Death Penalty for Child Molesters?

[Gan]

In the state that is the nation's undisputed death penalty leader, Texas, you might think there is no such thing as a punishment considered too harsh. But as legislators there consider joining the small but growing number of states making certain convicted pedophiles eligible for the death penalty, a surprisingly vocal group of critics has emerged, arguing that the measure is shortsighted, counterproductive and probably unconstitutional.

"There's tough. And then there's Texas tough," Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst declared at his January inauguration as he pledged to press for mandatory 25 year sentences and a two-strikes death-penalty provision for convicted child predators. The proposal is a more extreme version of the so-called " Jessica's Law " passed by the Florida legislature in the wake of the February 2005 rape and murder of nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford. That landmark statute imposed mandatory 25-year prison terms and life electronic monitoring for sex offenders, and since its passage in May 2005 42 states and Congress have implemented or are considering their own very similar laws.

Dewhurst's stance made headlines and has won him kudos from national backers of Jessica's Law such as Fox News's Bill O'Reilly and Adam Walsh, producer of America's Most Wanted. But it also sparked the formation of an unexpected coalition of opponents, featuring some of the state's toughest prosecutors as well as victims' rights groups, both of whom worry that the measure could backfire and result in fewer convictions.

"We saw the tsunami wave coming to Texas," said Shannon Edmonds, state lobbyist for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association. Last year, South Carolina adopted the death penalty for the second offense of raping a child under age 11. Oklahoma followed, passing Jessica's Law with a death penalty provision for raping a child under age 14. Texas already had some of the toughest child predator laws on the books with its two-strikes rule that sends child predators to jail for life.

But the push for even harsher punishment was coming from the state leadership, rather than from the grassroots, as tightening of criminal laws often does. "Prosecutors will tell you these are the most difficult cases to get a guilty verdict on," Edmonds said. "Prosecutors lose more of these cases than any other."

The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault also voiced its concerns about "unintended consequences" of Jessica's Laws. The mandatory sentences can backfire, said TAASA spokeswoman Karen Amacher, as prosecutors lose the flexibility to seek lesser sentences in cases where a jury trial may prove too taxing for a child witness, or a jury or judge may not feel a 25-year sentence is warranted. Since an estimated 80% of child sexual assaults are committed by family members, groups like Amacher's are concerned that mandatory sentence laws, not to mention the death penalty, might dissuade certain people from reporting abuse to authorities.

"With sex offenders we want to say let's lock them up and throw away the key — these folks are just awful after all — but it's just not realistic," Amacher said.

more...

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1616890,00.html
______________________________________________

Jessica's law has arrived in Texas. And the Texas legislature is giving it a nice injection of steroids.

This is a really great article, and it touches on what strikes a chord with me with the issue of unintended consequences.

The other questionable thing I have is of deterrence. I did some exhaustive resarch on Deterrence of the Death Penalty for a research paper in undergrad and am not sold on it as a huge benefit of the DP.

HOWEVER, I am for the 'eye for an eye' concept. Simply stating that by criminally taking the life of another, you are forfeit your own along with any rights you might have (natural or legal). With the advances in technology and forensic science (notwithstanding the human factor of error - as evidenced with the crime lab mismanagement seen here in Houston), determining guilt by forensic evidence at the crime scene is getting more accurate. My only hangup with the DP is that guilt needs to be absolutely proven. Best case scenario is a video recording of the actual crime. Absent that, then only through a combination of irrefutable forensic evidence should the DP even be on the table.

Which leads us to child molestation and murder combined with child molestation. As debated in other threads, I personally think these perps are beyond cure. If let out, they will continue to do it, at any and all costs. Sickness? Sure, but until a permanent cure can be found, then either lock them away for good, or put them down. There is no room in society for people such as these.

[TheEschaton]

no, but only because I'm opposed to the Death Penalty en toto.

And if it truly is a sickness, what's next? Killing people with AIDS? I disagree with the extermination of people with a "disease" (if that's what it is), because there's some sort of implication that they can't help it.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

I agree with TheE. Someone stab me. ;)

[GuildRat]

Not touching this one at all.

[Krendeli]

what's next? Killing people with AIDS? I disagree with the extermination of people with a "disease" (if that's what it is), because there's some sort of implication that they can't help it.

-TheE-

Yeah! I couldn't help it that my dick fell into that guy's ass!

[Gan]

Absent of any psylogical or biological proof that its a sickness that afflicts the human person, I think it [child molestation] needs to be treated criminally. Simply because of what it affects.

Now if society had a release proof system where people guilty of these actions could be removed to without fear of release then I'm all for it. Otherwise, punish them harshly for doing it once, put them down if they did not learn the first time.

And using the AIDS approach is fine and dandy until you make it an apples to apples comparison where the AIDS person intentionally and criminally subjects/exposes others to the terminal illness and eventually kills them.
Then the person is criminally negligible and therefore subject to the appropriate punitive consequences.

(de ja vu - because of the recent thread on this)

[Tea & Strumpets]

And if it truly is a sickness, what's next? Killing people with AIDS? I disagree with the extermination of people with a "disease" (if that's what it is), because there's some sort of implication that they can't help it.

-TheE-

A perfect example of people justifying/rationalizing/making excuses for whatever they want to do. "It's not my fault, pedophilia is a disease!" How more ridiculous can you get?

Holy shit does that attitude disgust me. These aren't fucking diseases people, they are people making CHOICES, and those choices have consequences.

By the way, if you drink too much alcohol, you may have caught the disease "alcoholism". Don't worry, it's not your fault.

[Gan]

This could be a really big tangent:

Is poverty a disease?

Is illiteracy a disease?

Is obesity a disease?

Is homosexuality a disease?

Is .... [insert here] a disease?

*Note: some of the things mentioned above are tongue in cheek subjects that have come up before in discussions about those specific topics.

**Note: If it is a disease, what happens when a cure is found. Does the cure mitigate or eliminate any or all culpability of the criminal act based around the disease?

Just a few random thoughts. ;)

[Parkbandit]

A perfect example of people justifying/rationalizing/making excuses for whatever they want to do. "It's not my fault, pedophilia is a disease!" How more ridiculous can you get?

Holy shit does that attitude disgust me. These aren't fucking diseases people, they are people making CHOICES, and those choices have consequences.

By the way, if you drink too much alcohol, you may have caught the disease "alcoholism". Don't worry, it's not your fault.

Asshole, I was just going to post the same thing. Welcome to the world of zero self responsibility.

Drug addiction is a disease.

So is Gambling.

So is playing online games.

So is porn.

I'm pretty sure I can make any problem you have into a disease.. that way you too can feel like a victim of circumstance.

