http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/ts_nm/usa_execution_rape_dc;_ylt=AtR_OqP04NQL9kphP1Q5u92s0NUE

In my opinion the ruling may be too broad.

I know there are some strong opinions on this so fire away.

As far as I know, it's been 40 years since anyone was executed by the state or government for a non-murder related crime. Personally, I think child rapists (and I'm not talking about the statutory, consentual ones) should die in a fire. Realistically, the death penalty is not a deterrant, the cases cost taxpayers way more to prosecute than LWP cases do, revenge is a pretty crappy reason and way to serve justice and I think the legal system is generally more or less too incompetent to determine if someone should die.

The number of 'death penalty for child rapist' laws passed by states recently seems to have increased, and I think that's due in part to the mass hysteria of 'sex offenders'.

This new ruling applies to only two of the thousands of inmates on death row.

Ant

Dumb.  Another 5-4 decision with that clod Anthony Kennedy siding with the leftist court members because of the "international community" or something like that.  He did the same thing in the 2005 5-4 decision banning executing people under 18 years old.  Kennedy after that decision said something along the lines of "why should we allow executions of minors?  No other developed country is doing it"....as if any of that is relevant.  He's supposed to interpret our laws based on the U.S. Constitution, and instead he's talking about what Europe is doing or thinks.

And yet despite all that he thinks the death penalty is constitutional.  Kennedy said so himself and was one of the seven in the recent 7-2 decision upholding lethal injections as a means of execution.  It just makes no sense.  How can one think it's okay to execute convicted murders but that it's unconstitutional to executed convicted child rapists?

Louisiana, meanwhile, did this after today's decision:

On the heels of today's SCOTUS decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana barring the death penalty for sex offenders, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal released a statement calling the ruling an "affront to the people of Louisiana" - and what's more, vowing to do whatever possible to amend the state’s laws in order to maintain the death penalty for child rape.

But that's not all he did.

Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.

Source

Also from today: Obama supports rape executions

Considering we've been harping on Iran for various reasons (nukes mostly), it's probably best we don't move in their direction when it comes to justice (executing minors).  As for executing child rapists...  well, I'm against the death penalty to begin with, but it is rather interesting that an evangelical like Jindal would be so focused on executions.

Christ didn't seem like the type who supported the death penalty, but I could be wrong....

I don't suppoert the death penalty.  Period.

I have no problem with remainder of natural life to serve without possibility of parole for a person convicted of raping a child.

child rapists should be given the same treatment that they gave to an innocent child. Put them in a room full of horny well endowed sex deprived inmate men, and forget to include the K-Y. >:(

child rapists should be given the same treatment that they gave to an innocent child. Put them in a room full of horny well endowed sex deprived inmate men, and forget to include the K-Y. >:(


That's exactly what they get in general population.  Iffen the guys find out you're a child molester, it's open season on you! (rule 34). 

"Because child molesters are the scum of the Earth!"
"What are you in for...Father of the Year?"
"I was on crack, I held up a 711 and put a hole as big as the sky in the clerk's chest...but I never messed around with no kid!"
::)

I was glad to see Obama come out and speak against the SCOTUS decision, for two reasons.

One, it shows that he has the capability to not go along with the pack, like the 5 judges did.

Secondly he specifically stated that while he does not believe that the death penalty is much of a deterrent, it is in fact, appropriate PUNISHMENT for a heinous crime.  Wow... a popular democratic politician that understands that there is such a thing as PUNISHMENT and that the justice system is not supposed to simply be about "reforming" people.  Gotta give Obama props on that.  Good man, that Obama.

Justice Kennedy is an embarassment to the Supreme Court.  All this BS talk about what is in fashion.  The Supreme Court is not supposed to decide cases on what is fashionable or "trendy" but on what is the LAW!

I agree with Quirk.  Before they are executed, child rapists should be sent into a room filled with Johnny Wadd-sized cellmates and plenty of sand.

child rapists should be given the same treatment that they gave to an innocent child. Put them in a room full of horny well endowed sex deprived inmate men, and forget to include the K-Y. >:(


That would only be a punishment for some for others it wouldn't faze them.

That's exactly what they get in general population.  Iffen the guys find out you're a child molester, it's open season on you! (rule 34). 

"Because child molesters are the scum of the Earth!"
"What are you in for...Father of the Year?"
"I was on crack, I held up a 711 and put a hole as big as the sky in the clerk's chest...but I never messed around with no kid!"
::)


That's the hypocrisy behind the non-child rape/abusers in prison. To me, a murderer is just as bad a child rapist. Yeah, they might not have ruined a child's life, but they still killed someone.

I agree with Quirk, that's a fitting punishment for a child rapist. A good dose of what goes around, comes around for them.

