Types of people

[Bettina]

so you would derive pleasure from the suffering and death of another human? and before you brush him off as 'not human'' date=' he [i']is[/i] human, albeit an extremely unpleasant one.

 

i would imagine he had a similar attitude towards his victim as you do to him, ie "who cares if this person suffers? i dont. hel, im even going to enjoy watching her/him suffer". and as much as you can 'justify' it by saying he had done something to deserve it whereas the child had not, by wishing a 'slow burn' upon him you're wishing a prolongation of his pain for your personal pleasure, a desire which does little to differentiate yourself from him.

 

i appologise whole-heartedly if any of that caused offence -- it was not my intention to do so -- but i just wanted to point out the hypocracy of your views.

 

personally, i agree that he should die. im all for mersy and giving another chance, but someone that inherintly evil... as long as there's no doubt as to his guilt, then i think that he should be killed. someone like that has no rite to live, even in a prison...

 

but i also think that his murder should be as clinical and painless as possible. in some cases its appropriate to fight fire with fire, but to respond to a 'monstor' by becoming one yourself? i think that would be the worst thing that we could do, and it would sicken me were he torchered thus simply to sate the blood-lust of the people who are sickened by his acts.

 

I've rewritten this three times and now that I'm calmed down, I can reply in all honesty with a somewhat clear mind.

 

First, I'm not offended at all and I hope your not either. However, like so many others, you are concerned about the monster and haven't said one word about the victim. Lawyers will do that too so your not alone.

 

You took my comments from my heart and my soul, but in reality, I want him put to death in a humane way by lethal injection. I want a priest there to administer last rites so I think this is in line with what you have just said. Justice must be served to fit the crime but in a painless way. I feel sorry for his parents and relatives. That is in reality......

 

But.....in my mind, I want him to suffer for hours before he dies. I want him to suffocate slowly while frying in the electric chair. I want to be with the parents of that dead girl and watch it with them. When its over, I then want to walk up to his dead body, put my hand on his burned flesh, close my eyes, and hope and wish with all my heart that there is a god that will send him straight to the burning place....forever.

 

Well......since I'm only thinking that.....am I a monster too?

 

Bettina

[Dak]

First, I'm not offended at all and I hope your not either.

I've rewritten this three times and now that I'm calmed down, I can reply in all honesty with a somewhat clear mind.

do i take it that it that innitially you were offended, then you calmed down? if so, sorry for the initial offence and thanx for making the effort to calm down and not jus flame me.

like so many others, you are concerned about the monster and haven't said one word about the victim.

the victim is dead. there's nothing anyone can do for her now. there are, however, two groups of people who can benifit from by the purpotrates punishment:

 

the family of the victim - and whilst they may wish for a grusom punishment for him, this is exactly the reason that victims or their families are not allowed to chose the punishment for criminals, ie it would generally be too harsh. its inportant in a case like this that the victim is adequately punished so that the family can have some closure, but i think that life (as in entire life) imprisonment or execution should suffice for this. i dont think that encoraging or satisfying blood-lust in the victims family would be appropriate, as it would be promoting a 'monstrouse' attitude in them themselves.

 

other childeren its inportant that the perpotrator be removed from society for the protection of childeren. permanent incarseration or execution would accomplish this. torture would add nothing.

like so many others, you are concerned about the monster and haven't said one word about the victim. Lawyers will do that too so your not alone.

the purpotrators lawyers are obliged to argue in favor of the purpotrator. its what theyre for. consider this (apologies in advance for the grimness of this example): you are at work one day, when the police turn up and arrest you. you are hauled to the police station and charged with the rape and murder of a 5-year-old boy, who was found dead and mutulated, with sighns that he had been sexually assaulted, in the basement of your house. a DNA sample is taken from you which matches DNA found on the boy, and also fibers from your clothes match those found on the body. the news soon gets out and everyone considers you a 'monster' and starts baying for your blood. it is obviouse from the way the police act towards you that they think that you should sit in the chair for your crime, and the lawyers face as he accepts your case suggests that he feels the same. however, he accepts your case and argues in your defense in court; and in court the lawer, despite his discust at your crime, argues professionally in your defence.

