS money to go around, but it's a matter of where the authorities decide it's best spent.

radioguy

Unfortunately, there probably isn't anything sentence that can legally be imposed on him like we would want...i.e. castration, life imprisonment. I have always been told the child molestors or people that are in jail because of a crime related sexually to a child, is treated very bad by the other inmates. So, I guess all we can hope for is that the prison population gives it to him good.

It's definitely a sad case to read and something I would hope to never hear again.

maleficent

In the US there's what they call the "three Strikes" rule, if you get caught and convicted of doing the same thing -- three times, you're going away for life (at least that's how I understand the law - I'm probably wrong)

I'd be willing to buy that one of the teenyboppers seduced him, I've read too much and seen to much that little girls of 11 and 12 aren't like I remember them, however, he's an adult and should know better, so ignorance on their age is absolutely no excuse at all.

This guy is a habitual offender, prison is clearly not rehabilitating him, not that it's supposed to, prison is about punishment. 7 years is not enough time, because when he gets out, based on his history, he'll do it again. What should be done? Medication to help control his urges, medical castration to help control his urges, is that cruel and unusual punishment? Or is is that he's proven what he is, and now society needs protection from him.

Rehabilitation should happen in prison, because otherwise for really any crime, a person hasn't learned anything, they've done their time and they're released... What do they take away from the punishment? Should more money be put into some sort of therapy for the prisoners?

__________________

denim

In some states, yes.


I'm not a big believer in rehabilitation. I don't see a useful solution to problems like this.

MageB420666

For people who commit rape or murder more than once, they need to die, plain and simple, if they didn't learn not to do shit that bad the first time then their not going to learn the second time. For people who do it once, they need to be locked up for at least 50 years, and depending on the severity of the crime, locked up for life or given the death sentence.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

adysav

And I thought this was going to be a grammar question

radioguy, he will most likely be held in a separate unit with other sex offenders because the authorities know they'd be dead within a few days otherwise. Which might not be a bad thing in the minds of a lot of people.

It raises a question that, yes, while forcing a minor to have intercourse is most definitely immoral (in this day and age) and a crime even if the child seemingly consents, should a person be persecuted because they are attracted to children.

As Strange Famous said, the reaction to paedophiles is somewhat hysterical, and if a "non-practicing" paedophile (I can't think of a better way to put it) where outed people would in the very least give them a wide berth if not go on some kind of vigilante crusade.

We look at homosexuals as people who were just "born that way" and are unable to control who they are attracted to, but paedophiles are somehow evil by their nature.

maleficent

Homosexuals don't prey on children, their sexual parter is an adult, able to give consent, pedophiles prey on children... That makes them much more evil, even in the eyes of extreme religious zealots.

Some young teens might be a grey area, some of them I've seen dress like 20 year olds, with really trashy mouths, I've also heard about things that they've done... but it doesn't change that the law sees them as children and it's hands off.

__________________

tropple

I believe that it has been studied and verifed more than once, that sexual offenders are never "rehabilitated," only deterred.

A .45 or two behind the ear would work wonders to prevent repeat offenders. You can fuck up once, but I figure a second bust is good enough to get fried.

Maleficent: And you would explain NAMBLA, how? Paedophilia is not a limited to heterosexuals. Granted, the largest percentage is by heteros, but not all. Let's not generalize.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

filtherton

In minnesota we commit level 3 sex offenders (those most likely to reoffend) to state mental hospitals for as long as is needed. This can, in effect, be a life sentence, but in many cases it seems like it might be the best outcome for all involved, especially in light of vigilantes.

nanofever

1. He's dead if he isn't in solitary for the next six years.
2. Six years of solitary isn't an easy sentence to server.


Also, I get all my prison knowledge from HBO's OZ and A&E's prison shows. I could be totally wrong, but I don't think that is the case.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Strange Famous

Not at all. The sex offenders tend to be separated together from the genral prison population, or else in low security prisons with non violent offenders. Prison's are all overcrowded as it is, you dont put people into solitary if you dont have to (in the UK anyway)

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

whocarz

Well, my personal opinion on what to do with violent rapists, child molesters, whatever, is castrate them completely (everything must go). This will keep them from ever doing it again. Or shoot them in the head. There is no defense for someone that rapes children. None. Don't even try to sway me. They need to die. This asshole you talk about here has ruined the lives of multiple children. I hope he gets killed in prison.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

basmoq

my dad got only 2 years in jail for raping my sister, he gets out on the 18th. my personal opinion is he should have been shot in the groin and left to bleed to death, but america is "civilized"... so I can't do that

__________________
"There's someone out there for everyone - even if you need
a pickaxe, a compass, and night goggles to find them."

viejo gringo

Send them all down to TEXAS..."BUBBA" is up at Huntsville and he is running out of girl friends...

alicat

My first comment is that I've always understood that "castration" is only the removal of the testes and that a man can still get it up and rape someone if only they are gone, he just can't impregnate a girl/woman. If that's true, then you'd really have to cut the penis off to deter future rapes. That still wouldn't stop them from abusing girls/women with inanimate objects. The common thoughts are that these crimes are not about sex but about dominance, anger and aggression. Again, if that's true, the only solution is to lock them up for life or execute them as there is no guarentee they won't do it again even if they lose their balls and/or penis.

