Do you support Life imprisonment for 1st time serious child molesters.

[EdwardM]

Poll question: Do you support Life imprisonment for 1st time serious child molesters.

Now this poll isn't for grey area cases like 19 year olds getting caught with 16 year olds(which is a load of crap anyways) or even a 50 year olds with 16 year old. This poll is for serious cases. I would say, someone over the age of 21 having sex with someone under 12 when a mental illness is not involved. This is probably my only view that I consider to be right wing. I want these fuckers locked up for life. Every statistic shows that they almost always re offend, so by releasing them, we are almost certain another child will be molested if we don't keep them locked up. This is not necessarily for their punishment, but dammit we have to keep the children safe, and every survey shows they can't be reformed. Maybe I'd make an exception if they got castrated before release.

[wtmusic]

1. 'every statistic shows that they almost always reoffend'

'every', 'almost', and 'always' in the same factual statement! What a treat!

As much as you'd apparently like it to be otherwise, studies show recidivism anywhere from 70% down to 20%, but hell--you've left yourself a lot of wiggle room there--every statement you've made could almost always be right! :crazy:

[EdwardM]

4. I've never heard of these 20 percent charts.

Didn't mean to leave myself wiggle room, but if you can prove to me it is closer to 20 percent than 70 percent, I would probably end my support for imprisonment. By life imprisonment, I do not necessarily mean in a prison setting their whole life, but they shouldn't be around children, ever. How ever its done, even if they have to build a special town for them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. There's a lot of misinformation here.

For one thing, a great number of first offenders never repeat. Particularly if they receive therapy and counseling. Repeat offenses are roughly on a par with repeat offeses for other crimes, for first offenders. It is true, however, if they do repeat they are likely to continue to repeat as long as possible, despite therapy and counseling. Even years after they have no sexual drive at all - molestation is not necessarily about sex, at least as we understand it. Therefore, castration would have no effect whatsoever.

What we need are institutions, not prisons, where these people can get treatment, where they can be closely supervised, for the rest of their lives, if necessary - a secular monastary, if you will. Except for this abberration, they are usually decent, productive persons; when one of them is exposed people always talk about how they were fine neighbors, generous people who no one ever suspected of such a thing. If the children are protected from them, throwing them away is wrong.

Of course, there are also the vicious, the psychopaths who intentionally injure to get satisfaction - they need incarceration like any other psycho.

[wtmusic]

6. Good points, all

The real question is how to protect children from them, and in truth, children should be protected from everybody (for every Polly Klaas there are fifty others whose parents weren't parenting). IMO it's wrong to stigmatize these people if they've paid for their crime. If we do we create a self-fulfilling prophecy and make redemption impossible.

[frogcycle]

12. but when it comes down to it

Why should they receive therapy and counseling? Why jump through hoops trying to rehabilitate losers? Why not just lock them up and throw away the key? Whatever the recidivism rate, it is too high. It would be zero if they never again saw the outside of a cell.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Because, in a compassionate society we do not punish the mentally

ill, we treat them.

This is not a "moral failing". It is a mental illness. And mental illnesses can be treated, but only when we try to treat them. The fact that we don't, today, know the proper treatment doesn't mean we just throw them away. This isn't the dark ages, or even the 19th century. We have the capability to separate these people from the children, and still treat them like human beings. In doing so, we may learn how to prevent it from happening in the first place.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Because it's more expensive to keep them locked up

Than it is to rehabilitate them. The same case could be made about the recidivism rate for every crime. If we locked everyone up for the first offense or gave them the death penalty, there would be no criminals.

[JHB]

87. Just because I'm in a nit mood, I'll correct that:

Human nature being what it is, under the conditions Hippo_Tron postulates (100% life imprisonment or death for first any offense) there would STILL be criminals. What there would be non of would be "repeat offenders".

[Hippo_Tron]

94. I actually meant to say there would be a 0% recidivism rate

Typed too fast.