 

it soon becomes apparent, by your lawers presentation of evidence, that you are, in fact, not responsible for the death or assault of the boy. the lawyer presents an easaly plausable mechanism whereby fibers from your clothes could have gotten on the boy. he puts forth and supports your aliby, and also presents evidence sujjesting that the window to your basement may have been forsed, allowing for the possibility that he was malitiously plased there by someone else. he spots an error in the way that your DNA sample and the DNA sample from the boy was handled, allowing for the possibility of contamination and invalidating the DNA evidence. after he has presented your case, the jury unanimously finds you not-guilty, and you are released.

 

would you not breath a sigh of releif as you leave the court room, grateful that a lawyer agreed to argue your case and defend you even though it initially seemed like you were guilty, and he himself thought you should get the chair? it is doubtful that, without his help, you would be able to defend yourself against the professional prosecuting lawer. studying a degree in forensics, i can tell you that the way in which evidence is handled (and the way in which the handling is documented) is complicated, and possible sorses of DNA contamination can be difficult to spot.

 

basically what im trying to say is, untill he was found guilty, there was the possibility that he was innocent and so he needed a lawer to argue for him so that justice could be carried out correctly.

 

imagine another (smaller) story: you are mugged at knife-point in the car-park of a shop. upset, you get into your car and drive to the police station to report it. en-root, you become emotional at the ordeal and start to cry. being flustered, you take your eyes off the road without thinking to look for tissues to wipe your eyes. whilst you are not looking, a toddler walks into the road and is struck by your car and killed.

 

in court, you agree to the accusation that you should have pulled over, or not driven at all, in the state that you were in, and plead guilty to manslaughter. even if the entire town is baying for your blood, your lawyer is still obliged to plea for a mersyful sentance for you, which to be honest i think you would deserve in the above examples. the lawer is obliged to argue for mersy, reguardless of his own or other peoples views. if you dont deserve it, you probably wont get it. if you do deserve it, you will only get it if the judge sees why you deserve it, hence the lawyer must explain to him why you deserve it. and it is the judges obligation to deside wether somone deserves mercy, not the lawers, so a lawyer cannot just deside to not argue for lieniency on the grounds that the lawyer does not think the guilty party deserves it.

 

in short: lawyers must defend people, even people like the murdering paedophile we were originally talking about, for justice to work correctly.

You took my comments from my heart and my soul, but in reality, I want him put to death in a humane way by lethal injection. I want a priest there to administer last rites so I think this is in line with what you have just said. Justice must be served to fit the crime but in a painless way. I feel sorry for his parents and relatives. That is in reality......

 

But.....in my mind, I want him to suffer for hours before he dies. I want him to suffocate slowly while frying in the electric chair. I want to be with the parents of that dead girl and watch it with them. When its over, I then want to walk up to his dead body, put my hand on his burned flesh, close my eyes, and hope and wish with all my heart that there is a god that will send him straight to the burning place....forever.

 

Well......since I'm only thinking that.....am I a monster too?

i guess thats different, if you wouldnt actually make it so if you could. no-one can help how they feel, only how they act. i dont hold it against the person for wanting to rape and murder a child, but i do hold it against him that he actually did it. so i, personally, wouldnt call you a 'monster' simply for feeling that he should suffer. my intention was to point out the hypocricy if you were sujjesting that he should actually be tortured to death.

[Dak]

on another note, imagine if he was killed, humanely or no, and then a couple of years later the real perpetrator was discovered.

 

no amount of 'oops'es would bring him back to life, or undo the torture, if there was any. even a simple appology would be out of the question.

