Death Penalty for Molesters?

[mantis]

I seriously don't think that anyone would want to put kids to death. That isn't my point. My point is that with this type of deviance, there are some serious developmental issues. Most child molesters have long histories of violating as children. There is seriously something "broken" inside these people. It's like an uncontrollable addiction...a mental illness. With that being said, should we castrate or kill adults who are "suffering" from this affliction?

I think that a good metaphor for this are werewolves...

the thing is with forums is sometimes you find yourself having to give a black-or-white answer. It's like do you want to sentence them to death or not? Well it depends on the case. That's why we see cases in courts that take years and do not get resolved. It's not as clear as yeah kill them or 'oh no, they're kids or humans and shouldnt be killed'.

It could be a mental illness. People with certain degrees of mental illnesses could get locked up because they may cause harm on themselves, or others for that matter.

The thing is you can either make laws that for example ban kids or ladies from walking around without a protecting figure (yearrright), or make laws that force molestors to think 10 times before committing this crime for the first time knowing that once the first time happens this person should be considered a potential danger of the community.

 

[TonyMac]

Not a fan of the death penalty. On the other hand I can't agree with child molesters ever being out on the streets. They supposedly have a recovery rate of two or three per cent. I think these figures are inflated.

 

[MA-Caver]

My wife has worked with 9 year old "child" molesters and that is way more common then people want to think.

This sort of deviance is not a simple matter of do or do not. The fact that so many young kids are sex offenders should tell you that the developmental issues that people are poopooing in this thread are real.

Now, I'm not saying that if one of my children were abused by one of these kids I would be inclined towards mercy. I could only hope that our society would treat all parties objectively.

As with the adult perps that I've worked with I would be willing to bet that these 9 yr. olds are victims of some form of abuse/molestation themselves. From my experiences when a kid that young starts doing deviant "adult" behavior then it's a form of "acting-out" their own inner turmoil and confusion about what happened to them... or even, what's NOT happening to them... i.e. getting the help/attention they need.
I seriously doubt that a child's sexual deviancy is caused by the same motivation as an adult's, other than the physical gratification which would be derived from such actions. The mental and emotional stimulus is different I would think.
A child/boy that has been molested is most likely experiencing pain, confusion, curiosity (that's way too soon for their age) and overall anguish at what happened and thus without talking about it (keep it secret!!) they're trying to figure out what happened? Why? Questions ranging from: why me? did it feel good to him/her? (women can molest as well), what was going on? So in an effort to conciously or subconciously figure out what it's all about they'll find someone younger to basically re-enact what's been done to them.
It's the tragedy of it. Especially if they don't get caught. They'll grow up with this powerful memory of a powerful (sexual) stimulus because it's WRONG! I'll get into sooo much trouble!!! Damn that's exciting!!!
It's a vicious cycle and it can only be stopped/slowed down if the secret is broken... which is why it's terribly important for children to be taught that there are good touches, and bad touches... even by their own family members. Until that secretcy is broken, it will continue.

Either way we need to re-focus with THIS topic on the repeat ADULT offenders.
Repeat child offenders are an entirely different thing. THEY have a much higher chance of being helped and the deviantcy stopped and even reversed. With an adult, who would beat, torture, rape and continually molest a small child... then move on to find another one... get arrested, get therapy, get released from serving their time... then find another small child and do it all over again... c'mon you want to tell me that there's a chance for them?

 

[Drac]

Repeat child offenders are an entirely different thing. THEY have a much higher chance of being helped and the deviantcy stopped and even reversed.

Yes..I agree...

With an adult, who would beat torture, rape and continually molest a small child... then move on to find another one... get arrested, get therapy, get released from serving their time... then find another small child and do it all over again... c'mon you want to tell me that there's a chance for them?

I wouldn't tell you such a BS story.....Anyone who believes that "they" can be changed is just fooling themselves and inviting more trouble for their community...

 

[heretic888]

What is your opinion of this House bill that passed in South Carolina?

I oppose murder of any form, barring extreme circumstances.

Laterz.

 

[mrhnau]

I oppose murder of any form, barring extreme circumstances.

What would you consider extreme then? Is not one man violently murdering another considered extreme? Is not someone violently raping a woman extreme? Is someone molesting multiple children considered extreme? What are your qualifications for extreme? War? Self-defense? Murder?