[EdwardM]

15. I could agree to something like this.

I don't think molestors should be in normal prisons anyways because they are walking targets. Perhaps I could have choosed my words more carefully. When I said imprisoned, my main goal is making sure they looked over, not punished. I don't feel the need to punish them for life, but my number one cause is to make sure they never molest another child. I just want them to be seperated from children, however it is done, that is the only thing I care about, until it is shown that they will not molest again. I don't mean to misinform, this post shows the information I thought to be true. I thought most grownup who molest children younger than preteens generally reoffend, but please show me if I am wrong, because i didnt do any investigation for this post.

[madeline_con]

59. First offense is usually not a "first" offense.

The perv has usually been victimizing for sometime before they first get caught.

Prisons ARE institutions. The nature of the way they're built lends them to housing these monsters, so they can get "treatment" and "can be closely supervised".

[sandnsea]

97. That's why priests got treatment

And were moved to different parishes. It didn't work. Treatment is a good principle for a first offender because everybody deserves that opportunity. But it's naive to put too much faith in it, which the priest debacle has shown.

[Toucano]

3. When mental illness is not involved

Is there ever a time when mental illness is not involved?

I think adults who have sex with children like you describe belong in hospitals, not prisons.

[frogcycle]

19. Hospitals?

Hospitals with bars on the windows, solitary confinement, heavy sedation, no chance of release, I presume?

[madeline_con]

56. Yeh, but instead of guards, there are turnkeys in scrubs.

:eyes:

[frogcycle]

58. with really big clubs

and tasers

[madeline_con]

63. And hypodermics. n/t

[Toucano]

72. Hospitals with treatment.

And, of course, security.

[sandnsea]

103. Permanently, yes they do

I wish we could begin to accept the truth about who is in prison. By and large, it's addicts and the mentally ill. We need a completely different system, the mentally ill aren't going to be punished into reform. It's stupid. The sexual predators shouldn't get out, but there's no need to heap scorn on anybody.

[johnaries]

5. This is not a black/white issue, although I understand

that it is a very emotional issue.

We need to understand human behaviour better before we can have a truly meaningful answer. IMHO, there may be a latent instinctual desire for mates as soon as they become physically capable of child-bearing.

As far as "perverts" who desire children who are pre-pubescent, I cannot help but think that this is a by-product of the sexual repression of our society.

To explain, imagine someone who has a strong sexual appetite, but has been told since youth that such an appetite was "sinful". They are forced to deny their own sexuality, but the urges still compel them on a strong subliminal level. Therefore, in order to fulfill their sexual needs, they need to have some sort of "innocent" aspect involved. What is more innocent than a child?

Again, this is just my own theory. Does anyone have a better one? I'd love to hear it.

So, yes, I blame our repressive society for child molesters. Still, the important thing here is to keep our children safe.

So, no, I don't condone throwing such molesters "under the jail", even though if they molested my child I might wish for that kind of revenge.

There are drug therapies that will render molesters incapable of molestation. Although those therapies may be worse than "jail".

Until we can figure out why child molesters are molesters and find a way to cure them, we must keep our children safe. We should work on a "cure", but until then the important thing is to keep our children from becoming victims, whatever method we use.

[madeline_con]

7. Other. DP

Recidivism is guaranteed. Protect the kids.

[EdwardM]

8. What's DP?

[madeline_con]

13. death penalty

[frogcycle]

16. that works n/t

[madeline_con]

29. I haven't heard the "so, you'd kill the mentally ill?" thing yet.

Being crazy enough to rape a child gets no sympathy from me.

[frogcycle]

35. sorry, you won't hear it

from me!

A good argument could be made that ANYONE who commits a capital crime is "mentally ill" as in not using normal logic. The "tell right from wrong" legal definition is, to me, ludicrous.

So that means we have a catch-22. You can't be executed if you're crazy, and you'd have to be crazy to do something to get yourself executed.


Sociopaths by definition reject society's definitions of right and wrong. And it is stupid to warehouse sociopaths with no chance of parole. A reasonable case could be made that it is MORE "cruel and unusual" than just terminating their defective consciousness permanently.

Ok, I disobeyed my own suggestion. bad frogcycle!