As far as I know, it's been 40 years since anyone was executed by the state or government for a non-murder related crime. Personally, I think child rapists (and I'm not talking about the statutory, consentual ones) should die in a fire. Realistically, the death penalty is not a deterrant, the cases cost taxpayers way more to prosecute than LWP cases do, revenge is a pretty crappy reason and way to serve justice and I think the legal system is generally more or less too incompetent to determine if someone should die.

The number of 'death penalty for child rapist' laws passed by states recently seems to have increased, and I think that's due in part to the mass hysteria of 'sex offenders'.

This new ruling applies to only two of the thousands of inmates on death row.

Ant


The whole hysteria lean has me concerned too.  The whole area of sex crimes is too broad to be guided by one Supreme Court decision.  As the victim of a crime that could have been avenged by the death penalty I have a one thing to say.  Yes, what happened to me was horrible but I don't feel taking a life will do me a bit of good.

LyricBoy, although I share the sentiments you and Erin have expressed, I hope you two are only half serious. The again, I say in full seriousness that publically barbecueing child rapists *is* a good idea, at least in my fantasies. The problem lies in that some (many?) of my fantasies and ideas are unrealistic in this world, something I am able to see. No one has sympathy for child rapists, but if we allow the death penalty for crimes that did not result in the willful death of another*, where do we stop? ...

~Spousal abusers are a good candidate for capital punishment in my book. Getting rough with your wife, once, is... not good, but I have seen instances where I could understand it (but not condone it) Continuously beating the sheesh out of a woman, one you supposedly love, is an unexcusable and unredeemable crime, and maybe such people don't deserve to live either. Beat them to death!

~Enron-type cases. Anyone who willfully screws a lot of people out of their money is morally bankrupt and probably deserves death.. maybe a good old fashioned, passionate, ass rape before their execution by being force fed half dollar coins... through their urethra.

I could go on with examples, but I won't. Going "eye for an eye" (or "life, torture and gang rape for a rape") would lead us very quickly into Middle Eastern type "justice". It's good to talk and vent about it, but it doesn't work in real life.

*Treason is the only non-murder crime I believe that always deserves the death penalty.

Ant

LyricBoy, although I share the sentiments you and Erin have expressed, I hope you two are only half serious. The again, I say in full seriousness that publically barbecueing child rapists *is* a good idea, at least in my fantasies. The problem lies in that some (many?) of my fantasies and ideas are unrealistic in this world, something I am able to see. No one has sympathy for child rapists, but if we allow the death penalty for crimes that did not result in the willful death of another*, where do we stop? ...

~Enron-type cases. Anyone who willfully screws a lot of people out of their money is morally bankrupt and probably deserves death.. maybe a good old fashioned, passionate, ass rape before their execution by being force fed half dollar coins... through their urethra.

I could go on with examples, but I won't. Going "eye for an eye" (or "life, torture and gang rape for a rape") would lead us very quickly into Middle Eastern type "justice". It's good to talk and vent about it, but it doesn't work in real life.

Ant


Half dollar coins?  Good idea ... in commemoration of the majority opinion in this case, we should honor Justice Kennedy by using a full roll of Kennedy Half Dollars.  First dipped in the finest habanero pepper juice.

Half dollar coins?  Good idea ... in commemoration of the majority opinion in this case, we should honor Justice Kennedy by using a full roll of Kennedy Half Dollars.  First dipped in the finest habanero pepper juice.


Why stop with habanero peppers? http://www.hotternell.com/pure_capsaicin_powder.htm

Let's add ground glass, salt and alcohol to the coins as well.

Do we use the 90% silver 1964 Kennedy half dollars, or the 40% 1965-1969 ones?

Do we attempt to push the coins through edge-wise or across the face?

Ant

Good question!

Not sure where I fall. On the one hand, this is a heinous crime no matter how you look at it and one could certainly make the argument that many victims are simply unable to lead normal lives, therefore it's not all that much of a reach to claim that their lives have been taken away from them, or at the very least, permanently and detrimentally altered.

On the other hand, if the rape occurs and the child is not killed, is the 'eye for an eye' principal really the right course to take?

As a father and grandfather I have mixed feelings about this.  If someone were to rape one of mine I would want to kill him, no doubt.  Many years ago one of my daughters was molested - not raped but fondled- she was 13.  I came very close to killing the guy - or at least cutting him up.  I guess that's a natural reaction from the father of a victim, but I'm not sure it should be the reaction of the state.  I'm not talking rehab here, but death might be too harsh. 

The whole hysteria lean has me concerned too.  The whole area of sex crimes is too broad to be guided by one Supreme Court decision.  As the victim of a crime that could have been avenged by the death penalty I have a one thing to say.  Yes, what happened to me was horrible but I don't feel taking a life will do me a bit of good.


Good points. Killing someone still doesn't make "okay" the person who the crime was committed against.

