Child abuse

[inaminute]

Sorry. There is no redeeming child molestors. One child molested is too many.

I agree with the death penalty in these cases. Preferably, a horribly painful death. I have no pity for anyone who harms a child. It sickens me that to think we're actually rewarding these criminals by allowing them to sit in prison on the taxpayer's dime. Prison is no punishment, IMHO.

 

[chadfromdallas]

It sickens me that to think we're actually rewarding these criminals by allowing them to sit in prison on the taxpayer's dime. Prison is no punishment, IMHO.

It cost more for the death penalty.....

I'm pretty sure being raped on a daily bases would be much worse than sitting on death row for 15+ years isolated from such events.

 

[dcentity2000]

Sorry. There is no redeeming child molestors. One child molested is too many.

I agree with the death penalty in these cases. Preferably, a horribly painful death. I have no pity for anyone who harms a child. It sickens me that to think we're actually rewarding these criminals by allowing them to sit in prison on the taxpayer's dime. Prison is no punishment, IMHO.

Remember the teachings of Jesus, be he the Messiah or just a teacher of morals.

Punish them by all means. Just don't lower yourslef to their level.



Rich::

 

[Tiggeroo]

I think death or life imprisonment for anyone who had relations with someone under 17 is a bit harsh. What about young adults that have consentual sex with a teen boyfriend/girlfriend

I can't stand this crap. Do you really think that's what I'm talking about. I was hoping that by setting the age at under 17 it would avoid this question. Ok, let's say sexual abuse against the child, non-consensual, no proof whatsoever that there was a relationship. Then they go to prison for life. I am confident that a law could be written in such a way that it would elminitate things like this. I didn't say all sex offenders. I said people who abuse children. And persons caught being involved in kiddy porn should have an ankle bracelet along with always having their address published. Tired of protecting people's rights at the expense of kiddies.

 

[inaminute]

Sorry, incomplete thought & double post!

 

[Mom2Ashli]

Than I say we send them all to Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona. Where they live in tents without smoking, coffee, pornographic magazines, air conditioning, movies and unrestricted television in all jails.

 

[inaminute]

I'm pretty sure being raped on a daily bases would be much worse than sitting on death row for 15+ years isolated from such events.

Wouldn't happen. They'd be kept in solitary for their protection. Wouldn't want any cruel and unusual punishment for these nice guys.

 

[dcentity2000]

I can't stand this crap. Do you really think that's what I'm talking about. I was hoping that by setting the age at under 17 it would avoid this question. Ok, let's say sexual abuse against the child, non-consensual, no proof whatsoever that there was a relationship. Then they go to prison for life. I am confident that a law could be written in such a way that it would elminitate things like this. I didn't say all sex offenders. I said people who abuse children. And persons caught being involved in kiddy porn should have an ankle bracelet along with always having their address published. Tired of protecting people's rights at the expense of kiddies.

There are many shades of grey, especially when one is 18 and t'other is 17.

Child sex ABUSERS as in RAPISTS and PORN PEDDLERS deserve a life behind bars, solitary etc. Borderline cases aren't as severe as that.

What if the 17 year old girl/boy lies about their age?



Rich::

 

[inaminute]

Remember the teachings of Jesus, be he the Messiah or just a teacher of morals.

I'm no religious scholar by any means, but you know what? I think even Jesus would be happy to send the creature who killed Jessica to hell as quickly as possible. Somehow, I like to believe that He would hold an innocent child in higher stead than the person who took her life.

Besides, if people like Couey are in heaven, then I can honestly say it's not a place I want to be. What's the point of living a good life if you end up with the same reward as a murderer? Makes no sense to me. But that's another discussion for another place and time.

 

[inaminute]

What if the 17 year old girl/boy lies about their age?

We're talking about CHILDREN. Specifically, an eight year old little girl who was raped, tortured, and buried alive. There is a huge difference between this and what you are attempting to argue.