[EdwardM]

18. Sorry, I cannot support the death penalty for any reason.

I don't want to give the state to kill people who are not a threat to society anymore.

[frogcycle]

20. well, that is an oxymoron

they are a threat as long as they are alive

[EdwardM]

22. They are not a threat as long as they are behind bars.

Noone has any reason to fear Charlie Manson anymore.

[madeline_con]

25. Is he a child molester?

that's somewhat moot.

[EdwardM]

28. uh, He is far worse than a child molestor.

[frogcycle]

31. let me propose that we not

turn this into a debate over the relative merits of permanently warehousing John Gacy vs. frying his ass.

He is in prison for life, no chance of parole. Of course he was convicted not only of being a child molester but also of killing them - and there were about forty as I recall.

I think it is stupid to be warehousing him in an Illinois prison, feeding him and giving him books to read, whatever the hell they do with him. He should have gone the way of Ted Bundy long ago.

But the DP debate differs from the "one strike and you're out" question originally posed.

[EdwardM]

34. Like I said, this is less a punishment case and more of a protecting the children thing.

I don't like revenge justice, and that is what the Death Penalty is. I don't like it and everything it stands for. My reason for what you call "one strike and you're out" is just for the protection of young children, nothing else. And I've already said I don't support putting them in same prison as normal offenders because they are walking targets. And I'm not a big fan of how inhumane our corporate run prisons have become. I support keeping them seperated from society, however it is done, not necessarily in a prison but a more humane location, unless they are will to undergo psychical surgery or use special drugs to eliminate their sex drive. To me it is about protecting children, and not about punishment. And for the record, I do support assisted suicide, so I believe anyone sentence to life without parole should have the suicide option, but it should not be forced upon them.

[madeline_con]

39. "First time serious"

We'd have to define "serious", for starters. :eyes:

[EdwardM]

41. I defined what I consider serious in my first post

"I would say, someone over the age of 21 having sex with someone under 12 when a mental illness is not involved. "

I think anyone who would do something like that is definately wrong.

[frogcycle]

50. definitely wrong?

understatement of the century

a complete sociopathic wacko who belongs under a jail for eternity, preferably not breathing, but if we must, we can keep him/her breathing, but heavily sedated. Expensive, but if it makes people happy I yield to the collective wisdom of the right-to-lifers (but not on abortion or stem cell research - those are more important)

[MonkeyFunk]

70. John Wayne Gacy

was executed in 1994.

[frogcycle]

73. well good

i'm misremembering who my example is. i need some sleep!

[Bunny]

71. Uh...John Wayne Gacy was fried, a long time ago.

He was executed in 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy

[madeline_con]

37. Point is, if he was released, raping kids would not be his

priorty...

[madeline_con]

55. I'm familiar with Charlie.

bringing him up has nothing to do with child molestation.

[pitohui]

100. that's a very naive statement

many powerful mobsters have organized mob hits from behind prison walls

many not-so-powerful prisoners have raped and killed other prisoners behind prison walls

to say "no one" has any reason to fear dangerous prisoners is to say that we don't consider the other prisoners persons

[madeline_con]

21. Pervs released from jail ARE a threat to society. n/t

[EdwardM]

24. Thats why I support not releasing them.

[madeline_con]

36. That's cool. I take a different POV

[HoneyBee]

74. I heard and interesting discussion on NPR regarding this very topic

Some states are trying to do just this; impose the death penalty on child molesters. One argument I heard against this is that it may put a child victim's very life in imminent danger. Where one could argue the death penalty as a deterrent to this action, it's really not. In fact, where a person may molest, rape and violate a child and face the possibility of the death penalty... why might they not take the added "precaution" of murdering the "witness"?

FTR, I am against the death penalty in all cases. I do not trust our society and government to make a decision of that magnitude and I see it as a very barbaric method of dealing with crime. But, the point made by this guest seemed to further solidify my belief that this is an especially slippery slope.

[Coventina]

77. It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences

Welcome to DU!

Like you, I am against the DP, no ifs, ands or buts.

State executions are theatre designed to enhance the prestige of the State. For that reason alone I would always oppose the DP. But there are a host of other problems with the DP beyond that.