[Gan]

Dont mind PB, he's just getting slower in his old age. ;)

[Skeeter]

Diseases are caused by virus and bacteria. Strep throat is a disease. Malaria is a disease.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, et al. is a weakness

[Gan]

I agree with TheE. Someone stab me. ;)


:axe: and :chair: for good measure.

:love:

[Parkbandit]

Dont mind PB, he's just getting slower in his old age. ;)

AGE IS A DISEASE! I R A VICTIM!

[Kainen]

The death penalty for child molesters.. hell yes.

[Gan]

AGE IS A DISEASE! I R A VICTIM!


:lol: touche.

I was just AARPPWWNED.

:crutches:

[Nieninque]

Paedophilia is no more a sickness than homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

It is a sexual preference. The difference between carrying out that sexual preference and the others, is that it is inherently an abusive relationship.

The most successful "rehabilitation" programmes for preverts are those that recognise that the offender may not be able to do anything about the people they are sexually aroused by, but they are able to make choices about whether or not to carry out those fantasies.

Should they get the death penalty? I dont think the death penalty should exist. But it sure as hell isnt a sickness. It's all about people making choices, as T&S and the old fart have said.

[Warriorbird]

I don't have a problem with this.

[Skirmisher]

I guess my most major objection to such a law would be the definition of terms.

What EXACTLY would fall under the category or child molester as we have seen some people getting hit with sexual offender status for things that I do not personally think meet the requirements for such a classification.

My second objection would be the same which I makes me take issue with capitol punishment in general. I favor it for open and shut cases or murder where there is a preponderance of evidence such as a bus full of nuns saw the mean guy shot the little old lady but otherwise am for life without parole. As difficult as it can be to convict someone of murder without a reasonable doubt I think sexual crimes tend to be even more difficult to be positive of and would therefore shy away from such sentencing unless something similar to the above criteria were met.

[Gan]

With sex crimes (rape, etc.) its hard to determine the state of consentuality.

However, with a 6 year old, I would think 'consentual' sex would be out of the question.

I do agree with your preponderance of the evidence with regards to the death sentence though. When I say 'without a reasonable doubt' what I really mean is undeniable proof.

[Parkbandit]

With sex crimes (rape, etc.) its hard to determine the state of consentuality.

However, with a 6 year old, I would think 'consentual' sex would be out of the question.

I do agree with your preponderance of the evidence with regards to the death sentence though. When I say 'without a reasonable doubt' what I really mean is undeniable proof.


Yea, your sperm is inside a 6 year old.. have a seat in Old Sparky imo.

You are a pathetic sub-human being and don't deserve to be around.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<en toto.>>

wtf you're supposed to know how to spell these terms, Mr. Law.

[Nieninque]

Yea, your sperm is inside a 6 year old.. have a seat in Old Sparky imo.

You are a pathetic sub-human being and don't deserve to be around.

The problem with that is being absolutely certain that it is that person's sperm.

There was a man with learning difficulties who was released on appeal against his conviction for raping a young girl after he had spent 14 years in prison. His conviction was based pretty much on the fact that the DNA from the sperm was said by experts at the trial to be his. Jury convicted him based on that evidence.

14 years later, the Court of Appeal heard that he was impotent and it couldnt have been his sperm.

As appalling as that was, it would have been a whole lot worse if he had been sentenced to death.

[AestheticDeath]

I don't know how I feel about this kind of thing.

For one, people labeled child molesters aren't always molesters in my eyes. I know that sounds bad.. but let me explain a little bit.

I think most people tend to think of an old man screwing little kids, when this kind of thing comes up. There are tons of examples where it is clear cut child molestation. And I don't argue that they shouldn't be punished in such a case. They should, whether its death or not, I am not sure if thats going to far yet or not. Would depend on the offense in particular, and if it was the first one etc..

But, take this for example.

A 10 year old boy, whos already gone through puberty, knows girls have vaginas - babies come from there etc.. And also knows about sex, knows you can have sexual intercourse for fun, for pleasure etc.

Said 10 year old boy is left at home with a 19 year old female babysitter. They decide for whatever reason, to engage in some sort of sexual activity. Maybe the boy offered her some cash to see her boobs, or maybe they were 'wrestling', and something popped up, and they went from there.

Mom and dad walk in, and see the trusted babysitter 'playing' with the boy in a way they dont think is proper. Should the girl be convicted as a child molester? Under the legal system she would be. But they were both consenting. One was just under age.

Well, you know damn well the boy knew what was going on, I knew what it was by then. I think most kids these days know about such things at an even younger age. Think about all the children having sex at such young ages, girls getting pregnant at 14 and 15, sometimes younger.

What about two preteens having sex? Both are under age, and could be labeled a molester. Where does it start, and where does it end?

Would you put a 14 year old child to death because of two or more instances of sexual contact with another 14 year old?


I forgot where else I was going to go with this.. but I wasted enough time on it already. Have at it.

[Nieninque]

I don't know how I feel about this kind of thing.

For one, people labeled child molesters aren't always molesters in my eyes. I know that sounds bad.. but let me explain a little bit.

I think most people tend to think of an old man screwing little kids, when this kind of thing comes up. There are tons of examples where it is clear cut child molestation. And I don't argue that they shouldn't be punished in such a case. They should, whether its death or not, I am not sure if thats going to far yet or not. Would depend on the offense in particular, and if it was the first one etc..

But, take this for example.

A 10 year old boy, whos already gone through puberty, knows girls have vaginas - babies come from there etc.. And also knows about sex, knows you can have sexual intercourse for fun, for pleasure etc.

Said 10 year old boy is left at home with a 19 year old female babysitter. They decide for whatever reason, to engage in some sort of sexual activity. Maybe the boy offered her some cash to see her boobs, or maybe they were 'wrestling', and something popped up, and they went from there.

Mom and dad walk in, and see the trusted babysitter 'playing' with the boy in a way they dont think is proper. Should the girl be convicted as a child molester? Under the legal system she would be. But they were both consenting. One was just under age.

Well, you know damn well the boy knew what was going on, I knew what it was by then. I think most kids these days know about such things at an even younger age. Think about all the children having sex at such young ages, girls getting pregnant at 14 and 15, sometimes younger.

Reverse the genders.
A 19 year old boy and a 10 year old girl. That OK?

A ten year old DOES NOT know what is going on unless they have been abused previously. They certainly arent going out looking to fuck their 19 year old babysitter...at least, if they are, they are exhibiting seriously disturbed behaviours.

There is a huge difference between two 14 year olds having consensual sex and a 10 year old being "played with" by their nineteen year old babysitter.


What about two preteens having sex? Both are under age, and could be labeled a molester. Where does it start, and where does it end?

Would you put a 14 year old child to death because of two or more instances of sexual contact with another 14 year old?