 

[heretic888]

What would you consider extreme then? Is not one man violently murdering another considered extreme? Is not someone violently raping a woman extreme? Is someone molesting multiple children considered extreme? What are your qualifications for extreme? War? Self-defense? Murder?

No, I oppose the archaic bloodlust that so many of the others on this thread have appealed to. I think it's pretty barbaric.

"Blood for blood" just doesn't do it for me. . .

I think killing is tolerable in certain circumstances, such as self-defense or during war (military sniping immediately comes to mind).

Killing a defenseless person who is incarcerated isn't one of those times.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

What of the statistic that shows many of the 'abusers' of children are known to them?

And, rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of power.

Is child molestation a crime of sex, or of power? If it is a crime of power (as I believe it is), how would castration address that nature of the crime?

 

[Xue Sheng]

What of the statistic that shows many of the 'abusers' of children are known to them?

And, rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of power.

Is child molestation a crime of sex, or of power? If it is a crime of power (as I believe it is), how would castration address that nature of the crime?

Don't, don' care, we're talking about a child molester.

But the original post was

Death Penalty for Molesters?

Answer: Yes, works for me.

 

[Makalakumu]

Child molesters begin to perpetrate in their childhood. Sometimes treatment and therapy helps, other times it does not. The fact that therapy has any affect indicates that it is an illness. Therefore, is it fair to put to death a person who has not been cured of an illness? While it is true that the symptoms of this sickness are particulary foul, yet an illness is an illness...

Also, would it be fair to put someone to death who has been repeatedly locked up from exhibiting symptoms and has never received any therapy?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Child molesters begin to perpetrate in their childhood. Sometimes treatment and therapy helps, other times it does not. The fact that therapy has any affect indicates that it is an illness. Therefore, is it fair to put to death a person who has not been cured of an illness? While it is true that the symptoms of this sickness are particulary foul, yet an illness is an illness...

Also, would it be fair to put someone to death who has been repeatedly locked up from exhibiting symptoms and has never received any therapy?

OK, for exhibiting symptoms or committing 1 or more molestations?
And what Symptoms do the exhibit?

There is a big difference here symptoms indicates that they have not yet crossed that line and that therapy may have a chance, but doubtful in the case of Child molesters. Once they cross that line there is no going back.

Death penalty for:
Exhibiting Symptoms: No
Committing Molestation: Yes

Question was "Death Penalty for Molesters?"
not "Death Penalty for those you may suspect to become Molesters?"

 

[MA-Caver]

What of the statistic that shows many of the 'abusers' of children are known to them?

And, rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of power.

Is child molestation a crime of sex, or of power? If it is a crime of power (as I believe it is), how would castration address that nature of the crime?

It's been long documented the symbiosis of sex/violence/power. Removal of the sex drive would in effect remove the reward of exerting power/dominance over another human being.
Of the perps that discussed this correlation between power/control and sexual gratification, which is the blissful release of the tension brought on by the aforementioned exertion of one's dominance/power over their "victim".
Same principal applies to the reward brought on by copious amounts of money to (corrupt) politicians and other positions of power.
For molestors sex is the ultimate reward for their efforts in coerceing their victims to do what they want them to do. The perps all stated that the end of it all was mastrubation (read: sexual release of the tension brought on by the act(s) of molestation), but the end of their "cycles" was (their) sense of normalacy and back to their regularly scheduled program or life as they know it.
But they're hunters. Predators; always seeking their next victim. Mainly because they reached the apex of their cycle: guilt. Yes, "some" of them still retain their iniate sense of right and wrong and feel guilty for what they've done and their cycle demands the removal of that guilt. Thus the guilt brings on depression and despondancy and tension (what if I'm found out?) They'll revert to their tried and true method of their cycles of abuse. Befriend a family get their trust, spend time with their selected choice of victim and thus begin fantasizing about being with their object of attraction, being envious of the power the parents have over the child, desiring that power, because it's (for them) arousing. Then finding and working means to be alone with the child to enact those twisted fantasies until they obtained the sexual release of the tension that's been built up for those long days/weeks and even months.
Removal of the sexual desire by castration and you remove the "need" for rewarding by sexual release. They will have lost the desire. They will have lost the testosterone production needed to feel the desire for power, to have that "manly" feeling.
This is an over simplification of the physicological/psychological effects of testosterone and my knowledge of advanced (human) biology isn't sufficent but it's the basic concept of cause and effect.
Keep also in mind that I am talking about "adult" males here and not pre-teen boys, whom, I've stated before have entirely different (internal) motivations for their actions.
But the dual edge side of the castration sword is the perp may very well continue the abuse and torture of children and even go as far as attempted raping because psychologically they've been hard-wired (by themselves or as children) that this is what they need. But because their sex drive has been removed they will find it unfulfilling and baseless. They'll be frustrated and on a downward spirial. This spiral may include more violence and eventually suicide.
Thus my own advocacy of the death penalty for repeat ADULT offenders. They are not being of ANY benefit to our society what-so-ever, and by causing irrepairable harm to a small child lose their rights to live among us.
Stop looking for a moment at these sick and twisted adults and take a moment to watch small children at play. If your church has a primary class or something like it, volunteer for a couple of hours and then go home and think about someone sexualizing them for their own gratification of their need for power. Imagine the effect on the child. Then come back here and tell me those *******s need a second, third, fourth chance to live at all... even in your tax-dollar supported prisons.
:asian:

