jpillian Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Child molestation should be a life sentence without parole. You can't cure it. Honestly, it's probably not enough for the death penalty (just being realistic). So put them in jail, and hopefully general population will do their best to them. The only point that probably gives me pause is the fine line in statutory rape; should probably be a bit of a different lithmus on that. (And honestly, I'm not well enough aquainted with that set of laws, so don't jump all over me for not knowing the latest in statutory rape... eh, statutes). But a 19 yr old having sex with a 17.5 year old, consensually -- shouldn't be treated the same way as a 40 year old with a 10 year old. One is guided by normal human desires, if not being entirely within the law. The other is screwing up another human being for life with desires that are not natural. The laws should (and probably do) reflect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I agree. I think we should immediatly start a program of havine self-appointed executioners commit premeditated murder of people who are at risk to break a law. Starting with every single person in this thread who thinks that killing two people who were sitting in their own living room, because they might have done something, or because they might do so in the future. After all, anybody who thinks that murder based on opinion is OK, probably needs it. Guilt by association... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryman of the North Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I agree. I think we should immediatly start a program of havine self-appointed executioners commit premeditated murder of people who are at risk to break a law. Starting with every single person in this thread who thinks that killing two people who were sitting in their own living room, because they might have done something, or because they might do so in the future. After all, anybody who thinks that murder based on opinion is OK, probably needs it. aRE YOU AN iDIOT OR A MORON? These two things are not even remotely the same, Me supporting somebody getting rid of human refuse who are "at risk" (meaning extremely high likelyhood to reoffend)to reoffend and RUIN another childs life(like once isnt enough reason to kill them) compares to thier heinous crime how exactly? If these people were living together and NOT in a halfway house it suggests to me that they are living together out of common interest (that being molesting children) and should have been executed. Just an FYI category three offenders measn they have refused "treatment" and do not think there is annything wrong with their impulses. I used to be a drug and alchohol counsellor and the stories I have heard of how these people ruin lives for a moments gratification is sickening. The recidivism rate is so high for category 3 offenders that really they should be euthanised for the publics safety, not coddled and counselled. if you beleive otherwise you should prolly not have children not only because you will pass your stupid gene on but also because your children unfortunately will be easily targeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Theres a part of me that says you can't just go around having vigilantie justice. But the inner part of me is smilinig from ear to ear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muskrat Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I am a firm believer that child molesters should be killed outright if convicted...end of story. I know it was a possibility that this guy could have made a mistake, but he didn't, and 'we' are better off without these two 'men'...whether their crime was committed 3 years ago or 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I agree with you, unless it's my child. If it is your child then you will be too biased to have a valid opinion, but that is understandable. If we let all the secondary victims dole out punishments we would have a whole lot of dead criminals/alleged criminals. I know some people find that as a positive point, but to me it is best to leave justice in the hands of the impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 If it is your child then you will be too biased to have a valid opinion, but that is understandable. If we let all the secondary victims dole out punishments we would have a whole lot of dead criminals/alleged criminals. I know some people find that as a positive point, but to me it is best to leave justice in the hands of the impartial. You have to understand, that if it's my child, I don't care if I'm unbiased or what ever else. I'm not saying that's the way it SHOULD be, I'm just saying that if someone raped and/or killed my child, I'd probably kill them, because I doubt I could live with myself if I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Theres a part of me that says you can't just go around having vigilantie justice.But the inner part of me is smilinig from ear to ear Hey, Sarge (partially) agrees with me! Sarge, your ACLU card will be in the mail. (And, FWIW, my "inner part" agrees with you, too. I just don't let my "inner part" make my decisions.) (Or, at least, I try not to.) (If you don't listen to the little voices, does that mean it's OK?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Lethal injection or hanging? Which will he choose? :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 If it is your child then you will be too biased to have a valid opinion WTF?!? You can't have a valid opinion if you're biased or emotionally involved? Where on earth did you get that idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 You have to understand, that if it's my child, I don't care if I'm unbiased or what ever else.I'm not saying that's the way it SHOULD be, I'm just saying that if someone raped and/or killed my child, I'd probably kill them, because I doubt I could live with myself if I didn't. I only hope none of us have to deal with something so horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Lethal injection or hanging? Which will he choose? :logo: I'd be willing to bet my house that NO jury sentences him to death... Not even in Caleefornea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 aRE YOU AN iDIOT OR A MORON? These two things are not even remotely the same, Please explain the difference between A person who endorses premeditated murder, based simply on his opinion of what soneone else might be doing, or might do, in the future. A person who has been judged to be "at risk" of committing a crime. If these people were living together and NOT in a halfway house it suggests to me that they are living together out of common interest (that being molesting children) and should have been executed. Oh, you're right. They couldn't possibly be living together because, oh, say, because the state's deliberate policy of encouraging people to discriminate against them, might be making it difficult for them to find, say, housing, or a job, separatly? Couldn't be. Tell ya what. If you're convinced that the mere fact they're living together is enough to execute them, then do you think maybe if might be enough to, say, get a warrant, and allow the cops to keep more of an eye on them? Or is living together enough evidence for an execution, but not enough evidence to monitor their internet trafic? (Maybe put a Lojac on their car?) (Or, could it possibly be, that something which, to you, is good enough for to justify murder, to most people, isn't even enough to have the cops keep an eye on them, let alone lock them up?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 WTF?!? You can't have a valid opinion if you're biased or emotionally involved? Where on earth did you get that idea? Conservatives, complaining about the biased, liberal media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Conservatives, complaining about the biased, liberal media. Or biased science. (Heck, none of the people in this Global Warming study work for oil companies!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'd be willing to bet my house that NO jury sentences him to death...Not even in Caleefornea... They might have to. All the facts are not in yet. But we do know: He went searching on the net for someone to kill. He disguised him self. He posed as an FBI agent. He sent a letter to the police. He had an escape plan. Now, I am questioning his motives. Which could be any one or a combo of the following: 1. Outrage at the criminal justice system. 2. Victim or parent of a victim of one of those he killed. 3. Killing for the sake of killing. (Psychopath) I'm leaning toward number three at the moment. While not the primary reason, number one is also a possible factor. He will play it up and use it to his advantage, however. We don't know if he was a victim or not. But if he was, it does become a mitigating factor. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 WTF?!? You can't have a valid opinion if you're biased or emotionally involved? Where on earth did you get that idea? If we let victims choose punishments than what is the point of having laws anyway? Example: A child is hit by a car, because the child ran in front of the car. The child dies and the parents are pissed to hell at the driver. The guy can go to jail for manslaughter or not at all because it really wasn't his fault, but do you think the parents would understand that? They would probably want to kill the guy. I say that he be judged by the impartial system not by the obviously biased parents. Do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.