I forgot where else I was going to go with this.. but I wasted enough time on it already. Have at it.

I agree with your last part. In the UK they could technically be convicted of a sexual offense if they are having sex with a peer under the age of 16, even if they are the same age.

Luckily, Courts and Child Protection agencies apply common sense.

[Sean of the Thread]

At the very least mutilate his/her genitals and post the pics on the internet. I bet this whole molestation shit would simmer down real fast.

[Kainen]

Yea, your sperm is inside a 6 year old.. have a seat in Old Sparky imo.

You are a pathetic sub-human being and don't deserve to be around.


Thats about my feelings on the matter.

[Stanley Burrell]

Diseases are caused by virus and bacteria. Strep throat is a disease. Malaria is a disease.

Alcoholism, drug addiction, et al. is a weakness

:wtf:

Disease is any distinguishably, clinical illness defined by an imbalance; i.e. heart disease from non-infection related LDL build-up, hemophilia, hypoglycemia, and all that good stuff.

Um. Since you're being pedantic, I think, rock on, mang :thumbup:

[Stanley Burrell]

Also, cut any and all child mollesting pieces of shoe shit's heads off :yes:

[Methais]

no, but only because I'm opposed to the Death Penalty en toto.

And if it truly is a sickness, what's next? Killing people with AIDS? I disagree with the extermination of people with a "disease" (if that's what it is), because there's some sort of implication that they can't help it.

-TheE-

A disease with an easy cure called self-control. Same goes for alcoholics, gamblers, 24/7 MMO players, etc.

[AestheticDeath]

Reverse the genders.
A 19 year old boy and a 10 year old girl. That OK?

A ten year old DOES NOT know what is going on unless they have been abused previously. They certainly arent going out looking to fuck their 19 year old babysitter...at least, if they are, they are exhibiting seriously disturbed behaviours.

There is a huge difference between two 14 year olds having consensual sex and a 10 year old being "played with" by their nineteen year old babysitter.



I agree with your last part. In the UK they could technically be convicted of a sexual offense if they are having sex with a peer under the age of 16, even if they are the same age.

Luckily, Courts and Child Protection agencies apply common sense.

Isn't it funny that you reversed it so quickly though. That seems to be part of the problem I think many people face. They tend to protect females much more readily than they protect males.

When I was 10 years old, I already had interest in girls. If I had a nice looking 19 year old female babysitter at that age, I would most definately have been curious to see whatever I could have. Would have tried to get away with something for sure. Too bad I never had babysitters.

Also, why do you think a 10 year old wouldn't know whats going on, outside of abuse? Hell, look at all the images we grow up with now.

You can turn on the television here in the US, which I am pretty sure is more restrictive than some other countries. And you can see totally nude women all over the commercials. Women in the shower washing their hair. Women shaving their legs. All they do is make sure you cant see nipples and vagina. You can see as much breast or cleavage or ass as you want pretty much. You get to see it more often in TV shows, and movies. You can goto a book store and see porn magazines on the shelves, and half the time someone has taken the liberty of opening one.

Think about all the fathers that have cable TV with 'certain' channels available. Hell, all you need really is one channel, like HBO, or Cinemax, and you have fully nude men and women screwing each other. You know how often I snuck out of bed at night to watch TV like that?

If you have a young male grow up seeing women in the shower, or any number of other things - wouldn't you say he will be curious? Same goes for the girls, though there isnt as much male nudity since it doesn't sell as well. But I am sure that seeing other women makes them curious about their body.
And you know damn well girls start early on trying to attract guys attention. Playing the power and whatnot.

[Ignot]

is hating "work" a disease? b/c i hate work.

[Parkbandit]

A disease with an easy cure called self-control. Same goes for alcoholics, gamblers, 24/7 MMO players, etc.

QQ

[Parkbandit]

:wtf:

Disease is any distinguishably, clinical illness defined by an imbalance; i.e. heart disease from non-infection related LDL build-up, hemophilia, hypoglycemia, and all that good stuff.



LOL.

How did I know you would defend this.

You poor victim.

[Methais]

QQ

This isn't the WoW rogue forums :lol:

[Satira]

If some kind of fair guidelines could be established, I would really be all for this. I think some people assume just because they might have been mature enough at 10 to go screw their babysitter, that all 10 year olds are. That's the thing. Kids all mature differently and you better believe there are 10 year olds that would be psychologically messed up from that if they went along with it. That's what the guidelines would have to address.

When you look into the psychology behind molesters, there isn't any kind of rehabilitation for them. There is nothing that occurs other than them CHOOSING (and repeatedly telling them to choose) to not act on their fantasies. In an overwhelming amount of them, that isn't enough to get the job done.

Again, as I said there would have to be guidelines. I think if someone has had several chances and there are multiple children who are now scarred forever from their actions, they can be put down. I'm not going to think twice about it.

[Tsa`ah]

I say why bother with the death penalty. There are three very simple ways to handle this sort of thing.

1. Don't protect this type of scum in our penal system ... put them in general population.

2. Allow 4 days between conviction and lockup. In that time frame the scum bag would be tagged with a lo-jack transmitter and put under house arrest. The immediate family of the victim is given the receiver and the scum bag's address and 4 days of amnesty.

3. If the fucker survives #2, see #1.

[Keller]

I support the death penalty for any violent sexual assault, period. For child molesters I think Tsa'ah is on to something.

[Harli]

I say why bother with the death penalty. There are three very simple ways to handle this sort of thing.

1. Don't protect this type of scum in our penal system ... put them in general population.

2. Allow 4 days between conviction and lockup. In that time frame the scum bag would be tagged with a lo-jack transmitter and put under house arrest. The immediate family of the victim is given the receiver and the scum bag's address and 4 days of amnesty.

3. If the fucker survives #2, see #1.


BEST IDEA EVER!

[Tsa`ah]

I personally don't see how the definition of disease fits into this.

If an alcoholic drives to a bar, parks his car in the parking lot, puts the keys in his/her pocket, walks into the bar and gets tanked, stumbles out and into his/her car and ends up killing someone in an accident ... no leeway is given simply because the person was an alcoholic.

In my opinion ... that's murder. Legally it's manslaughter.

Some fuck abducting and molesting a child, or doing it to their own child should have NO protection. Using the term "disease" is bullshit.

I'm attracted to women ... I don't rape them, randomly grope them, or anything that would be an unwelcome act. I like having cash in my pocket, I don't rob people.

If anyone ever touched one of my children is such a way ... their safest bet would be a life term without parole or out living me. The law be damned.

[DrZaius]

imo, if they fit the classic 'molester' profile (i.e. the 30 year old male as opposed to the 19 year old guy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend), they should be locked up forever. When we're young, we all get wired with what we're attracted to- most of us are lucky enough to have something that the society accepts somewhat- some people get stuck liking green socks or little kids. There's nothing they can do about it; it's how their brain works. When you can't survive within a society, it's that society's right and duty to remove you from the population. That doesn't mean you have to kill them, just send them away.