 

these are the issues that the people in authority over this case have to deal with, and so if it seems, at times, as if they are being cold, uncaring and emotionless, its only because they are trying to keep a cool head and make the right desision. hope that all helps you see how lawyers and judges could seem to be on the side of a 'monster' bettina.

 

although i do acknoledge that some lawers have simply sold there soles to Baal. and probably gotten quite a good prise for it too, being lawers and all.

[Coral Rhedd]

RUSKIN' date=' Fla. - Police said Saturday they believe they have found the body of a missing 13-year-old girl, who disappeared from her home around the time a registered sex offender unexpectedly paid a visit.

 

Another monster let go by authorities. The repeat registered sex offender. I've written a letter and sent it to my congressmen demanding that they keep us safe by locking these people up for good. There is no cure for this type of person no matter what physcologists think.

 

I'm beginning to question mine too. No need to reply, just venting.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Bettina, most of the registered sex offenders never killed anyone. That is one reason they are freed after they have served their sentence.

 

The real question to be asking is "Why are sentences so short?" The prosecutor asks for the sentence with he thinks he can get a conviction. Juries are reluctant to convict in sex offenses. If they are reluctant to convict now, imagine how much more reluctant they would be to convict a person to a life sentence.

 

I was once part of a panel of experts on crime and the discussion turned to sex offences. One psychologist said that prosecuting attorneys rountinely asked him to examine women who make accusations of rape for mental stability. When I asked why, if I reported someone had stolen my car, I would not be examined for mental stability, no one had a good answer.

 

Here's the brutal truth: Women and children are not assumed to be as truthful as men.

[Dak]

there are psycological reasons why women and childeren could falsly claim to have been raped. with childeren, it can simply be a case of attention seeking or difficulty differentiating fact from fiction, failure to understand exactly the accusations that theyre making etc. with some women there is a huge confilct between the desire to sate their sex drive, and their desire to not act like the 'sluts' they have been told that people who have sex outside marrage are, and this conflict can resolve itself by having sex with someone (satisfys sex drive) and then convince themselves it was rape (satisfy morals).

 

its obviously inportant to check these options incase they are the root of the claim, but also, in cases of genuine rape, it is inportant to eliminate the possibility that it is a false claim originating from a psycological, umm, thingy, so that the woman can have her word trusted.

 

the reason you wouldnt get psycoanalysed upon reporting your car stolen:

 

#the psycological tendancy to falsly claim someone has halfed your car is uncommon

 

#the trial will not boil down to your word against theres - itll be setteled with proof. if it is proven that someone you dont know has broken into, hotwired, and taken your car, it is accepted that it was without your permission. oftern in rape cases, the defendant claims he had permission. there is oftern no way of proving concent (or abscence thereof), and thus it is inportant to determin whether the victim could be lying, to themselves or others.

 

Here's the brutal truth: Women and children are not assumed to be as truthful as men.

 

i would assume that psycoanalys would be used with the same frequency of occourance in cases where a man claims that he was raped by another man, and the accused claims that he had concent, as the same mental prosess could be applicable: desire to sate homosexual sex drive conflicting with desire to adhere to 'poofs are evil' opinion that the person has been tought etc

[Coral Rhedd]

there are psycological reasons why women and childeren could falsly claim to have been raped. with childeren' date=' it can simply be a case of attention seeking or difficulty differentiating fact from fiction, failure to understand exactly the accusations that theyre making etc. with some women there is a huge confilct between the desire to sate their sex drive, and their desire to not act like the 'sluts' they have been told that people who have sex outside marrage are, and this conflict can resolve itself by having sex with someone (satisfys sex drive) and then convince themselves it was rape (satisfy morals).

[/quote']

 

What is a slut?

 

Here is a rather balanced article about the false reporting of rape. It is not very long.

 

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

 

 

its obviously inportant to check these options incase they are the root of the claim, but also, in cases of genuine rape, it is inportant to eliminate the possibility that it is a false claim originating from a psycological, umm, thingy, so that the woman can have her word trusted.