2nd. Strange Famous: You stated that this guy in his 20's was accused and convicted but didn't serve time for sexually assaulting a 11 yr. old (11?!)
Let's for the sake of argument just say he was only 21 then. A few years later (3) (he apparently didn't learn a lesson being let off the first time) he was convicted of rape against a adolescent (at 24 yrs. old) and then served 5 yrs. He is now hypothetically 29 yrs. old..

O'kay, please someone explain to me how a (approx.) 29 yr. old man is "seduced" by one of the four 10-12 yr. olds?! I don't think there's a defense in the world that could stand up to normal peoples (not to mention the law's) reasoning, logic and morals on this situation.

3rd.: I just do not understand the concurrent thing. If a person commits a crime and is sentenced on one count to serve, say, 10 yrs. in prison. That person has to serve 10 yrs. minus the time served/good behavior/appeal thing. Therefore, a person convicted on multiple counts and sentenced seperately on each count should have to serve out the individual sentences on each count. How do they somehow get lumped together? So, are we saying to criminals, "don't just go for the assult and battery, throw in the murder too, 'cuz the time you spend in prison for one goes towards the other!".

4th.: The "three strikes your out" thing. I agree with this, sort of, although I feel that it's a crime-fit's-the-punishment thing. Violent crimes-murder/rape/violent assault/drunk driving(potential murder or assault) =yes. Being caught with a few doobies 3 times=definately not (unless serious harm resulted from said doobies). I just don't see the 3 strikes thing for drug dealers. O'kay, I should qualify that to only include "I don't see it for Mary Jane" dealers. It's just my personal opinion that Pot is different than all other drugs and for that matter (though I no longer smoke it) shouldn't even be called a drug but an herb. The people that buy "hard" and "soft" drugs will always find someone to get them from, they're all illegal to begin with. You put away a drug dealer, another will take their place immediatly. The "War on Drugs" and "Just say No" campaigns have not worked an iota since the Nancy Reagan "This is your brain on drugs" era. Something revolutionary needs to be done on the drug front, but I don't think it will happen for a long, long time. As far as really serious crimes, why do we even go as far as 3? If you murder someone (act of passion or calculated), you're either going to jail for life or you're going to die. That's it. No argument once you're convicted (especially given the quality of DNA and forensic evidence these days).

5th.: I, again, don't understand the concept or truth of prisoners especially hating child molesters, therefore, the thoughts that they are more likely to be raped/abused and/or killed while in prison. I might get this if there were only tax evaiders or petty theives in prisons. However, alot of prison inmates are there because they've killed/raped/violently abused/robbed people. I too hold the belief that people that sexually or otherwise abuse children are the lowest form of humans. I just don't understand the myth/rumor/truth that other criminals that have also commited heinous crimes single out "child molesters" to prey on. Is it just human instict to try to find someone that's done worse than you have in your mind and make them suffer as much or more as you've had to? Not the same but sort of like senior fraternity members hazing the incoming freshmen simply because they were hazed when they were freshmen? Not really expecting any ex-cons to answer, mostly just throwing my ruminations out there. That's all.

Ali

__________________
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun, The frumious Bandersnatch!'--Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Strange Famous

In answer to the fifth point...I can answer that I think. People attack child molesters in prison because it is the only way they can feel like a good parent. These are people who, after all, have abandoned their children and are at best absent and distant fathers... slashing some paedophile with a razor is a way to feel like you do love your kids, cos you hate somebody like this.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

MSD

People attack child molesters in prison because, even those who are in there for violent crimes don't think that anyoen who does that deserves to live. Maybe it's letting the inmates run the asylum, but I think they're on to something there.

Strange Famous

I think in some regard they are doing society's dirty work - doing the things that the ordinary people want, but would not have the stomach to do.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

tecoyah

Well....had he done this to my daughter....I am confident I could wait the Six Years, and use this time to formulate the desrerving retribution, and the means to get away with said payback. Perhaps one of these Fathers is of a like mind, and will.....Remedy the situation.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

waltert

removing a man's sex parts (save the penis itself) will reduce his drive to commit those types of acts significantly. Ive known young guys that have tried to "quit" sexual activity(masturbation included) and it really plays on a person's mental health, and they all basically came to the conclusion that by the end of it, they were ready to fuck anything that moved.

in my mind, 2nd offenders should be excecuted. there's no excuse. However, im one of those crazy texans though. hell, even a 2nd time car thief should be excecuted, there's no excuse for that either.

Rlyss

It is a bit odd, isn't it? That prisoners in the prison system have their own system of 'justice', and rules about what is acceptable and what isn't. Rapists, child-molesters, etc., reportedly get attacked and murdered in prison, or else they are confined away from the general prison population for their own safety.

It's odd, yet strangely logical, that even inmates have boundaries and levels which they won't cross. The inmates who steal cars draw the line at directly hurting people, and may think that rapists deserve much worse than those who steal cars. And the people who rob at gunpoint may think that child molesters are the lowest of the low, and thus cross 'the line', and deserve to be punished.

I wonder if it is a matter of prisoners punishing those who they think have crossed a line (that is set much lower than that of general society), or if it is a matter of tradition, or asserting strength and domindance in the prison system before someone else can do so to you?

Fire

we could always find an island somewhere and ship all the repeat offenders there- hell, that mindset gave us austrailia, and they seem to be ok a few centuries later

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

tropple

Fire, sex offenders weren't transported. They were hung.

It's easier and cheaper to use them as fertilizer.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!