Edited to add:
Also, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty; just to stop that argument before it gains any steam.

[Kriztian]

imo, if they fit the classic 'molester' profile (i.e. the 30 year old male as opposed to the 19 year old guy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend), they should be locked up forever. When we're young, we all get wired with what we're attracted to- most of us are lucky enough to have something that the society accepts somewhat- some people get stuck liking green socks or little kids. There's nothing they can do about it; it's how their brain works. When you can't survive within a society, it's that society's right and duty to remove you from the population. That doesn't mean you have to kill them, just send them away.

Edited to add:
Also, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty; just to stop that argument before it gains any steam.


^^^^^Best point of the thread.^^^^^

[Tsa`ah]

imo, if they fit the classic 'molester' profile (i.e. the 30 year old male as opposed to the 19 year old guy having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend), they should be locked up forever. When we're young, we all get wired with what we're attracted to- most of us are lucky enough to have something that the society accepts somewhat- some people get stuck liking green socks or little kids. There's nothing they can do about it; it's how their brain works. When you can't survive within a society, it's that society's right and duty to remove you from the population. That doesn't mean you have to kill them, just send them away.

Edited to add:
Also, life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty; just to stop that argument before it gains any steam.

I don't think anyone is advocating harsh penalties, or even prosecution, of the "grey" areas. A 15 year old and an 18-19 year old ... doesn't really need to clutter up the dockets unless it really is rape.

However, a scum bag that has molested a child doesn't deserve to breath. He doesn't deserve the luxury of food, shelter, entertainment ... or anything else offered by the penal system of any given state.

If you're suggesting that it's "cheaper" to imprison a person for life as opposed to strapping them down and letting the municipal utility service go Ben Franklin on their ass ... you're seriously delusional and need to look at the legal system.

What you are suggesting, cost wise, is bullshit. Someone with a life sentence can, and will, run up the same legal costs as a person on death row. And get this ... they could win an appeal, get out ... and DO IT AGAIN.

If cost is your argument ... well it's an argument better served in the arena of legal reform.

Last I checked, 500 .22 cal rounds cost about 50 bucks and the pistol to fire it can be had for around 300-500 bucks .... looks like (at most) it would cost a buck ten each for the first 500 child molesting scum bags.


^^^^^Best point of the thread.^^^^^

If by best point you mean a poorly formed point based on a cross section of the legal system that is available to death row and life inmates alike.

[Methais]

The link in your sig is broken.

[DrZaius]

I don't think anyone is advocating harsh penalties, or even prosecution, of the "grey" areas. A 15 year old and an 18-19 year old ... doesn't really need to clutter up the dockets unless it really is rape.

However, a scum bag that has molested a child doesn't deserve to breath. He doesn't deserve the luxury of food, shelter, entertainment ... or anything else offered by the penal system of any given state.

If you're suggesting that it's "cheaper" to imprison a person for life as opposed to strapping them down and letting the municipal utility service go Ben Franklin on their ass ... you're seriously delusional and need to look at the legal system.

What you are suggesting, cost wise, is bullshit. Someone with a life sentence can, and will, run up the same legal costs as a person on death row. And get this ... they could win an appeal, get out ... and DO IT AGAIN.

If cost is your argument ... well it's an argument better served in the arena of legal reform.

Last I checked, 500 .22 cal rounds cost about 50 bucks and the pistol to fire it can be had for around 300-500 bucks .... looks like (at most) it would cost a buck ten each for the first 500 child molesting scum bags.



If by best point you mean a poorly formed point based on a cross section of the legal system that is available to death row and life inmates alike.

I'm too lazy to look them up, but there are many studies showing that the amount the state pays to deal with death sentence appeals is significantly higher than the cost of life imprisonment. I'm not advocating life with a chance in 20, I'm advocating life, 99 years, whatever. Completely removing them from the active society. If, in addition to that, you feel from some sense of justice that they should be killed, that's your perogative. Your bullet analogy made me think you'd feel better living in China.

[Nieninque]

Isn't it funny that you reversed it so quickly though. That seems to be part of the problem I think many people face. They tend to protect females much more readily than they protect males.

Way to miss the point.
The reason I reversed the genders was to see if you thought it would be ok for a 10 year old girl to be screwed by a 19 year old boy.

Personally, I believe a 19 year old that has any kind of sexual contact with a ten year old would fall into the category of child abuser. Whether it be a male or a female.


When I was 10 years old, I already had interest in girls. If I had a nice looking 19 year old female babysitter at that age, I would most definately have been curious to see whatever I could have. Would have tried to get away with something for sure. Too bad I never had babysitters.

Too bad you are stupid enough to not know the difference between a ten year old trying to sneak a peek, and a willing partner for sex. I would advise that you dont take up any offers of babysitting other people's children if I were you.


Also, why do you think a 10 year old wouldn't know whats going on, outside of abuse? Hell, look at all the images we grow up with now.

You can turn on the television here in the US, which I am pretty sure is more restrictive than some other countries. And you can see totally nude women all over the commercials. Women in the shower washing their hair. Women shaving their legs. All they do is make sure you cant see nipples and vagina. You can see as much breast or cleavage or ass as you want pretty much. You get to see it more often in TV shows, and movies. You can goto a book store and see porn magazines on the shelves, and half the time someone has taken the liberty of opening one.

Think about all the fathers that have cable TV with 'certain' channels available. Hell, all you need really is one channel, like HBO, or Cinemax, and you have fully nude men and women screwing each other. You know how often I snuck out of bed at night to watch TV like that?

You are an idiot.


If you have a young male grow up seeing women in the shower, or any number of other things - wouldn't you say he will be curious? Same goes for the girls, though there isnt as much male nudity since it doesn't sell as well. But I am sure that seeing other women makes them curious about their body.


As above, there is a world of difference between being curious about other people's bodies and wanting to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult.


And you know damn well girls start early on trying to attract guys attention. Playing the power and whatnot.

You have disturbing attitudes towards women and sex, and children come to that.

I pity your kids and seriously question your attitudes towards children. Scary stuff.

[AestheticDeath]

I didn't miss the point anymore than you did.

The 10 vs 19 thing was just thrown out there to make sure the younger was within the scope of the laws mentioned from South Carolina and Oklahoma. SC had an 11 year old limit. So I went for 10 years old. The age of the 19 year old was to make certain they were not a minor. You could just as well have the argument over 14 year old from OK, and a 18 year old.

Im not sure how you figured that I am too stupid to know the difference between sneaking a peak and having a willing partner. But thanks for name calling.