[ecstatic]

82. Unfortunately, you may be correct

But the very fact that these monsters are willing to murder children makes me want to make an exception to my usual anti-DP stance... Yet, if making the death penalty an automatic consequence causes more children to die, then I cannot support that particular consequence.

[newyawker99]

90. Hi HoneyBee!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. Punishist deviants don't care about the security of the innocent

They want EXECUTIONS EXECUTIONS EXECUTIONS! The welfare of society be damned.

I heard people lamenting that an attempted murder DIDN'T succeed because if it did, "we could fry the bastard."

That's the kind of people they are. No better than the ones on the gallows.

[Hosnon]

9. First Time = Harsh Sentence; Second Time = (True) Life. nt.

[frogcycle]

14. so for the guy in Missouri

can you try him separately for the two boys so you can fast-forward to two-time loser and throw him under the jail?

[Hosnon]

33. Possibly, possibly not:

In my world:

The life sentence would only be required for a defendant who has already been convicted of a similar crime, e.g., child molestation. Furthermore, the two crimes could not have a significant nexus to substantially similar facts.

I would have an exception to the above rule: If the crimes are particularly egregious (to be determined by the finder-of-fact), the life sentence can be imposed notwithstanding a significant nexus to substantially similar facts. This exception would be designed to impose a life sentence on the first time offender who molested several children over a long time span but didn't get caught until the end (and all at once).

Regarding the guy in Missouri, if the finder-of-fact determines that he should be double-slammed, so be it.

[madeline_con]

42. Unless he's "mentally ill", in which case he gets a pass....

and ends up living next door to a school.

[EdwardM]

47. that's not what I mean by the mental exception.

I would support keeping a mentally child molestor locked up in a mental institute until it is proven he won't reoffend, just not in a normal prison where he will be a walking target.

[madeline_con]

49. "... until it is proven he won't reoffend..."

Which, according to studies, won't happen.

A walking target? Screw him! Literally.

Why should he get any better treatment than the other guys who have to fight off rapists in prison?

[EdwardM]

51. It's kinda hard to reoffend when you have no penis.

[madeline_con]

53. Au contraire. See post #52. n/t

[EdwardM]

60. It would certainly cut out 90 percent of them.

[madeline_con]

62. Do you want him next door to you?

I've got a kid. I know I don't, no matter how many "Experts" may have poked and prodded him.

[frogcycle]

54. you do know, i hope

that you cannot prove a negative?

even if you castrate them they can still molest if they want to. And the screwed-up brain that wants to do that does not necessarily turn to mush just because the hormones aren't there. What about the guy who likes pulling the wings off of flies, and seeing children terrified? No matter what amount of treatment - counseling, therapy, whatever you want to call it - you provide, and no matter how "normal" the subject appears, you just cannot possibly fathom what crossed-up wires in his head made him that way, and so absolutely cannot "prove" you've uncrossed them.

[Sugar Smack]

10. Yes, life imprisonment.

No question.

[Roxy66]

11. Castration...1st offense.

[frogcycle]

27. what about females?

[EdwardM]

38. Female molestors are extremely rare.

If you notice, on the entire run of "To catach a predator" there has only been one female, and she only came because her man brought her for a threesome. In many ways, my sex is definately the lesser one, and this is one of the many ways. I don't really know much about Female Molestors because of their rarity, so I would have to look into it.

[frogcycle]

44. you miss my point

if it is appropriate to castrate a male first time offender for having sex with a young girl as roxy suggested, then what do you do with a woman who has sex with a young boy?

I don't care how many there are; how do you write the law?

[EdwardM]

48. I really don't know

Obviously, I wouldn't make a very good legislature. I don't know what drugs are availible, so obviously I'm not the person to ask.

[madeline_con]

52. The castration is chemical, isn't it?

I've not heard of members being severed. :shrug:

With a strong enough urge, the molester rendered "impotent" can still engage in object rape and other forms of molestation. It does not make society any safer, really.

[frogcycle]

57. well, we've beat this to death

good night

[madeline_con]

61. toodles.

