A "Let Them Rot" bill for Repeat Sexual Offenders

[Ceicei]

Here is a section of the article:

The bill provides a framework for mandatory increased sentences for repeat sex offenders. For some grievous crimes, multiple convictions would draw a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
[Rep. Carl] Wimmer had originally wanted to get a death penalty for certain types of habitual sex offenders.

For the entire article, click on the link below:

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

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[Ping898]

I have no problem with the increased time and the life without parole. Hell I think original sentences should be harsher. However, I am against the death penalty...I'd rather force these guys to be studied and analyzed and put them through various medical trials for all I care to find out what makes them tick and maybe find a way to 'cure' this. Besides if TV is anything to go by, what happens to these guys after other convicts find out they hurt children, I would think would be a MUCH better punishment then death. I don't think stuff like that should happen, but since I know it does.....

 

[Ceicei]

Well, if it is a mindset that could not be cured, then I'm all for it. If there is found to be a genetic "switch", then perhaps that would be a way use this advantage against them. Keeping them alive for this purpose would be good.

However, that will not stop those who are already proven to be past the rehabilitation stage (I'm thinking of individuals such as Dahmer). How many times should they be allowed to go (if under the current revolving door system) and re-commit their actions before we can say enough is enough and put them in without parole or to death?

- Ceicei

 

[grydth]

Amen.

A social worker I knew who'd tried to work with these types told me the recidivism rate was always close to 100%, no matter what they tried.

Our society desperately needs to regain the courage it once had in facing down these monsters. That means - - - Decades long initial sentences.......no parole......no contact with children if ever released.

I am very tired of hearing spurious excuses to support more government interference in our lives because it's, "for the children"...... while predatory pederasts happily skip free from courtrooms and prisons... to do it all again.

Oh, and the next time you see some politician pleading for restoring the vote to convited felons, just remember what it really means: giving exactly the same say you have in government to serial child molesters. Wonderful concept.

 

[Kacey]

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

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

 

[MJS]

Here is a section of the article:



For the entire article, click on the link below:

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

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

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

- Ceicei

I'm all for the increased time. As for the death penalty...as much as some may deserve it due to a specific crime they commit, in the long run, the offenders are better off getting life w/o parole. I say this because of the length of time the entire process takes. It seems like a never ending process and with the appeal process, is it worth subjecting the families to relive the tragic experience over and over? IMO, no. Keep in mind that child molesters are not very well liked in the prison system. Chances are, once word gets out, the other inmates will dish out their own jailhouse justice.

Mike

 

[bluemtn]

I'm all for additional time, and in cases of violent offenders I'd say the death penalty. If the offender claims insanity or something- have them committed for a long time.

 

[exile]

My preference: put them in for life. No chance of parole, under any condition, any at all. No speciall protection, no segration in prison.

Take no special steps to keep the inmate community from knowing what these individuals are in there for...

 

[Dave Leverich]

I vote for castration.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

My preference: put them in for life. No chance of parole, under any condition, any at all. No speciall protection, no segration in prison.

Take no special steps to keep the inmate community from knowing what these individuals are in there for...

While I understand your sentiments regarding their place in the prison population, I don't think that it would be good for us as a society to encourage or allow vigilante justice - whether within prison walls or outside of them.

That being said, I think Nevada gets this one right. If the victim is under fourteen, IIRC, there is LIFE with NO possiblity of parole. Compare that to California, where I live (a supposed child welfare concerned state) where within the square mile in which I live there are TWO registered sex offenders whose victims were under fourteen.

It's a serious issue that truly requires a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY. We can have one for drugs and alcohol offenses - why not for the victimization of our children?

 

[still learning]

Hello, Most studies find that sexual crimes/predators, ARE NEVER CURE! Very few can return to normal state of mind.

Everytime we release one...they will go back to what they like doing...more sexual crimes, NEVER ENDING for them....Sex is a strong human drive/instinct.

It takes about $40,000 a year to house and care for a criminal today and the cost keep growing up. Repeat offenders do 70% of the crimes today (FBI records).