Ant

Good points. Killing someone still doesn't make "okay" the person who the crime was committed against.

Ant


That is what people do not understand about the death penalty.  it is not about making the victim "feel OK".  It is not about "rehabilitating the perp".

It is simply about PUNISHMENT.  Removing a blot from the face of the earth.

Obama understands this.

Why stop with habanero peppers? http://www.hotternell.com/pure_capsaicin_powder.htm

Let's add ground glass, salt and alcohol to the coins as well.

Do we use the 90% silver 1964 Kennedy half dollars, or the 40% 1965-1969 ones?

Do we attempt to push the coins through edge-wise or across the face?

Ant


1.  I think the alcohol would serve to dilute the capcsasin, so leave out the alcohol.

2.  Go with the 65-69 models.  Need to control the costs.  Or perhaps go with Eisenhower dollars, they're a tad bigger I think.

3.  Edgewise or across the face?  I assumed that we were talking about a ROLL of coins.  Administered sideways, natch.

Final touch, the perp's defense lawyer gets paid in the form of the aforementioned roll of coils.

Whilst the above punishment may seem to be cruel and unusual, and may be thought by some to violate the US Constitution, there is a real change of opinions growing in the U. S. of A., and even the world that shows more people wanting for this sort of thing to happen.  So... in the name of popular opinion... Justice kennedy should have no problem approving this punishment in a future SCOTUS decision.

Good points. Killing someone still doesn't make "okay" the person who the crime was committed against.

Ant


I can see making the person go through what the victim went through but the death penalty would lead into further emotional distress for some.  It would put me in worse shape then I am.

That is what people do not understand about the death penalty.  it is not about making the victim "feel OK".  It is not about "rehabilitating the perp".

It is simply about PUNISHMENT.  Removing a blot from the face of the earth.

Obama understands this.


So, the victim has no say.  Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of justice?  What it sounds like to me is resorting to revenge and not justice.

I was glad to see Obama come out and speak against the SCOTUS decision, for two reasons.

One, it shows that he has the capability to not go along with the pack, like the 5 judges did.

Secondly he specifically stated that while he does not believe that the death penalty is much of a deterrent, it is in fact, appropriate PUNISHMENT for a heinous crime.  Wow... a popular democratic politician that understands that there is such a thing as PUNISHMENT and that the justice system is not supposed to simply be about "reforming" people.  Gotta give Obama props on that.  Good man, that Obama.


And I'm not sure you can reform violent pedophiles.  I certainly believe in punishment for crimes; however, I don't trust governments enough to apply the capital punishment without putting innocent people to death, and that's aside from more philosophical problems I have with the death penalty. 

I love Obama, but he's still a politician and he's still trying to win the office of the Big Cheese.  You put "crime-sex-child" in any sentence and Americans get hysterical.  I don't blame Obama fro saying what he did.
::)

And I'm not sure you can reform violent pedophiles.  I certainly believe in punishment for crimes; however, I don't trust governments enough to apply the capital punishment without putting innocent people to death, and that's aside from more philosophical problems I have with the death penalty. 

I love Obama, but he's still a politician and he's still trying to win the office of the Big Cheese.  You put "crime-sex-child" in any sentence and Americans get hysterical.  I don't blame Obama fro saying what he did.
::)


Have you ever read Foucault's book Discipline and Punishment?  He addresses a lot of the uncertainties about the death penalty.  For some of us it's not as easy as flipping the switch and turning on the juice.http://www.comicguide.net/images/smilies/elektro.gif

I have  very mixed feeling about the D.P in general, but I lean toward opposition.  In part for the same reason Max opposes - too many innocent people have died (but one is too many).

That is what people do not understand about the death penalty.  it is not about making the victim "feel OK".  It is not about "rehabilitating the perp".

It is simply about PUNISHMENT.  Removing a blot from the face of the earth.

Obama understands this.


For me, the issue is...  how much do you trust the government?  I don't trust it much at all.  I would like to keep the power over life and death out of the hands of the government even in these cases.  Wartime and national security are the only areas where I think the government should have power over life and death.

For me, the issue is...  how much do you trust the government?  I don't trust it much at all.  I would like to keep the power over life and death out of the hands of the government even in these cases.  Wartime and national security are the only areas where I think the government should have power over life and death.


Allowing child rapists to walk amongst us is not my idea of national security.

Allowing child rapists to walk amongst us is not my idea of national security.


Why not?  They've been known to walk around congress.  Can the government control or at least monitor crime?  They don't have the ability.

Allowing child rapists to walk amongst us is not my idea of national security.


I don't think you'll find many people willing to allow that unless the person has served his/her time.  I'm arguing against the death penalty, not against life imprisonment.

Why not?  They've been known to walk around congress.  Can the government control or at least monitor crime?  They don't have the ability.