 

[Kacey]

Child molesters begin to perpetrate in their childhood. Sometimes treatment and therapy helps, other times it does not. The fact that therapy has any affect indicates that it is an illness. Therefore, is it fair to put to death a person who has not been cured of an illness? While it is true that the symptoms of this sickness are particulary foul, yet an illness is an illness...

Some do respond to therapy, some don't. I knew a 13 year-old who perpetrated on his 12 year-old sister; he was placed in juvenile detention, and his sister in foster care; seems he learned it when his grandmother perpetrated on him... it was, quite literally, a family tradition. In his case, it was a learned act that he could unlearn (and did, I heard some years later). For a portion of the population, this is the case, although there are many other explanations. Had this boy been caught later in life, after years of reinforcing his learned behavior with younger female family members (or others), should he have been put to death, or treated? Where is the line in such cases?

The issue of child molestation is much deeper than can be explained glibly away by "s/he suffers from an illness". In some cultures, it was normal for men in their 30s (proven providers) to marry girls in their mid-teens (most likely to be fertile; least likely to already be pregnant by another man); therefore, it was considered normal for men of all ages to be attracted to girls from 14-18. Some of this lingers on, as there is a genetic component to attraction; physical attraction is based on the perpetuation of the species, and as I said before, there are sound reasons for older men being attracted to younger women.

As far as your question about punishing a person who suffers from a mental illness, there are many possible scenarios here to consider:

- some people receive treatment and it works, but may require daily medication for life - so like diabetics, they are in treatment - not cured

- some receive treatment and it doesn't work - many people are diagnosed with a specific ailment after the fact, based on the medication that worked and the ailment it is a treatment for

- some are mentally impaired in some fashion that prevents them from understanding that what they are doing is wrong - this could be cognitive, come from familial and/or religious training, etc, but does not include sociopathy; that's a different issue (below)

- some are not truly child molestors; for example, if one member of a couple is over 18, and one under, and the younger is at least 4 years younger than the older (even if one is 17 and one is 21), that is statutory rape and can be considered child molestation in some circumstances... but this is, in my opinion, much different than most other cases

- some never find a medication, or combination of medications, that work

- some find medication(s) that work, but the side-effects are so bad that they prefer the psychosis

- some are sociopaths, who, by definition, understand society's rules and believe that those rules do not apply to them, so they do whatever they want (I support the death penalty for these, by the way - they are not salvageable as human beings)

- some are some combination of the above, or other, less common problems lead to their behavior

So would you put all of these people to death? The scenario I find the most problematic is the one in which someone is diagnosed and is trying actively to find a treatment, and nothing works - the molester is doing everything required by law and doctor, everything known to medical science, voodoo, any treatment available - and nothing works. Should this person be put to death, or locked up forever? I am undecided on this one; it would, I think, depend in the individual circumstances.

Also, would it be fair to put someone to death who has been repeatedly locked up from exhibiting symptoms and has never received any therapy?

People are not locked up for exhibiting symptoms; they are locked up for committing acts. Certainly, some of those acts are symptomatic of an illness, previous experience, or lack of conscience - but nonetheless, until someone displays anti-social behavior (as defined by law, generally involving harm to self or others) they are not locked up for showing symptoms. The tricky part here, of course, is defining "harm".