[madeline_con]

43. Depo provera has the same effect on them.

[noonwitch]

91. Rape is a crime of violence, not of sex

A man does not need a functioning penis to sexually assualt someone. A bottle will do, because his goal is not necessarily sexual gratification, but the humiliation of his victim.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. What I'd like to know is, will the kindly looking man in the priest's collar get the same punishment

for the same crime as the creepy guy in the beat up van?

[frogcycle]

23. wouldntcha think? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

30. No, actually I wouldn't.

And it seems to me if any other organization -from The Kiwanis Club to the Nike Corporation- besides The Catholic Church had engaged in the documented, widespread, conspiratorial covering up of pedophilia and protecting of pedophile criminals, not only would their executive officers be indicted on racketeering and other charges, they would have been run out of every state in this country by torch-wielding townsfolk.

But, for whatever reason, the Church always gets to play by "special" rules.

[frogcycle]

32. I guess I should have

put a :sarcasm: icon on my post...

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Yep!

Sorry.

[madeline_con]

46. No, the guy in the van can't find Jesus till AFTER he's in jail. n/t

[Hekate]

64. Our prisons are now overflowing & are now being outsourced & privatized...

This country has GOT to come up with better ideas than "throwing away the key"!

I have no sympathy for child molestors, none, but "zero tolerance" policies and laws with pre-determined sentencing are damaging to us all.

Hekate

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Maybe if we weren't letting rapists, murderers and child molesters OUT to make more room

for non-violent drug offenders, we might be able to seriously punish the truly serious criminals. As it is, half of our prison population is in there for shit like smoking a joint.

[Hekate]

67. I agree 100%. The asinine war on drugs has got to stop first. nt

:hi:

[Bombtrack]

66. I support executing most of them, so other

[OneBlueSky]

68. I think that blanket statements like that are very dangerous . . .

there's all kinds of "molestation" these days, from actual rape to fondling to some kid seeing an adult pissing in the woods . . . each case is unique, and I'd be very uncomfortable with a "one rule fits all" approach . . .

[bananarepublican]

69. Provided that there is absolutely no doubt as to guilt (i.e. no planted evidence). n/t

[Eurobabe]

75. Child molestors have the highest rate of recidivism

IIRC. I don't know what the answer is, but this is one of those truly disgusting crimes that causes perpetuation.

[jarab]

86. Don't have an answer either ...

but I shudder to think how many molesters there are among us who haven't received any "justice". I would suspect multiples of those who were caught.

...O...

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

76. Many child molesters have been victims of molestation themselves. They are mentally and spiritually

ill. I believe that a first time offender should receive intensive psychological help and a lighter sentence and if they re-offend, they should be placed in a facility where they will get the help they need but be kept from the general population. I don't think a prison environment is necessary for this.

[noonwitch]

78. I support some judicial discretion in sentencing

A very young, first time offender might not be beyond rehabilitation, especially if the victim was not seriously injured as a result of the assualt. Because we try teens as adults for most sex offenses, I think a judge should have some leeway in sentencing options, as a good number of those teens have been recently victimized themselves.

But any offender over the age of 21 is probably not a first-time offender and should get a stiff sentence unless there's some kind of evidence of a brain tumor or something causing the aberrant behavior (from a life pattern of stable behavior).

[qanda]

79. They give their victim a life sentence

Why shouldn't they receive one themselves? Anyone who would molest a child is beyond evil and they don't deserve any mercy.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

80. I Say A Mandatory Minimum Of 15 Yrs To Life For First Time Offenders, Depending On Circumstance.

Sexual molesters of children are some of the most vile creatures that live amongst us. I do feel, however, that 15 hard served years behind bars could be long enough to fully change even the most vile, but I don't think it should be an expected release. I think it should be 15 to life mandatory and only a rigorous parole board process would be able to determine if that person has changed enough or progressed enough to warrant possible release back into the public domain, also with the original circumstances of the crime being taken into consideration as well.