Well, you gotta let 'em out.  They need those cells for potheads! 
::)

I mean, who said anything about letting them walk around among us?  I said, lock them up and throw away the key!
Nobody should get a second chance to do that!
:o

I don't think you'll find many people willing to allow that unless the person has served his/her time.  I'm arguing against the death penalty, not against life imprisonment.


Unless they served their time?

Well, you gotta let 'em out.  They need those cells for potheads! 
::)

I mean, who said anything about letting them walk around among us?  I said, lock them up and throw away the key!
Nobody should get a second chance to do that!
:o


They do, until they're caught.  I find it a bit disturbing that people like Mark Foley were chair of the caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.

As for the second chance.  That rarely happens.

Unless they served their time?


I'm operating under the assumption that there may have been cases where child rape did not lead to a life sentence but instead incurred something like 20 to 30 years.  If I'm not mistaken, the typical punishment is 20 years.

They do, until they're caught.  I find it a bit disturbing that people like Mark Foley were chair of the caucus for Missing and Exploited Children.


Disturbing, yes.  Surprising, no. 

Mark Foley, chairing an organization dedicated to protecting the children, couldn't possibly have been asking underage Congressional pages if they were "jackin it".  Larry Craig, with a consistent voting record against gay rights, must have been straight.  (And just how did that former gay prostitute get himself a White House press pass using the nom de plume "Talon News"?)  Across the aisle, we've got Democratic congressmen with $40,000 in cash stuffed in a fridge claiming that the FBI has no right to enter their office, and Eliot "The Untouchable" Spitzer consistently argued for aggressive data mining as a means of ferreting out money launderers, and it was just such a pattern of cash transactions that brought his $4000/hour for unprotected-buttsecks-with-hookers to the light of law enforcement.

Where's the last place anyone would look for the devil?  In church. 

We've known about this phenomenon since Shakespeare first wrote "methinks thou dost protest too much".  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, and we see it in its grandest form when people who are above the law overestimate their immunity.

Disturbing, yes.  Surprising, no. 

Mark Foley, chairing an organization dedicated to protecting the children, couldn't possibly have been asking underage Congressional pages if they were "jackin it".  Larry Craig, with a consistent voting record against gay rights, must have been straight.  (And just how did that former gay prostitute get himself a White House press pass using the nom de plume "Talon News"?)  Across the aisle, we've got Democratic congressmen with $40,000 in cash stuffed in a fridge claiming that the FBI has no right to enter their office, and Eliot "The Untouchable" Spitzer consistently argued for aggressive data mining as a means of ferreting out money launderers, and it was just such a pattern of cash transactions that brought his $4000/hour for unprotected-buttsecks-with-hookers to the light of law enforcement.

Where's the last place anyone would look for the devil?  In church. 

We've known about this phenomenon since Shakespeare first wrote "methinks thou dost protest too much".  The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, and we see it in its grandest form when people who are above the law overestimate their immunity.

Ronald Reagan certainly didn't overestimate his.  The foul old pr*ck got away with bloody murder!
::)

I'm operating under the assumption that there may have been cases where child rape did not lead to a life sentence but instead incurred something like 20 to 30 years.  If I'm not mistaken, the typical punishment is 20 years.



The argument against Megan's Law is just that.  If the perpetrator has served their sentence, then some aspect of Megan's Law and how the public reacts to the people on the Megan's Law list violates the perpetrator's constitutional rights.

Ronald Reagan certainly didn't overestimate his.  The foul old pr*ck got away with bloody murder!
::)


Ronnie did a lot of illegal crap that the average person would have done serious time for.  The reason he got away with it is because he was Ronald Reagan.

Ronnie did a lot of illegal crap that the average person would have done serious time for.  The reason he got away with it is because he was Ronald Reagan.

"Grandpa Caligula" as Jello Biafra used to call him!
::)

I have mixed feelings about Megan's Law myself.  The civil libertarian in me says you pay your debt to society; you should be allowed to rejoin the group as a citizen.  On the other hand, the pragmatist in me knows violent pedophiles are often beyond rehabilitation; if they're going to be living in our neighborhoods, we as citizens should have the right to know. 

Sometimes life is frustrating because there are no easy answers.
:(

"Grandpa Caligula" as Jello Biafra used to call him!
::)

I have mixed feelings about Megan's Law myself.  The civil libertarian in me says you pay your debt to society; you should be allowed to rejoin the group as a citizen.  On the other hand, the pragmatist in me knows violent pedophiles are often beyond rehabilitation; if they're going to be living in our neighborhoods, we as citizens should have the right to know. 

Sometimes life is frustrating because there are no easy answers.
:(


Requiring sex offenders to "register" I have no problem with.