As far as being an idiot as well as stupid.. care to elaborate on WHY? What exactly do you disagree with. Kids know about sex, and they know how to do it. And they HAVE done it. If I cared I could research and show you proof. But you could do it easily enough yourself, and lookup teen or pre-teen pregnancy rates.

The world of difference could be there, but it can also be alot closer than you realize. Curiosty can lead to sex real quick.


You have disturbing attitudes towards women and sex, and children come to that.

I pity your kids and seriously question your attitudes towards children. Scary stuff.Seriously, the points I tried to make were just to show another side rather than the normal old man raping children.

You haven't gotten a real insight on my attitudes towards any of this, as I was just arguing for arguments sake. Like normal. There is always another side, and there is always grey area. I always try and think about those sides as well as the normal ones, and tend to try to make other people see them as well. Discussing it, or saying it makes sense, doesnt mean I practice or condone such actions.

I think again though, one of my main concerns about your arguments here, is that anyone under 17 doesn't seem to know what sexual activity consists of, or what a real relationship could be etc. However you want to put it.

You know that children get sex ed courses at like 4th-5th grade right? Thats 8-11 years old.

[Bobmuhthol]

I definitely don't remember sex ed when I was 9 years old.

[Nieninque]

I didn't miss the point anymore than you did.

The 10 vs 19 thing was just thrown out there to make sure the younger was within the scope of the laws mentioned from South Carolina and Oklahoma. SC had an 11 year old limit. So I went for 10 years old. The age of the 19 year old was to make certain they were not a minor. You could just as well have the argument over 14 year old from OK, and a 18 year old.

The difference in maturity between 10 and say 15 is probably the most profound across age ranges of 5 years (excluding infant stage). The laws on having sex with children are based upon their levels of maturity and the approximate age a child is mature enough to make an informed decision about having sex. Some are at the level to be able to make that decision earlier than others. None of those are as young as aged ten. If you said 14, I would be more inclined to agree with you, however still feel that a 14 year old and a 19 year old is verging on abusive. It isnt as clear cut though.


Im not sure how you figured that I am too stupid to know the difference between sneaking a peak and having a willing partner. But thanks for name calling.

Welcome.

And my reason for thinking that you cant figure out the difference is because you were using an example of a kid trying to sneak a peek at a pair of tits in his dads wank mag as some kind of evidence that ten year olds are mature enough and informed enough to be entering into sexual relationships with adults.

Isnt that what NAMBLA is all about?


As far as being an idiot as well as stupid.. care to elaborate on WHY? What exactly do you disagree with. Kids know about sex, and they know how to do it. And they HAVE done it. If I cared I could research and show you proof. But you could do it easily enough yourself, and lookup teen or pre-teen pregnancy rates.

I'm not the one trying to prove the point. All you have presented is some dodgy opinions that a ten year old and a 19 year old in a sexual relationship is OK.

Yes, kids do know some things about sex at a very early age. Some of it is appropriate knowledge and does inform the child about the issues involved with sex and sexuality. Some of it is inappropriate and does nothing to inform the child about sex and sexuality in a positive and productive way, moreso a skewed and abusive way.

Anyone telling children that they are OK to have sex with adults at 10 years old is messed up.


The world of difference could be there, but it can also be alot closer than you realize. Curiosty can lead to sex real quick.

Absolutely, which is why children are so vulnerable to abuse and why attitudes like the ones you have expressed in this thread are so dangerous.


Seriously, the points I tried to make were just to show another side rather than the normal old man raping children.

I dont think anyone is of the illusion that children are only abused by or have sex with dirty old men in flashers macs. As I said already, there is a world of difference between your scenario and two 14 year olds going at it. The latter isnt a particularly great situation, but it's a whole load better than your example.


You haven't gotten a real insight on my attitudes towards any of this, as I was just arguing for arguments sake. Like normal. There is always another side, and there is always grey area. I always try and think about those sides as well as the normal ones, and tend to try to make other people see them as well. Discussing it, or saying it makes sense, doesnt mean I practice or condone such actions.

I think again though, one of my main concerns about your arguments here, is that anyone under 17 doesn't seem to know what sexual activity consists of, or what a real relationship could be etc. However you want to put it.

I dont believe that a child aged ten has the physical or the emotional maturity to be entering into a sexual relationship. Whether that be with a child or an adult.


You know that children get sex ed courses at like 4th-5th grade right? Thats 8-11 years old.

Children start getting sex education around 9 or ten...but it is very very basic. It is not intended to leave them ready to hop out and shag the next thing that moves, it is the beginnings of the learning that will take place in a few years.

Nice try though.

[AestheticDeath]

And my reason for thinking that you cant figure out the difference is because you were using an example of a kid trying to sneak a peek at a pair of tits in his dads wank mag as some kind of evidence that ten year olds are mature enough and informed enough to be entering into sexual relationships with adults.

Isnt that what NAMBLA is all about?Your misinterpreting it. But let me try it a different way. Can you recall when you were 10 years old? Try hard, I know it was a long time ago. I can. I remember thinking I was the smartest thing that existed. I remember thinking alot of the time, people were explaining things too many times in stupid child like ways. I recall thinking I could handle anything. I was more ready and willing for sex at 10, than I was at 15. Whether I was physically or emotionally stable enough or enough whatever that you seem to be harping on about. Its not always about right or wrong, or whatnot. Its about the persons willingness, and their ability to make a decision, whether its right or wrong.

Going back to the example I apparantly shouldn't have used. If the 10 year old initiated contact, or even if the 10 year old only said yes, or willingly participated. Then it can't be called rape in my book. It would be wrong of the 19 year old. Sure. But not rape, and not deserving of a death penalty.

And if you go off on the two offenses before the penalty kicks in, remember how some idiots try and call things. If the kids were kissing one hour, and later the same night they were fondling. Or whatever - however far you want to take it. It can be called sexual abuse, or rape. And two instances in one night seperated by only an hour, can be called two offenses. Same people, same night - same willing partners, and one could be dead, because some idiot wanted to put in harsher penalties.


And I dunno what NAMBLA is.



I'm not the one trying to prove the point. All you have presented is some dodgy opinions that a ten year old and a 19 year old in a sexual relationship is OK.Never said it was ok I dont think. But it isnt always a case of rape. In my example, they were both willing. Whether you think the younger one was ready, or whether you think the older one was being irresponsible or abusive.



Anyone telling children that they are OK to have sex with adults at 10 years old is messed up.
I would have to agree. And thats not what I am doing here. Even if you were 10 years old, I am not trying to tell you that its OK. I am saying it happens. And different situations require different penalties. Your reading way too far into my example, and trying to make out like I am a child molester or something.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm too lazy to look them up, but there are many studies showing that the amount the state pays to deal with death sentence appeals is significantly higher than the cost of life imprisonment.