Some may very well be capable of normal social behavior after 15 years, but many deserve to never see the public light of day ever again. But for the crime itself, regardless of rehabilitation, they'd still deserve at least a minimum punishment of 15 hard served years for being utter vile scumbags to begin with.

[ecstatic]

81. Umm... You mean the first time they're actually CAUGHT?! That's a hell yes

Of course I support life imprisonment, assuming the evidence and proof is 100% solid and valid.

Are we really to believe that the first time a pedophile is caught is actually the first time s/he committed the crime? Pedophilia is a disease/mental condition that cannot be cured. Who in their normal frame of mind thinks of putting his/her hands on a child in a sexual way? Offenders are a menace to society and belong somewhere far away from children and the general public.

[baldguy]

83. I worked worked with a child molester.

He had been an up & coming local politico when he was caught, and spent 15 yrs in prison. When I knew him, he had been out for a few years, was in a stable long term relationship, was continuing counseling, ans was holding down a full-time sales job and a part-time job delivering pizzas. He'd turned his life around and wasn't bothering anybody.

But someone felt that he hadn't been punished enough and murdered him. The cops didn't spend much time trying to find the killer.

[FlaGranny]

84. My fear is always that

an 18-year-old would be incarcerated for the rest of his life for having sex with his 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend. This would have to be a very, very carefully thought out law. Other than that, I'm not certain I would pick incarcerated for life on the first offense. It depends on the circumstances. An adult man who actually rapes a small child - yes, definitely send him away for life.

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. Ridiculous

Terrifying responses, too.

[brentspeak]

88. What IDIOTS voted for "I don't support jail time for sex offenders"????

Care to ID yourselves?

[Clinton_Co_Regulator]

96. I did

see that also and was thinking five jokers/pranksters/trolls?

[brentspeak]

89. s/d

[porphyrian]

92. How is child molestation NOT mental illness? I reject the premise of the poll.

There's nothing sane about an adult having sex with someone who hasn't even reached sexual maturity yet. They need serious treatment, and they should be continuously monitored or locked away until they get it so that they don't inadvertently or intentionally destroy children before they've even reached adolescence.

[Jim Warren]

95. Ridiculous

Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"

[Az]

98. False premise. Child molestors do not choose to be attracted to what they are

They are an aberation. An unfortunate wiring in a society that has learned to preclude such relationships. Biologically speaking there is nothing wrong with their attraction. It is our society that has come to realise that such relationships are destructive.

A person cannot change what they are attracted to. Its like trying not to like your favorite flavor of ice cream. You do not choose what you are attracted to. You discover it.

Society has a right to defend itself from these aberations. In many areas sexual differences are acceptable because it involves other consenting adults. But someone attracted to children is blighted as they can never engage in a consentual relationship with a child due to their inability to understand the nature of such relationships as yet.

No one ever said neurology and the law were compatible. What do you do with an individual that is a threat to society not by choice but by nature?

[pitohui]

99. what study shows that they almost always re-offend?

this is just folklore spread by bad andrew vacchss novels to my knowledge, the only studies i've seen show that murderers and child molestors have much lower re-offending rates than the usual drug addicts, armed robbers, and so on

look if we don't believe people can be rehabilitated, we ought to go ahead and support the death penalty, it is not right to keep people locked up forever, with no chance to earn parole, in the same cages with people who have committed petty offenses like smoking dope or writing hot checks, because the predators will still prey, it will just be on the other prisoners or on the guards since they have nothing to lose by killing and raping behind bars

[Az]

101. That is an often sited myth

Nearly any cop/legal show that gets into child molestor cases sites that one right off the bat. The truth is that other crimes (ie burgalry, mugging etc) have a much higher recitivism rate.

[Greyhound]

102. Other, until we adopt real definitions as you have in your preamble.

The games we play with the definitions of various crimes make absolute statements in these matters impractical.

Also you have not offered an alternative solution such as a colony for those that cannot be trusted around children. Putting these people into the (shamefully) traditional prison environment is tantamount to a (usually short) lifetime sentence of continuous torture, cruel and unusual by any standard. The vengeance aspect may make you and I feel better, but it is against the fundamental principles of our Constitution.