However the ordinances that some states and cities are putting in, which restrict where a sex prevert can live or work (no preverts within 10 miles of an elementary school" etc...) are patently overrestrictive and inevitably wuill be ruled as unconstitutional.  There are some towns which have put in rules such, that if you comply with them, you cold live nowhere in the town.  That is clearly wrong.

Requiring sex offenders to "register" I have no problem with.

However the ordinances that some states and cities are putting in, which restrict where a sex prevert can live or work (no preverts within 10 miles of an elementary school" etc...) are patently overrestrictive and inevitably wuill be ruled as unconstitutional.  There are some towns which have put in rules such, that if you comply with them, you cold live nowhere in the town.  That is clearly wrong.

Agreed.  I also think the registration requirement should be reserved for sex offenders who had one or more victims under the age of 17.  Of course, this is not to de-emphasize the criminality of sex offenders who prey on adults. 

Requiring sex offenders to "register" I have no problem with.

However the ordinances that some states and cities are putting in, which restrict where a sex prevert can live or work (no preverts within 10 miles of an elementary school" etc...) are patently overrestrictive and inevitably wuill be ruled as unconstitutional.  There are some towns which have put in rules such, that if you comply with them, you cold live nowhere in the town.  That is clearly wrong.


I just find it odd that we have sex offender registries, but not murderer ones.  I think murder is usually a lot worse than rape.

Also, as Red has often pointed out before, you can become classed as a sex offender for doing something as minor as pissing in your backyard.

I just find it odd that we have sex offender registries, but not murderer ones.  I think murder is usually a lot worse than rape.

Also, as Red has often pointed out before, you can become classed as a sex offender for doing something as minor as pissing in your backyard.

"You said 'rape' twice?"
"I like rape!"
Sorry, more Mel Brooks...

Yeah, let's have at the murderers. 

"I'm telling you, that nice guy Ted who  moved in nextdoor , he's the Ted Bundy!
"Come on Scott, he was executed twenty years ago!"
"That's what they want you to believe that's what they want you to believe, Jen, they're really just shifting him around from town to town 'coz he helped them catch Gary Rideridgeway!"
:D

And that's just what I said when a guy in Massatwosheeshs had to register as a sex offender because he was drunk and he talk whizzz off the front porch, and the neighbor kids saw it, like eeeew gross out gag me with a spoon, and so our humble porch-peeing fellow ends up on the same list with Captain Bluebeard and the witch in the gingerbread house!  That was a dual-purpose implement, what you saw could become open and gross lewdness, but as it was it was merely open and gross grossness!
:o

Requiring sex offenders to "register" I have no problem with.

However the ordinances that some states and cities are putting in, which restrict where a sex prevert can live or work (no preverts within 10 miles of an elementary school" etc...) are patently overrestrictive and inevitably wuill be ruled as unconstitutional.  There are some towns which have put in rules such, that if you comply with them, you cold live nowhere in the town.  That is clearly wrong.



would you want to live next door to a pervert if you had a child? I see nothing wrong with letting the public know EXACTLY where these monsters are. If they aren't locking them up and throwing away the key...then the world has a right to know if they are living next door to scum.

would you want to live next door to a pervert if you had a child? 


Depends on who goes on the registry.

If the "offence" was against someone under 18 years (and the offender was more than 2-3 years away in age from the victim, or the offender was in any position of authority over the victim), I'd gladly turn a blind eye to anyone dishing out whatever form of vigilante justice they wanted.  "Sorry, Officer, I must have had my headphones turned up too loud.  Didn't hear any screams at all.  Why'd you ask?"

If the "offence" was an 18-year-old who celebrated his birthday by having sex with his 17-years-and-eleven-month-old girlfriend back in the 60s, I'd have no problem.  If his offense was "indecent exposure" and the backstory involved streaking across campus in a drunken stupor at 3 in the morning, or better yet, for mooning the Dean during graduation ceremonies, I'd probably shake his hand.

Depends on who goes on the registry.

If the "offence" was against someone under 18 years (and the offender was more than 2-3 years away in age from the victim, or the offender was in any position of authority over the victim), I'd gladly turn a blind eye to anyone dishing out whatever form of vigilante justice they wanted.  "Sorry, Officer, I must have had my headphones turned up too loud.  Didn't hear any screams at all.  Why'd you ask?"

If the "offence" was an 18-year-old who celebrated his birthday by having sex with his 17-years-and-eleven-month-old girlfriend back in the 60s, I'd have no problem.  If his offense was "indecent exposure" and the backstory involved streaking across campus in a drunken stupor at 3 in the morning, or better yet, for mooning the Dean during graduation ceremonies, I'd probably shake his hand.



I agree.

Requiring sex offenders to "register" I have no problem with.

However the ordinances that some states and cities are putting in, which restrict where a sex prevert can live or work (no preverts within 10 miles of an elementary school" etc...) are patently overrestrictive and inevitably wuill be ruled as unconstitutional.  There are some towns which have put in rules such, that if you comply with them, you cold live nowhere in the town.  That is clearly wrong.