Your tax dollars are going to take care of them for years to life? Can you keep paying taxes for this? In Hawaii we spend only $8,000.00 to keep a child in school.

Today prisons are so over crowded...that one goes in....and someone has to make space, so those inside gets early release's only to go back in later for a repeated crime.....in/out....in/out....you see it everyday.....in/out...in/out

Hope the next guy they release does not harm you or your family?

Why do we keep the bad guys around for? Church and State is suppose to be separate thinking.

What can these terrible people contribute to society? besides getting lawyer more money...states with less money...our courts so crowded schedules...trials take so long....and in/out....in/out......burgers?

 

[bushidomartialarts]

a good start. most studies show that these people can't be cured. side question: a lot of recent study has shown that certain behaviors before or during adolescence have an almost 100% correlation with violent adult crimes. are we as a society permitted to segregate, watch or otherwise interfere with people who demonstrate those behaviors before they hurt their first victim?

 

[Ceicei]

a good start. most studies show that these people can't be cured. side question: a lot of recent study has shown that certain behaviors before or during adolescence have an almost 100% correlation with violent adult crimes. are we as a society permitted to segregate, watch or otherwise interfere with people who demonstrate those behaviors before they hurt their first victim?

Interesting premise.

I think there have been some action taken in a sense, especially with animal cruelty laws. Some states have toughened up on animal cruelty as they have found that those who start out abusing animals often led to domestic violence, and then in a few cases, to homicide.

How early would you suggest we look at behavior? Take, for example, the playing of violent video games or viewing of pornography? Many who have commited some shootings have indications of previously playing violent games or those who do pedophilia may have child pornography. However, none of these are good markers though. How many people in society play these kinds of games and aren't guilty of violence? How many have viewed hard care magazines and never go out to sexually abuse others?

What then would you suggest would be the criteria for early observation? I say it really isn't very possible at this time.

- Ceicei

 

[bushidomartialarts]

just a note....not to hijack this thread, i went and started a new one on this topic.

 

[Ceicei]

just a note....not to hijack this thread, i went and started a new one on this topic.

Appreciated! :uhyeah:

 

[Jonathan Randall]

just a note....not to hijack this thread, i went and started a new one on this topic.

Good job.


BTW, I think the term "repeat offenders" in and of itself is an outrage. How many times is one person to be allowed to victimize others? How about ONE offense (provided it is well proven and serious) and then goodbye for a good long time?

 

[Don Roley]

As long as there are provisions to prevent the 19 year old caught with a 17 year old girlfriend, I think this law is needed all over the country.

We can't cure them and we never have. I think they should be put on some island and forced to support themselves on farms and the like. Keep them away from any potential victims after they are first discovered.

I also think stings should be set up to find these guys before they commit any crimes. If they are lured to a scene by a sting operation where they believe that some guy is going to let them sleep with their 8 year old daughter they should go off to the island for the rest of their life. This is even though as far as we know they have not harmed anyone yet.

It is not about punishment. It is about protection of children who have shown a willingness to harm them and we know they can't be cured.

So this bill is not enough since it does not seem to deal with attempted acts against a child.

 

[Drac]

I vote for castration.

The ACLU will never allow that law to be passed passed, darnnit...I'm a Death Penality supporter..Our prisons are over booked and it costs us BIG tax dollars..Read Still Learnings I'm for having "Child Molester" tattooed across his forehead before being released into GP..

 

[MJS]

a good start. most studies show that these people can't be cured. side question: a lot of recent study has shown that certain behaviors before or during adolescence have an almost 100% correlation with violent adult crimes. are we as a society permitted to segregate, watch or otherwise interfere with people who demonstrate those behaviors before they hurt their first victim?

Well, thats an interesting question IMO. I mean, if a child is showing certain signs of a disturbing behavior, a) is anyone doing anything about it, b) if not, they should be, c) if the treatment their getting is not working, I would hope that someone would start to look at other options.

Mike

 

[mrhnau]

As long as there are provisions to prevent the 19 year old caught with a 17 year old girlfriend, I think this law is needed all over the country.

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

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