 

What makes you think that psychiatrists, psychologists, or counselors are able to determine if a rape claim is false or not?

 

the reason you wouldnt get psycoanalysed upon reporting your car stolen:

 

#the psycological tendancy to falsly claim someone has halfed your car is uncommon

 

My opinion remains the same: That general unfounded reports of all crimes is about 8%.

 

#the trial will not boil down to your word against theres - itll be setteled with proof. if it is proven that someone you dont know has broken into, hotwired, and taken your car, it is accepted that it was without your permission. oftern in rape cases, the defendant claims he had permission. there is oftern no way of proving concent (or abscence thereof), and thus it is inportant to determin whether the victim could be lying, to themselves or others.

 

Trials usually boil down to one person's word against another's and the aversarial system of justice reflects that. People sometimes lie about thefts and often have an economic motive for doing so.

 

 

i would assume that psycoanalys would be used with the same frequency of occourance in cases where a man claims that he was raped by another man, and the accused claims that he had concent, as the same mental prosess could be applicable: desire to sate homosexual sex drive conflicting with desire to adhere to 'poofs are evil' opinion that the person has been tought etc

 

I am not sure what your point is here. In general, men who have been raped get very poor treatment from the justice system -- when they even have the courage to report at all.

[Flareon]

My opinion remains the same: That general unfounded reports of all crimes is about 8%.

 

I usually respect your opinions but I really must ask from where you are getting this.

[Coral Rhedd]

I usually respect your opinions but I really must ask from where you are getting this.

 

I just did a search on crimes in general but didn't post that particular link. Remember that unfounded is not the same thing as false. Unfounded merely means that for one reason or another, the police and the prosecutor prefer not to pursue it.

 

As you may concur, social and cultural reasons, also enter into these decisions. I would like to see rape cases pursued more vigorously.

[Flareon]

I just did a search on crimes in general but didn't post that particular link. Remember that unfounded is not the same thing as false. Unfounded merely means that for one reason or another' date=' the police and the prosecutor prefer not to pursue it.

 

As you may concur, social and cultural reasons, also enter into these decisions. I would like to see rape cases pursued more vigorously.[/quote']

 

Yes, I understand that, but I am very curious as to how you have conclusively arrived this 8% you speak of. The method utilized could very well prove to be invaluable.

 

I agree that rape cases should be pursued with increased vigor, and better if justice was served equally among the genders.

[Coral Rhedd]

Yes' date=' I understand that, but I am very curious as to how you have conclusively arrived this 8% you speak of. The method utilized could very well prove to be invaluable.

 

I agree that rape cases should be pursued with increased vigor, and better if justice was served equally among the genders.[/quote']

 

I will try to go back and find that link for you. From my work in the field of victimology, that is my estimated sense and the link I came across merely confirmed it. I don't feel especially conclusive about it because I know zilch about statistics. (I have math anxiety. )

[Dak]

all quotes from choral rhied

 

What is a slut?

not a word which i, myself, like to use, which is why i put it in scare marks. but it sums up the attetude of a small number of women, who have been tought that sex is wrong and if they have sex they will be a 'slut', which they are taught is bad.

What makes you think that psychiatrists, psychologists, or counselors are able to determine if a rape claim is false or not?

i dont. but they can spot the presence of certain hall marks which would suggest that the claim could result from a psycological disorder and - equaly important - can also add weight to the victims claims if the disorders are abscent

My opinion remains the same: That general unfounded reports of all crimes is about 8%.

Trials usually boil down to one person's word against another's and the aversarial system of justice reflects that. People sometimes lie about thefts and often have an economic motive for doing so.

but with other crimes its usually possible to determin this out using other evidence eg cctv could reveal the protaginist of a fight, evidence of breaking and entering indicates burgalry. if there is no sighn of hotwireing a car, and the accused and the accuser know each other, and the accused claims that he was lent the car, then i imagine that the possibility of false accusation would be investigated and psycologists could get involved. but with rape, there is oftern no sighns of resistance from the woman, and so it is hard to determine whether concent was given. hence, i would assume, the practice of psycoanalysing rape claimants, due to the difficulty of determining wether concent was given or not.