Exactly.

would you want to live next door to a pervert if you had a child? I see nothing wrong with letting the public know EXACTLY where these monsters are. If they aren't locking them up and throwing away the key...then the world has a right to know if they are living next door to scum.


Are you aware that people have been "charged" with child molestation for hugging their own child?  Yes, it's been known to happen where one parent is out to get the other.  No offense, but the margin of error in child molestation leaves your assertion that all are monsters a bit hasty.

^I agree.
Sometimes i can't help but wonder if this issue isn't being blown out of proportion. It always has been something that happened more inside close doors where the state has really no way to find out. Plus even if it's good that every case is reported i'm not sure all the media exploration of these type of crimes helps. In fact i believe it incites it by making sure we all know every little sordid detail. When i first heard about infant abuse i was shocked because i didn't realised how could a baby be seen as a sexual being and to be honest i still don't, but i think someone who has already a very sick mind can start to wonder the appeal of it and become a predator. I'm not saying they're not to blame but what is being done is clearly not helping.

Are you aware that people have been "charged" with child molestation for hugging their own child?  Yes, it's been known to happen where one parent is out to get the other.  No offense, but the margin of error in child molestation leaves your assertion that all are monsters a bit hasty.



I'm clearly not talking about someone who was accused of hugging their child, or someone who is 18 and happened to have a girlfriend who was 17....that's nonsense. There should be specifications when someone has a charge against them, and I think THAT needs to be known..not just generally stating that someone is a pedo or pervert. I've been on the Megan's Law website (because yes, I want to know if some sicko lives in my neighborhood), and it isn't too clear on what EXACTLY went on with the person. I believe THAT needs to be addressed to the public..not just some blanket statement regarding them being caught in a lewd/sexual act, etc.

And I would think that you would be able to understand the reason why I use the term "monster"....it's obvious I am talking about the real sick f**ks who molest/rape/touch a little kid, not some horny 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend....or a vindictive parent that is out to get their ex by accusing them of "hugging" their kid. ::)

I'm clearly not talking about someone who was accused of hugging their child, or someone who is 18 and happened to have a girlfriend who was 17....that's nonsense. There should be specifications when someone has a charge against them, and I think THAT needs to be known..not just generally stating that someone is a pedo or pervert. I've been on the Megan's Law website (because yes, I want to know if some sicko lives in my neighborhood), and it isn't too clear on what EXACTLY went on with the person. I believe THAT needs to be addressed to the public..not just some blanket statement regarding them being caught in a lewd/sexual act, etc.

And I would think that you would be able to understand the reason why I use the term "monster"....it's obvious I am talking about the real sick f**ks who molest/rape/touch a little kid, not some horny 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend....or a vindictive parent that is out to get their ex by accusing them of "hugging" their kid. ::)


On the PA website it is specific as to what charges.  Most times you can figure out which ones are pretty dangerous.  I understand what you're saying.  I find it nonsense that they put the names of people who the community should not have a concern about. 

The Megan's Law website doesn't specify however horny 18 year old with 17 year old girlfriend or vindictive parent because it isn't that specific.  I think that's what I was getting at.

The whole Megan's Law thing needs to be revamped for clarity.

On the PA website it is specific as to what charges.  Most times you can figure out which ones are pretty dangerous.  I understand what you're saying.  I find it nonsense that they put the names of people who the community should not have a concern about. 

The Megan's Law website doesn't specify however horny 18 year old with 17 year old girlfriend or vindictive parent because it isn't that specific.  I think that's what I was getting at.

The whole Megan's Law thing needs to be revamped for clarity.



I agree.

On the PA website it is specific as to what charges.  Most times you can figure out which ones are pretty dangerous.  I understand what you're saying.  I find it nonsense that they put the names of people who the community should not have a concern about. 

The Megan's Law website doesn't specify however horny 18 year old with 17 year old girlfriend or vindictive parent because it isn't that specific.  I think that's what I was getting at.

The whole Megan's Law thing needs to be revamped for clarity.

Fuzzy law is not good law (rule 34). 

Aggravated sexual assault on a person under the age of 14 is the kind of thing I mean a guy shouldn't get a second chance to do!

I tend to feel that child rapists should be put to death.  I equate child rape with murder because of all the damage it causes the child for the rest of their lives well into adulthood ......but in many cases these victims are so scarred that they end up committing suicide before they even reach adulthood. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/ts_nm/usa_execution_rape_dc;_ylt=AtR_OqP04NQL9kphP1Q5u92s0NUE

In my opinion the ruling may be too broad.

I know there are some strong opinions on this so fire away.


castration including the penis just replace it with fish tank tubing. Then a pre frontal lobotomy would fill the ticket.
As a parent of a child who was molested at four years old, no punishment would be considered too cruel.