Each and every one of these studies, generally performed by some crusader against the death penalty, conveniently leaves out costs across the board.

I have a hard time believing that the cost of appeals for those on death row is even a dime higher than any other convict utilizing their right to appeal.

The logic is flawed.

A life conviction without the possibility of parole will incur the cost of appeals in addition to the costs if incarceration though out the lifetime of the inmate.

A death penalty has the potential to rack up the same costs of appeals, but only a portion of the cost incurred through housing.

It astounds me how gullible people can be, but then I read "I'm too lazy to look it up" and it all makes sense.


I'm not advocating life with a chance in 20, I'm advocating life, 99 years, whatever. Completely removing them from the active society. If, in addition to that, you feel from some sense of justice that they should be killed, that's your perogative. Your bullet analogy made me think you'd feel better living in China.

Murderers, rapists, child molesters ... explain to me why these people should live. Why should people that leave such trails of devastation, broken lives, and such deep emotional trauma be given a bed, shelter, meals, entertainment, education, and health care for the rest of their existence?

Remove them from society by and allowing them to further burden society?

As for the bullet and gun analogy ... Feh ... I'm a realist. Why have these elaborate and expensive methods of execution for the express purpose of being humane? The criminal up for execution wasn't in the least bit humane to their victims, why should I ... or anyone ... care if they feel any pain or discomfort?

China? Why would I feel more at home there? I don't speak the language and don't really care for the lack of basic rights or flagrant violation of human rights.

[DrZaius]

Murderers, rapists, child molesters ... explain to me why these people should live. Why should people that leave such trails of devastation, broken lives, and such deep emotional trauma be given a bed, shelter, meals, entertainment, education, and health care for the rest of their existence?

Remove them from society by and allowing them to further burden society?

I believe that you or I shouldn't get to decide who lives or dies. Eye for an Eye is pretty out-dated in my book. I'm fine with my taxes going up slightly to keep these people off of the streets, but killing them is convenience, not justice.

[TheEschaton]

Murderers, rapists, child molesters ... explain to me why these people should live. Why should people that leave such trails of devastation, broken lives, and such deep emotional trauma be given a bed, shelter, meals, entertainment, education, and health care for the rest of their existence?

Maybe for the same reason that we let anyone live - because they're people, and they have an inherent dignity which cannot be denied despite their horrendous acts.

And I don't know the last time you were in prison for life without chance of parole, but I don't think it's the picnic you make it out to be.

Edit to add: and killing them is worse than just killing them for convienance...it's killing them for revenge - which is not justice.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Each and every one of these studies, generally performed by some crusader against the death penalty, conveniently leaves out costs across the board.

I have a hard time believing that the cost of appeals for those on death row is even a dime higher than any other convict utilizing their right to appeal.

The logic is flawed.And I thought Ignot had made Francis Bacon's head explode.

It's really incredible how you go from "every study that disagrees with me is factually incorrect" to "well I just can't believe it" to "you know what, logic says they're wrong", because we all know how much scienctific research cares about logic. For Pete's sake, man. If you want to be hindbrain about this, I can't stop you, but at least leave poor science out of it.

[Satira]

Its about the persons willingness, and their ability to make a decision, whether its right or wrong.

Going back to the example I apparantly shouldn't have used. If the 10 year old initiated contact, or even if the 10 year old only said yes, or willingly participated. Then it can't be called rape in my book. It would be wrong of the 19 year old. Sure. But not rape, and not deserving of a death penalty.

I think you've drifted away from what CHILD MOLESTATION is. Rape can be involved in some cases, but it's also another topic. I would say that the situation you've presented wouldn't be one for a death penalty unless it was a repeat offense. But some kind of strong action should be taken against the 19 year old.

A child's willingness is not an adult's willingness. It speaks volumes for a child's maturity level if they think they're the smartest person in the entire world. And based off of that level of maturity, it negates their ability to know whether or not they're ready to say YES to adult sex.

I think it also says something for a 19 year old's character when they choose NOT to stop and say, "This is a child I shouldn't be touching" regardless of whether or not the child is initiating it.

It IS about whether or not it's right or wrong. That's the whole point of this discussion.


Eye for an Eye is pretty out-dated in my book.

It's not used enough in my book.

[Shari]

I am all for this idea, as Satira said...as long as there is a defined line.

If you're over 18, you know the fuck better. Less so as you go down in age, but even a 16 year old knows sex advances on a 6 year old are wrong.

Repeated offenders should be castrated by fire.

Okay, no. But I'm sorry, if you get caught, in the act, and there is no way of denying that you were having sex with a minor, and this a repeated offense. Yeah, kill em. Like many others stated, this is not a DISEASE. Its a weakness.

I spoke with a friend who has a sister that was sexually molested by her step-father for FIVE years because he threatened to kill her (my friend) and their mother if she every told anyone. Do I think this man should die? You're god damned right I do. Can you even begin to comprehend the kind of torture this child had to endure from (I believe the ages were) 5 to 11 years of age this girl went through? She's my age now, and she's STILL effected by it.

And truely, this swings for both sexes. I'm not slamming on the men only.

And that line is hard to define, because there are consensual sexual cases (teacher-student, for example) that come into play. Its very likely that the student may have seduced the teacher, or even vice versa. However, its not being taken by force. Imprisonment I could see being fair, and not death.

But if you forcibly sexually molest a child and clearly they are against it. Death, baby.

I know some are going to argue: Oh, so if they consent they don't deserve to die?

I don't think so. I think they should both get some counseling and the adult should be imprisoned for a time because they should fucking know better.


God this took forever for me to type, I hope it makes sense. It did in my mind as I was typing it. :(

[Shari]

I'm also going to add, that any repeated rapists, regardless of how old the people are they're raping, should be put to death.

But that is slightly off-topic.

I'm done now. :D

[Nieninque]

Your misinterpreting it. But let me try it a different way. Can you recall when you were 10 years old? Try hard, I know it was a long time ago. I can. I remember thinking I was the smartest thing that existed. I remember thinking alot of the time, people were explaining things too many times in stupid child like ways. I recall thinking I could handle anything. I was more ready and willing for sex at 10, than I was at 15.

Yes I can remember being ten (ha ha at the "U R OLD" joke...good one). I can remember that sex was something I knew absolutely nothing about. There was no way I was able to give an informed decision one way or the other. I would also say that, despite how much you thought you knew about sex at age ten, you really didnt.


Whether I was physically or emotionally stable enough or enough whatever that you seem to be harping on about. Its not always about right or wrong, or whatnot. Its about the persons willingness, and their ability to make a decision, whether its right or wrong.