 

and remember, whilst rape is a horible thing to have done to you, so is being falsly incarserated.

I am not sure what your point is here. In general, men who have been raped get very poor treatment from the justice system -- when they even have the courage to report at all.

my point was to try to point out that the way in which rape victims are treated is not due to the fact that they are women.

 

having read your link, i kind of see your point though. if a woman is going to have her claim dismissed, we should be pretty dam sure that her claim is false. (and likewize, if a man is incarserated, we should be pretty dam sure that he is guilty). the inability of the different authorities to agree on how many false claims there are is slightly disturbing, to say the least

[-Demosthenes-]

...

 

But.....in my mind' date=' I want him to suffer for hours before he dies. I want him to suffocate slowly while frying in the electric chair. I want to be with the parents of that dead girl and watch it with them. When its over, I then want to walk up to his dead body, put my hand on his burned flesh, close my eyes, and hope and wish with all my heart that there is a god that will send him straight to the burning place....forever.

 

...[/quote']

First of all what are the reasons for punishment/imprisonment in our society? Well, first there it is to serve as a deterrent, and second there is rehabilitation. Which does your punishment serve?

So, what would your above said occurrence accomplish? Really, think about it what would this do, and who would it do it to? First it would kill someone, someone who might have been able to change (unless you believe people are born the way they are and never change), and possibly a family is one member short because that person made a bad decision, and then was tortured to death. What a kind thought to end a life.

To accomplish what? Well there is really only one thing, to satisfy a selfish urge for revenge. Someone did have to die, and heck, he wasn't such a good guy anyway, but now I have my revenge, I took the easy way out. Don't tell me for a minute that what I said isn't EXACTLY what you want.

 

This is NOT what MY justice system is set out to do, or what it was made to do. MY system helps the public without the expense of the criminal.

[Bettina]

First of all what are the reasons for punishment/imprisonment in our society? Well' date=' first there it is to serve as a deterrent, and second there is rehabilitation. Which does your punishment serve?

So, what would your above said occurrence accomplish? Really, think about it what would this do, and who would it do it to? First it would kill someone, someone who might have been able to change (unless you believe people are born the way they are and never change), and possibly a family is one member short because that person made a bad decision, and then was tortured to death. What a kind thought to end a life.

To accomplish what? Well there is really only one thing, to satisfy a selfish urge for revenge. Someone did have to die, and heck, he wasn't such a good guy anyway, but now I have my revenge, I took the easy way out. Don't tell me for a minute that what I said is [b']EXACTLY [/b]what you want.

 

This is NOT what MY justice system is set out to do, or what it was made to do. MY system helps the public without the expense of the criminal.

 

How does YOUR Utah system help the public by releasing back into society, the once imprisoned child molesters that raped, tortured, and murdered, the last three of the four girls. Please tell me what that acomplished.....in detail please, I'd like to send a copy to the parents of the dead girls.

 

People who are born child molesters will not change. Sooner or later when there down and out and have nothing to lose, they will rape and murder a little girl, then go to prison and spend there days in comfort knowing people like you will protect them from harm.

Don't tell me for a minute that what I said is EXACTLY what you want

I don't intend to, and no offense, I respect your opinion, but I'm replying like you expected I would.

 

Bettina

[6431hoho]

No one is denying what these criminals do. But, imprisonment accomplishes everything (1. torture for rest of their life 2. community is safer, 3. even a second chance for them to live) what capital punishment does. So, if it's the revenge that the victims' familes want then how is it any better than the life sentence?

 

BTW, the second chance for the criminals to live is unconditional. It's not matter of what they deserve, it's matter of how to change/direct them to a better way of life. That's what religion is all about, isn't it?