Or maybe spinal cord damage, leaving the brain intact thenperforming horrific acts. If life in prision is the sentence everyday should be pain and torment filled.

I'm for just letting them go if they promise to never do it again!
:D

(ducks)

I'm for just letting them go if they promise to never do it again!
:D

(ducks)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/eek2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/rocketwhore.gif

castration including the penis just replace it with fish tank tubing. Then a pre frontal lobotomy would fill the ticket.
As a parent of a child who was molested at four years old, no punishment would be considered too cruel.

Or maybe spinal cord damage, leaving the brain intact thenperforming horrific acts. If life in prision is the sentence everyday should be pain and torment filled.


If you don't castrate right it can cause a person to bleed to death.  What about female offenders? 

If you don't castrate right it can cause a person to bleed to death.  What about female offenders? 


The angst that people feel towards child rape is understandable, but it shouldn't remove people's ability to discern the fact that the justice system isn't 100% accurate.  If castration did become the punishment, we'd end up castrating quite a few wrongfully accused people.

If you don't castrate right it can cause a person to bleed to death.  What about female offenders? 

There are indeed female offenders.  They are far fewer and the nature of their offenses is usually less violent; however, this does not make them benign, let alone comical, which a lot of men seem to think female sex offenders are.  They tend to do long-term emotional damage to their victims.

Men tend to talk of the hot twenty-something teacher having sex with the 13-year-old boy in terms of "Sure wish I had her for a teacher!"  Whereas, women -- and male victims of sexual abuse -- tend to have a more realistic point of view.

There are indeed female offenders.  They are far fewer and the nature of their offenses is usually less violent; however, this does not make them benign, let alone comical, which a lot of men seem to think female sex offenders are.  They tend to do long-term emotional damage to their victims.

Men tend to talk of the hot twenty-something teacher having sex with the 13-year-old boy in terms of "Sure wish I had her for a teacher!"  Whereas, women -- and male victims of sexual abuse -- tend to have a more realistic point of view.



True enough, similar punishment would have to be administered for female offenders as well. Although I do think that a person who has sex with a kid of maybe 15 or 16 with consent should not be considered a sex offender.
I am talking about the sick people who rape anyone.  Rape is a crime of violence not sex. And we do not have a foolproof way of telling if we have the right perp. Look at all the people who claim rape because they have a fight or whatever reason.

When I was 10 a guy who was babysitting us touched me in an inappropriate place, and tried to get me to kiss him. I told my Dad and funny but that guy was gone and we never saw him again.
It never even occurred to me until many years later what had happened. It didn't scar me for life or anything, it just didn't occur to me that I had in fact been molested.

True enough, similar punishment would have to be administered for female offenders as well. Although I do think that a person who has sex with a kid of maybe 15 or 16 with consent should not be considered a sex offender.
I am talking about the sick people who rape anyone.  Rape is a crime of violence not sex. And we do not have a foolproof way of telling if we have the right perp. Look at all the people who claim rape because they have a fight or whatever reason.

When I was 10 a guy who was babysitting us touched me in an inappropriate place, and tried to get me to kiss him. I told my Dad and funny but that guy was gone and we never saw him again.
It never even occurred to me until many years later what had happened. It didn't scar me for life or anything, it just didn't occur to me that I had in fact been molested.

Sorry to hear you went through that.  I know several women who have had such lone incidences with teachers or babysittters in which there was some inappropriate feel-copping, but no heavy-duty sexual assault.  There are gradients.  Fondling a person under the age of 14 should carry a lighter penalty than aggravated rape of a person under the age of 14. 

Reversal of the sexes, say a 15-year-old male and a 27-year-old female, can be a mitigating factor.  Some male victims in such cases sometimes say they're not victims at all and they're glad that it happened.  OK.  It's still statuatory rape and many others do develop intimacy problems in relationships even if the kid thought it was what he wanted at the time.  Bimbos keep your hands to yourselves.  Your just as likely to wreck the young man's future marriage as you are to fulfill his wet dreams!
::)

Sorry to hear you went through that.  I know several women who have had such lone incidences with teachers or babysittters in which there was some inappropriate feel-copping, but no heavy-duty sexual assault.  There are gradients.  Fondling a person under the age of 14 should carry a lighter penalty than aggravated rape of a person under the age of 14. 