I guess my answer to you, and to this entire debate, is, as in much of life, there is no one "right" answer that I believe fits the entire range of possibilities. There will always be someone who commits the crime but does not meet the standard for the death penalty. Like the range of crimes themselves, the penalty must suit the crime. For those who have been repeatedly convicted and continue to offend, certainly they should be locked away where they can do no further harm and never released. The death penalty would depend on the exact nature of the molestation and the surrounding circumstances and injuries that accompanied it.

 

[Kacey]

Then come back here and tell me those *******s need a second, third, fourth chance to live at all... even in your tax-dollar supported prisons.
:asian:

My only dispute with this statement is that it has been shown that it is cheaper to keep criminals in jail for life than pay for all the appeals and related judicial process necessary to put them to death. That being the case, I say that, as long as they never walk the streets again, I'll take the cheaper route.

 

[Makalakumu]

OK, for exhibiting symptoms or committing 1 or more molestations?
And what Symptoms do the exhibit?

There is a big difference here symptoms indicates that they have not yet crossed that line and that therapy may have a chance, but doubtful in the case of Child molesters. Once they cross that line there is no going back.

Death penalty for:
Exhibiting Symptoms: No
Committing Molestation: Yes

Question was "Death Penalty for Molesters?"
not "Death Penalty for those you may suspect to become Molesters?"

One of the symptoms of this illness is actually molesting a child.

I would say that it is far more humane to provide as much therapy as we can for sick people. And for the uncurable cases, perhaps institutionalization with some sort of restitution would suffice.

IMO, this debate comes down to whether or not these perpetrators are committing based on the direction of their own free will. I would say (and there is lots of research to back this up when it comes child sex offenders) that these individuals have a limited form of free will, but that in some areas, the illness has compromised it.

 

[Makalakumu]

Some do respond to therapy, some don't. I knew a 13 year-old who perpetrated on his 12 year-old sister; he was placed in juvenile detention, and his sister in foster care; seems he learned it when his grandmother perpetrated on him... it was, quite literally, a family tradition. In his case, it was a learned act that he could unlearn (and did, I heard some years later). For a portion of the population, this is the case, although there are many other explanations. Had this boy been caught later in life, after years of reinforcing his learned behavior with younger female family members (or others), should he have been put to death, or treated? Where is the line in such cases?

The issue of child molestation is much deeper than can be explained glibly away by "s/he suffers from an illness". In some cultures, it was normal for men in their 30s (proven providers) to marry girls in their mid-teens (most likely to be fertile; least likely to already be pregnant by another man); therefore, it was considered normal for men of all ages to be attracted to girls from 14-18. Some of this lingers on, as there is a genetic component to attraction; physical attraction is based on the perpetuation of the species, and as I said before, there are sound reasons for older men being attracted to younger women.

As far as your question about punishing a person who suffers from a mental illness, there are many possible scenarios here to consider:

- some people receive treatment and it works, but may require daily medication for life - so like diabetics, they are in treatment - not cured

- some receive treatment and it doesn't work - many people are diagnosed with a specific ailment after the fact, based on the medication that worked and the ailment it is a treatment for

- some are mentally impaired in some fashion that prevents them from understanding that what they are doing is wrong - this could be cognitive, come from familial and/or religious training, etc, but does not include sociopathy; that's a different issue (below)

- some are not truly child molestors; for example, if one member of a couple is over 18, and one under, and the younger is at least 4 years younger than the older (even if one is 17 and one is 21), that is statutory rape and can be considered child molestation in some circumstances... but this is, in my opinion, much different than most other cases

- some never find a medication, or combination of medications, that work

- some find medication(s) that work, but the side-effects are so bad that they prefer the psychosis

- some are sociopaths, who, by definition, understand society's rules and believe that those rules do not apply to them, so they do whatever they want (I support the death penalty for these, by the way - they are not salvageable as human beings)

- some are some combination of the above, or other, less common problems lead to their behavior

So would you put all of these people to death? The scenario I find the most problematic is the one in which someone is diagnosed and is trying actively to find a treatment, and nothing works - the molester is doing everything required by law and doctor, everything known to medical science, voodoo, any treatment available - and nothing works. Should this person be put to death, or locked up forever? I am undecided on this one; it would, I think, depend in the individual circumstances.