[-Demosthenes-]

How does YOUR Utah system help the public by releasing back into society, the once imprisoned child molesters that raped, tortured, and murdered, the last three of the four girls. Please tell me what that acomplished.....in detail please, I'd like to send a copy to the parents of the dead girls.

 

I wasn't refering to my Utah system, I was refering to the ideal American system. Utah is very conservative, and one on my very few liberal veiws include the death penalty.

Second how do you equate not killing a person to condoning what they do? Why can't we use other methods other than death? Death has a two-fold downside, whereas it cannot ever be undone, and it accomplishes nothing except revenge.

You continue to use you're emotional trump card, and I don't see much worth in it. I can just as easily say that there could be a family trying to help someone in their family because he's done some really bad things. But he is sentenced to death, and is killed leaving behind a broken down family, and nothing is better for it.

People who are born child molesters will not change. Sooner or later when there down and out and have nothing to lose, they will rape and murder a little girl, then go to prison and spend there days in comfort knowing people like you will protect them from harm.

This is the part that disturbs me. Are you saying that people are born a certain way and can never be anyhting different. So everything that society traditional believed in such as disipline is crap? I'm sure that the vast majoridy of people are capible of change on some level, and of compasion, and if someone is not then it still is not in any way justifiable just to kill them.

 

You're reasoning is just to kill people because they are bad people. So if someone is bad, the answer is the kill them. I see that as an atrocity, I think whoever would do that is in fact, a very bad person.

[Tetrahedrite]

 

Well......since I'm only thinking that.....am I a monster too?

 

Bettina

In light of your (sometimes seemingly irrational) views in this thread, this is not a question you really want to hear an answer for.

 

Killing for revenge belongs in places like Sudan and Jordan, not in the (supposedly) civilised US of A.

 

In my books, people who kill for revenge are still murderers, no matter what type of spin you put on it.

[Dak]

People who are born child molesters will not change. Sooner or later when there down and out and have nothing to lose' date=' they will rape and murder a little girl, then go to prison and spend there days in comfort knowing people like you will protect them from harm.[/quote']

 

This is the part that disturbs me. Are you saying that people are born a certain way and can never be anyhting different. So everything that society traditional believed in such as disipline is crap? I'm sure that the vast majoridy of people are capible of change on some level, and of compasion, and if someone is not then it still is not in any way justifiable just to kill them.

 

in addition, if it truly is down to the way in which the person was born, and theres nothing that they can do to change, is it really there fault? can they really be blamed? should we not be compasionate and remove them from society, but keep them comfortable.

[Bettina]

I wasn't refering to my Utah system' date=' I was refering to the ideal American system. Utah is very conservative, and one on my very few liberal veiws include the death penalty.

Second how do you equate not killing a person to condoning what they do? Why can't we use other methods other than death? Death has a two-fold downside, whereas it cannot ever be undone, and it accomplishes [b']nothing[/b] except revenge.

 

I don't want it undone, and it accomplishes death to a fiend who has admittted to the murder

 

You continue to use you're emotional trump card, and I don't see much worth in it. I can just as easily say that there could be a family trying to help someone in their family because he's done some really bad things. But he is sentenced to death, and is killed leaving behind a broken down family, and nothing is better for it.

If by "really bad things" does NOT include murder, then he is not put to death. And my emotion as a trump card, is not intended and your right in it not having much worth, but that is my enormous curse that I continue a losing battle with. But, please don't let my weakness interfere with the point I'm trying to make.

 

This is the part that disturbs me. Are you saying that people are born a certain way and can never be anyhting different. So everything that society traditional believed in such as disipline is crap? I'm sure that the vast majoridy of people are capible of change on some level, and of compasion, and if someone is not then it still is not in any way justifiable just to kill them.

 

People who are born child molesters will not change. Disipline, medication, and therapy will not work for many of them. Realize that the great majority of underage girls were killed by KNOWN predators.