Reversal of the sexes, say a 15-year-old male and a 27-year-old female, can be a mitigating factor.  Some male victims in such cases sometimes say they're not victims at all and they're glad that it happened.  OK.  It's still statuatory rape and many others do develop intimacy problems in relationships even if the kid thought it was what he wanted at the time.  Bimbos keep your hands to yourselves.  Your just as likely to wreck the young man's future marriage as you are to fulfill his wet dreams!
::)


Yes you are right about that, sometimes what we want, and have in youth does have a tendency to screw up our adult lives. Or sometimes it just takes enough intestinal fortitude (and therapy) to overcome it and move on.But I do believe that a 16 yr old person is capable of making the decision of consenting to mutual sex. Lots of people lose their virginity to older kids. I don't mean 35 year old pedophiles, I mean like late teens twenty somethings.
I know that when the time was right for me we were both virgins... ::) and had been together for three years through most of high school. And it wasn't because of some bullsheesh pledge we had signed,or  fear of Aids ( it was unknown at the time) it was because we respected each other enough to not put the pressure on. And we were in love. We broke up two years later, but I never regret the decision. I was 17.
I still have his picture and we  email every now and again. That was 33 years ago.

I do believe that a 16 yr old person is capable of making the decision of consenting to mutual sex.
that's what i told the judge!

i kid. two years is actually a good run when you're that age. i lost my virginity in a bitter one-night stand, kind of a sad story. so it could be worse.

True enough, similar punishment would have to be administered for female offenders as well. Although I do think that a person who has sex with a kid of maybe 15 or 16 with consent should not be considered a sex offender.
I am talking about the sick people who rape anyone.  Rape is a crime of violence not sex. And we do not have a foolproof way of telling if we have the right perp. Look at all the people who claim rape because they have a fight or whatever reason.

When I was 10 a guy who was babysitting us touched me in an inappropriate place, and tried to get me to kiss him. I told my Dad and funny but that guy was gone and we never saw him again.
It never even occurred to me until many years later what had happened. It didn't scar me for life or anything, it just didn't occur to me that I had in fact been molested.


Statically women offenders are rarely brought to justice.  I was molested by my sister for quite a few years.  When she left the house I tried to press charges but I was called a liar.  What was their reasoning . . . because sister just don't do that.  Not only did she molest me but she also got a hold of my niece who was less than two.  She finally was put behind bars because when of her 6 year old victims told.  What would you do with my sister?  Her reason for doing it was "that's what she thought love was."  WTF, if that's love I'll pass.

Statically women offenders are rarely brought to justice.  I was molested by my sister for quite a few years.  When she left the house I tried to press charges but I was called a liar.  What was their reasoning . . . because sister just don't do that.  Not only did she molest me but she also got a hold of my niece who was less than two.  She finally was put behind bars because when of her 6 year old victims told.   What would you do with my sister?  Her reason for doing it was "that's what she thought love was."  WTF, if that's love I'll pass.

I didn't have the perfect Norman Rockwell family myself!  I'm often hesitant to start in on sh*t I used to go through because it might freak people out!  I was not physically molested, but my folks had a penchant for uncouth behavior and salty talk.  My parents' angry hippie philosophy was that the repression from our Victorian heritage they were taought growing up made people look at sexuality as shameful and pornographic.  So you don't censor anything from the kid's eyes and ears, he winds up feeling sexuality is shameful and pornographic....

I'm not attempting to equate severity here, I'm just saying people get excessively nervous about this stuff when they hear about it.  You worry about getting judged yourself for the sins of others!
::)

I didn't have the perfect Norman Rockwell family myself!  I'm often hesitant to start in on sh*t I used to go through because it might freak people out!  I was not physically molested, but my folks had a penchant for uncouth behavior and salty talk.  My parents' angry hippie philosophy was that the repression from our Victorian heritage they were taought growing up made people look at sexuality as shameful and pornographic.  So you don't censor anything from the kid's eyes and ears, he winds up feeling sexuality is shameful and pornographic....

I'm not attempting to equate severity here, I'm just saying people get excessively nervous about this stuff when they hear about it.  You worry about getting judged yourself for the sins of others!
::)


I just hit the tip of the iceberg of personal sh*t to make a relevant point.  What you went through is a form of abuse.

In any case it's obviously more acceptable to talk about stuff like this than ever before.

Yeah, I know.  You go through life mentally screaming "I am not that person."  Then you kind of wonder why you're not.

that's what i told the judge!

i kid. two years is actually a good run when you're that age. i lost my virginity in a bitter one-night stand, kind of a sad story. so it could be worse.


I'm sorry to hear that. I trust things improved over the years? ;)

I just hit the tip of the iceberg of personal sh*t to make a relevant point.  What you went through is a form of abuse.

In any case it's obviously more acceptable to talk about stuff like this than ever before.

Yeah, I know.  You go through life mentally screaming "I am not that person."  Then you kind of wonder why you're not.


One of the worst things to require of children is keeping adult secrets.  If my friends' parents knew what I knew about my parents, they wouldn't like their kids hanging out with me, and I knew it at the time! 

Of course, it didn't help living in a conservative little New Hampshire town.  I think if we lived in San Jose in the '70s I would have had more friends whose parents also smoked pot and looked at pornography!
::)