Actually, you have it completely wrong. It's completely about right and wrong. It has nothing to do with willingness when you are talking about children as young as ten.

There is a process that abusers use to gain the trust of a child, before they abuse. It's called grooming. They make themselves the most important and irreplacable person in that child's life. Only when they have achieved that, do they usually act.

Now, if a child has gone through the grooming process, they are often asked to perform any number of things that they actually do not want to do. They do so because it is suggested to them that they do want to, and there is a fear of recriminations.

I knew of two teenage boys who were being buggered on a regular basis by their stepfather. He asked them if they wanted to do it each time, and each time they said yes. They were afraid of the recriminations is they said no. They hated it. They were also older than ten. The stepfather used their "consent" to justify in his head that he was doing nothing wrong and that they wanted to have sex with him. It is a whole lot easier to get younger kids to consent to something they dont want to do.

The point is that children are not able to give an informed consent. Sure they can say yes, but it is the easiest thing in the world to get a child to say yes to something they arent sure about...except maybe eating vegetables.


Going back to the example I apparantly shouldn't have used. If the 10 year old initiated contact, or even if the 10 year old only said yes, or willingly participated. Then it can't be called rape in my book. It would be wrong of the 19 year old. Sure. But not rape, and not deserving of a death penalty.

It is rape because the child is too young to give informed consent, therefore it is sex without consent. I dont believe in the death penalty, but it most definitely deserves the harshest penalty available.


And if you go off on the two offenses before the penalty kicks in, remember how some idiots try and call things. If the kids were kissing one hour, and later the same night they were fondling. Or whatever - however far you want to take it. It can be called sexual abuse, or rape. And two instances in one night seperated by only an hour, can be called two offenses. Same people, same night - same willing partners, and one could be dead, because some idiot wanted to put in harsher penalties.

Kids? I assume you arent talking about the ten year old and the 19 year old, but if it were two children who were kissing and groping each other, it doesnt classify as rape anyway.


And I dunno what NAMBLA is.North American Man Boy Love Association. An organisation of men who try to get the laws changed so they can screw young boys...or something like that.


Never said it was ok I dont think. But it isnt always a case of rape. In my example, they were both willing. Whether you think the younger one was ready, or whether you think the older one was being irresponsible or abusive.

That's the point, they werent both willing. There are expected codes of behaviour in society that adults should adhere to. Not having sex with children is one of them. Regardless of how much they thought the ten year old was "gagging for it" they really werent.


I would have to agree. And thats not what I am doing here. Even if you were 10 years old, I am not trying to tell you that its OK. I am saying it happens. And different situations require different penalties. Your reading way too far into my example, and trying to make out like I am a child molester or something.

Im saying your arguments are very similar to those that child abusers use to justify their behaviours. "She knew what she was doing" "He wanted it" "He enjoyed it"

Go do some work with offenders, they are phrases you will hear all the time.

[DrZaius]

The more of this post I've read, the more I've come to the conclusion that anyone who wants to have sex with a child has some wires crossed. As a result that classifies as a disease, no? If it's something I can't conceive of being a normal result of human development, then it has to be a disorder. Therefore, while they are the biggest bastards in our entire civilization, we don't have moral justification to kill them.

[Sean of the Thread]

<Insert Diety> help the person that fucks with my children.
..
..

..
.
.
..
.
Unless it's my son.. when he's 16.. and the offender is a smoking 23 year old female.

HIGH FIVE!

[Gan]

The problem with that is being absolutely certain that it is that person's sperm.

There was a man with learning difficulties who was released on appeal against his conviction for raping a young girl after he had spent 14 years in prison. His conviction was based pretty much on the fact that the DNA from the sperm was said by experts at the trial to be his. Jury convicted him based on that evidence.

14 years later, the Court of Appeal heard that he was impotent and it couldnt have been his sperm.

As appalling as that was, it would have been a whole lot worse if he had been sentenced to death.

This is definately where the integrity of the crime lab performing the forensic investigation needs to be impeccable. We saw huge mismanagement of the HPD crime lab here in Houston, where the lab was actually shut down for a period of months while it was investigated for mismanagement and incompetence. It cost the city millions in cases being overturned and on a positive note, the director at one point was facing criminal negligence charges herself due to attempting to cover up the issue.

If handled correctly, forensic evidence, especially DNA evidence, can be very damning to the guilty and very exhonorating to the innocent. I just finished reading Patricia Cornwell's Jack the Ripper book on her examination of JR evidence from a forensic perspective; and I believe that without a doubt, if this were to happen in today's time, the perp would have been caught.

[Gan]

<Insert Diety> help the person that fucks with my children.
..
..

..
.
.
..
.
Unless it's my son.. when he's 16.. and the offender is a smoking 23 year old female.

HIGH FIVE!

Dont forget to ask if she has a sister. Twins would be even better...

[Tsa`ah]

And I thought Ignot had made Francis Bacon's head explode.

It's really incredible how you go from "every study that disagrees with me is factually incorrect" to "well I just can't believe it" to "you know what, logic says they're wrong", because we all know how much scienctific research cares about logic. For Pete's sake, man. If you want to be hindbrain about this, I can't stop you, but at least leave poor science out of it.

Yet you do nothing other than demonstrating once again how to pull a Latrin.

Go ahead and find me a break down of costs associated with the death penalty and compare that to the costs of a life sentence just to demonstrate how the death penalty will cost each tax payer more.

We'll be waiting for some time I'm sure. As mentioned, studies that claim death row inmates pose a greater tax burden conveniently leave out the fact that the costs involved in the appeals process isn't any different than those incarcerated with lesser convictions.

If you feel that I'm wrong ... prove me wrong. Show me, and everyone else, that it actually costs us more to sentence criminals to death than it does to sentence them to life without parole.


Maybe for the same reason that we let anyone live - because they're people, and they have an inherent dignity which cannot be denied despite their horrendous acts.

And I don't know the last time you were in prison for life without chance of parole, but I don't think it's the picnic you make it out to be.

Edit to add: and killing them is worse than just killing them for convienance...it's killing them for revenge - which is not justice.

-TheE-

I'm sure Manson, Homolka & Bernardo, Wilbur Brown, Dean Schwartzmiller, Arthur Vitasek ... and the list continues ... considered the inherent dignity of their victims.

Sorry, but these people aren't human in my eyes.

[Gan]

I'm sure Manson, Homolka & Bernardo, Wilbur Brown, Dean Schwartzmiller, Arthur Vitasek ... and the list continues ... considered the inherent dignity of their victims.

Sorry, but these people aren't human in my eyes.

My thoughts exactly. I think we should show them as much compassion and concern with their well being during the execution as they did during the execution they performed on their victim. In fact, I would even support death by the same method that they were convicted of killing their victims as the ultimate punishment.