 

[Tiggeroo]

This is not for anything that can in any way be seen as consensual. Not for 16yo girls and their 25yo bfs. Not even if the 25yo knew the girl was 16. Of course the law will have to be worded carefully to not include these types of offenses. But no, it's not a gray area when you are comparing an adult man forcing an 8yo into a sexual situation and a 23yo with a 17yo who claimed to be 18 or who flirted with him. Most people know the difference. They can see there is a huge difference between somebody who is attracted to and has sex with young children and a guy with a hot looking girl who likes him. She's 3 years young then him but she's 17 and he's 20. But given another situation he would be equally happy with a hot looking 24yo. One person is a predator the other is just a young guy.

 

[Crankyshank]

I can't stand this crap. Do you really think that's what I'm talking about. I was hoping that by setting the age at under 17 it would avoid this question. Ok, let's say sexual abuse against the child, non-consensual, no proof whatsoever that there was a relationship. Then they go to prison for life. I am confident that a law could be written in such a way that it would elminitate things like this. I didn't say all sex offenders. I said people who abuse children. And persons caught being involved in kiddy porn should have an ankle bracelet along with always having their address published. Tired of protecting people's rights at the expense of kiddies.

Whoa! Settle down there and chill! There's absolutely no reason to go off on me like that - it was totally uncalled for!
Where did I say I wanted to protect people's rights at the expense of children? and if you actually finished reading my post you would see I posted my thoughts on what to do with sexual predators and it had nothing to do with protecting their rights. Sheesh!

 

[chadfromdallas]

We're talking about CHILDREN. Specifically, an eight year old little girl who was raped, tortured, and buried alive. There is a huge difference between this and what you are attempting to argue.

The OP mentioned under 17.

 

[Tiggeroo]

The op mentioned under 17 because a 16yo girl can be victim of sexual abuse and is still a child. I'm talking about a 16yo who is not in any way flirting with a man or lying about her age or involved in a relationship.
I was upset because right away it's let's protect the rights of the offender. Sorry, we have no proof that treatment works with these people. If you give them treatment that has, say a 40% success rate which is way generous, then 60% of these criminals may very well hurt a child again. Statistically what it takes to satisfy their urges escalates. It can start with picture, go to mild sexual contact and end up like the recent case in fla. Some of these men actually are asking to be put away and protected from themselves. They can't help themselves, and on some level they feel horrible about what they do. I am tired of hearing about cases where they say there is a known sexual offender who they suspect.

 

[inaminute]

The OP mentioned under 17.

I thought the OP was pretty clear in the intent of the wished-for law. I understood what they were saying. Then again, I usually don't need everything spelled out for me.

I also think it's a waste of time to argue the obvious. It usually takes the focus off the real issue. In this case, preventing the rape and murder of a child, which is far different than a dating problem.

 

[Tiggeroo]

Thank you Inaminute. I thought I was clear. I've seen where these discussions go before. That's the reason I put under 17. I thought it would stop it.

 

[dcentity2000]

We're talking about CHILDREN. Specifically, an eight year old little girl who was raped, tortured, and buried alive. There is a huge difference between this and what you are attempting to argue.

I was answering the original statement of the OP, namely "I believe for crimes involving kids under 17..." in relation to your statement

[EDIT] Should have read page 3... lol



Rich::

 

[Tiggeroo]

"I believe for crimes involving kids under 17..."

The reason I worded it that way is that I didn't want to be explicit. I feel uncomfortable posting it clearly on a message board. I figured that the reference to the fla girl would let people know what sort of crime I'm talking about.

 

[Feralpeg]

While I think the system is definately broken and something needs to be done to protect our children, I also believe that these people are mentally ill. They did not choose to be the way they are. As long as there is no cure for their illness and they are a danger to society, I have no problem with locking them up somewhere to protect potential victims and to protect them from themselves. I would not condone killing them unless they have indeed committed murder.

I know that this is a very sad and explosive topic, but I also think gross generalizations are wrong. I just saw a news report about a registered sex offender who had served his time and was following all the rules of his probation. Someone decided to put a flyer up all around his town saying that he was a child rapist. The man committed suicide. There are victims on both sides of this issue.

Go ahead. I've got my flame suit on. This is my opinion and I will stick with it.