People are not locked up for exhibiting symptoms; they are locked up for committing acts. Certainly, some of those acts are symptomatic of an illness, previous experience, or lack of conscience - but nonetheless, until someone displays anti-social behavior (as defined by law, generally involving harm to self or others) they are not locked up for showing symptoms. The tricky part here, of course, is defining "harm".

I guess my answer to you, and to this entire debate, is, as in much of life, there is no one "right" answer that I believe fits the entire range of possibilities. There will always be someone who commits the crime but does not meet the standard for the death penalty. Like the range of crimes themselves, the penalty must suit the crime. For those who have been repeatedly convicted and continue to offend, certainly they should be locked away where they can do no further harm and never released. The death penalty would depend on the exact nature of the molestation and the surrounding circumstances and injuries that accompanied it.

This is really a great post. I think that it shows how complex this issue really is and I agree with the conclusion that there is no universal solution that would cover every base. There are many causes of child molestation and I think that they need to be taken into account when this tragedy occurs.

It's easy to make these people into monsters because of the nature of the crime and I know how I would feel if something like this happened to one of my children. However, I think that society needs to struggle to be objective in this case. Punishments should not only fit the crime, they should fit the criminal.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I would say that it is far more humane to provide as much therapy as we can for sick people. And for the uncurable cases, perhaps institutionalization with some sort of restitution would suffice.

Therapy for Child Molesters so far has been fairly unsuccessful. And I see a VERY wide gap between "sick people", "incurable cases" and Child Molester.

And what type of restitution would you suggest for sexual assaulting a small child? Particularly where it is VERY likely once that restitution is paid that the Child Molester will go Molest another small child.

As for one of the symptoms, apparently one of the symptoms of a serial killer is actually committing murder, should we then send him to therapy, let him pay restitution and set him on his way back into society.

As I previously stated, the death penalty works for me.

 

[heretic888]

So, are there actually any arguments for the death penalty here (as opposed to lifeterm incarceration) that don't invoke appeals to emotion??

Just wondering if, y'know, anybody actually has a logical argument for their position. . .

Laterz.

 

[Kacey]

So, are there actually any arguments for the death penalty here (as opposed to lifeterm incarceration) that don't invoke appeals to emotion??

Just wondering if, y'know, anybody actually has a logical argument for their position. . .

Laterz.

Yes. As I said, I am for whatever will cost society the least in terms of money, and gain the most in terms of security for citizens; thus, lifetime incarceration, given the statistics on the cost of lifetime incarceration vs. execution (with all the mandatory appeals that includes) is my preference for most criminals.

Some statistics to back my point:

[SIZE=-1]Any Man's Death[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]www.columbiabasin.edu/docs/CBCEssayMunger.PDF
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
New York State Assembly: Standing Committees on Codes, Judiciary, and Correction: Costs of Death Penalty and Related Issuess
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
Innocents Lost

A google search reveals many more, similar pieces of information. Many of these articles also point out that the legal requirements of appeal mean that anyone who is sentenced to death will, generally, live for several decades more, in the relative safety and security of death row (unless, like Timothy McVeigh, the criminal chooses to waive the appeals and ask for death - a rare occurrence) - because of this, the death penalty is not the deterrent to criminal behavior it was when being found guilty meant being strung up on the nearest tree within days, if not hours.

Having said that, however, in my opinion, there are some cases in which criminals (not just molesters, although certain classes of molester are high on the list) should be executed: those who are repeat offenders, who show no remorse nor interest in treatment, who do not acknowledge that their actions were wrong, and who have a chance, however minimal, of getting out. This description generally applies to sociopaths, who are generally highly intelligent, able to appear quite charming and persuasive, and who know the rules of society well, but think those rules do not apply to themselves. Such people should be removed from society entirely beyond the chance to ever re-enter it; the only certain way to do that is to put them to death.[/SIZE]

 

[evenflow1121]

It is by far if not one of the most, the most terrible crime anyone can comit, because the victim has to live with the stigma for the rest of their lives. However, as a civil society we should be better than the criminals we need to punish in order to protect the citizens of any area. In my opinion, the death penalty is wrong, for anything, killing individuals will not solve the problem, we need to be better than those who wrong our neighbors. Unfortunately, individuals will still carry on these grotesque acts, death penalty or not. I say put them away, not for 10 years or 25 years, but for ever, life without parole.