You shoot someone and get convicted and sentenced to death, the sentence is carried out by firing squad.

You strangle someone to death, then you get the non-drop method of hanging where you are strangled to death.

You run someone over in a car.... you get to play dodgeball on a freeway.

The list goes on....


WHO CARES IF THE PERSON TO BE EXECUTED WILL FEEL PAIN DURING THE EXECUTION. NEWSFLASH: Death is painful, if not physically, psychologically.

[Gan]

My only thoughts on the incarceration costs per inmate as compared to general population, ad seg, super seg, and death row tend to trend upwards as they were listed respectively.

This is due to the extra precautions, extraordinary facility/security requirements, and extra manpower necessary to house offenders of each escalated class and yet maintain their 'rights' and safety as a prisoner.

When I worked in the Texas prison system back in the mid 90's, the cost per GP medium security inmate was approx. $27 per day. The cost per ad seg inmate was approx. $29 per day. The cost per superseg/death row inmate was $33 to $34 per day. These costs vary by the security type of each unit, being minimal security, medium security, or maximum security facility. Because facility types range from 500 to 2500 man units with structure types ranging from dormitory style, row/cellblock style, to pod/cellblock style.

And of course the age of the facility and how much of its inmate population can be put to work in the different departments/industries involved with that particular unit... be it wood/cabinetry, stainless steel, out on the linesquads growing/picking vegitables, in the hog/cattle farms... etc. Not to mention if the prison unit has any self sustaining industries that it can use to internalize some of the costs of housing/feeding its inmate population.

If you are going to do a research on data necessary to do a comparison then you're going to have to do a cross section of state/prison type/inmate type and look at overall housing/security cost per inmate per day. These studies are out there, because its a real issue that prison administrators (federal, state, county/local, and private) track in order to keep costs inline with budgets and in the case of private prisons - within profit margins.

[Latrinsorm]

As mentioned, studies that claim death row inmates pose a greater tax burden conveniently leave out the fact that the costs involved in the appeals process isn't any different than those incarcerated with lesser convictions.So you can make factual claims with no backing but I can't? That hardly seems sporting, wouldn't you say?

In any event, I'll give you a quote from a pro death penalty site that makes an argument for the death penalty being more expensive: "We received a post which located a flaw within our cost evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value" all the costs of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if we do so, a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the numbers in our analysis, such is a good point."

I'd further note that a death penalty system does not necessarily have to execute anyone to cost money, as New Jersey shows quite dramatically. Comparing inmate by inmate is of course relevant, but there are flat costs involved as well.
I think we should show them as much compassion and concern with their well being during the execution as they did during the execution they performed on their victim.I wonder where you stand on the "civilized world's" indifference to various brutalities that go on every day. Starvation, for instance.
When I worked in the Texas prison system back in the mid 90's, the cost per GP medium security inmate was approx. $27 per day. The cost per ad seg inmate was approx. $29 per day. The cost per superseg/death row inmate was $33 to $34 per day. These costs vary by the security type of each unit, being minimal security, medium security, or maximum security facility. Because facility types range from 500 to 2500 man units with structure types ranging from dormitory style, row/cellblock style, to pod/cellblock style. SOURCE????????? :D

[Warriorbird]

I'm all in favor of bringing the culture of death to child molestors.

[Sean of the Thread]

Fuck the worlds brutalities.. we do plenty. Since when is the world's fuck ups our responsibility?

Hell we stopped untold amounts of murder and torture in Iraq and you ignorant liberals still play the violin. I'm sure if were cured starvation or aids in Africa you fuckers would still find a reason to complain.


That being said... capital punishment for molester fucks is aaaa ooooookaaaay in every chapter of my book.

[Latrinsorm]

Can I go ahead and issue a moratorium on anyone calling me "liberal" or "conservative" until you guys make up your mind on which one I am? :thanx:

[Gan]

I wonder where you stand on the "civilized world's" indifference to various brutalities that go on every day. Starvation, for instance.

If someone is intentionally and criminally starving someone else, then they should be starved as part of their punishment. Let them see how it feels instead of a slap on the wrist and a fine...



SOURCE????????? :D
The term paper I wrote on it at the time is long gone, but I'll endeavor to find you some data as I get the time. I know the publications that I used to receive from my warden's office that were used to back this research up, so I'll start there.

[Latrinsorm]

I was joking on the source thing, but if you're up for it I'd be happy to see what you've got. :)

[Gan]

The data is out there, its just a matter of getting one's hands on it.

Prisons are a business just like anything else. They have a bottom line and a budget, only they are also accountable to state and federal governments as well as to the courts.

[Sean of the Thread]

Can I go ahead and issue a moratorium on anyone calling me "liberal" or "conservative" until you guys make up your mind on which one I am? :thanx:

Wasn't directed at you in particular.

[Satira]

Can I go ahead and issue a moratorium on anyone calling me "liberal" or "conservative" until you guys make up your mind on which one I am? :thanx:

You're a crazyman!!!!!

[Gan]

Some federal numbers ranging from 1975 to 2003. These are not seperated out by inmate classification though.

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/budgetsummary/btd/1975_2002/2002/html/page117-119.htm

More state overview data:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf


Here's some 2005 Florida data:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsbrief/cost.html

1993 National Data on Jail costs


Average operating cost per inmate
Excluding capital outlays in 1993, the average cost to keep one jail inmate incarcerated for a year was $14,667. Over 10 years the cost per inmate had risen 57% from $9,360. (Adjusted for inflation to 1983 dollars the annual cost per inmate had decreased by 11%.) The Northeast had the highest average operating expenditure per inmate ($22,678) and the South, the lowest ($11,697). Excluding Alaska and the District of Columbia, average annual operating costs per inmate by State were highest in New York ( $29,297) and lowest in Mississippi ($7,014).

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/jails1.htm


Thats about 10 minutes worth of google. Its not facility/classification specific, but it gives you a decent idea of what the average cost per inmate per day was then and now.

[Warriorbird]

"Hell we stopped untold amounts of murder and torture in Iraq and you ignorant liberals still play the violin. I'm sure if were cured starvation or aids in Africa you fuckers would still find a reason to complain."

Not a very conservative statement, really, when it comes down to it. Kinda funny. I think there's a whole lot of death that we could stop, but choose not to, so you can't REALLY play that card, however.

Doesn't stop me from being completely in favor of the death penalty, however, and the extension thereof to child molestors.

[xtc]

Yeah! I couldn't help it that my dick fell into that guy's ass!

or that I was born with HIV because my mother was raped....

[xtc]

I know and understand that child abuse is cyclical and the abused become abusers but with the proliferation of NAMBLA fans and those who support "inter-generational" love, must be the Muslim in me, but for second offenders I say kill em.