 

You're reasoning is just to kill people because they are bad people. So if someone is bad, the answer is the kill them. I see that as an atrocity, I think whoever would do that is in fact, a very bad person.

Sorry, your in error. I reserved death for the monsters, not the bad people.

 

When I first started this thread, I talked about good people, bad people, and monsters.

The Pop star now on trial for child molestation for example, is a bad person and there is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of molesting children and will NEVER BE CURED. So, what do we do with people like that. He is NOT a monster. He is generally kind and I think has a great love for his victims, but it is love of a child and they are victims. I know he hasn't tortured and murdered anyone, but I know he will be at it again if he is released and who knows down the road what his mind is capable of. I want him in prison forever before he hurts someone.

 

The person who killed Jessica (who has countless names now) was a child molester, torturer, rapist, and murderer. This is the monster who deserves the death penalty. And to clarify....when I say monster, I mean a person who has admitted to the crime.

 

I am sorry if I offended you in any way, but I have the right to make my opions known too. I wish I didn't have to.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

The Pop star now on trial for child molestation for example, is a bad person and there is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of molesting children and will NEVER BE CURED

how do you know that he is guilty?

I am sorry if I offended you in any way' date=' but I have the right to make my opions known too. I wish I didn't have to.[/quote'] no-one is saying that you dont have this right, but part of putting your views up for public scrutiny is, well, that they will be scrutinised.

 

i always find it an invaluble learning experience. oftern, you find out that your views are wrong, or you learn how many other people have the wrong view, or that there are alternate 'correct' views.

 

sorry if that sounded patronising, but im just trying to point out that critisism can be taken constructively, even if it seems that it wasnt meant that way

[6431hoho]

"People who are born child molesters will not change. Disipline, medication, and therapy will not work for many of them. Realize that the great majority of underage girls were killed by KNOWN predators."

 

Child molestors are mostly people who know the victims i.e. parents, uncles, cousins etc. and it's been shown (i don't know how) that these poeple aren't related to other criminal activities.

 

I think people should stop these kinds of reasonings:

 

1. He is a monster therefore he deserves to die

2. Hanging, lethal injection, drowning etc. are too barbarc. Therefore, no capital punishment.

[-Demosthenes-]

Someone plz define "monster".

[Phi for All]

Another monster let go by authorities. The repeat registered sex offender.

Monster seems to be the term for someone who commits violent crimes repeatedly, is unrepentant and is often known by the authorities as an habitual offender.

 

No disrespect intended, but is this thread just going to keep resurfacing every time a monster is reported? Because I can tell you one thing, the press will keep finding these people and brandishing their lurid crimes in front of us because this kind of news sells. Capital punishment doesn't deter the monsters, but continual attention from the media just might encourage them.

[Pangloss]

I agree, we're just spinning our wheels here. Rather than endlessly debate the death penalty, how about we try to actually do something productive here? Why don't we try and think of some ways in which the situation could be improved without actually throwing the switch on old sparky?

 

Has anyone here actually seen the Florida registered sex offenders database, or the one for their state? I have. I looked up my neighborhood and was surprised to find 15 registered offenders within a mile of my house, including one just a few houses away.

 

The Florida database can be searched here:

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_predators/Search.asp

 

Each state has its own database. (Is that a good thing or a bad thing?) Where is yours?

 

Important questions that need exploring:

What improvements could we make to the system?

Where is it weak?

Where does it cross the line?

How does your database differ from other states?

How does it differ from other countries?

How can we best track offenders who move within the state?

How can we best track them if they change states?

Is there a way to better track sex offenders without further violating their constitutional rights *aside* from tracking their whereabouts?

[Dak]

the sex drive is the most powerful drive a human can experience, i believe. imagine how hard you would find it if someone could convince you that having sex with fully grown men/women was immoral, and so you had to ignore your sexual desires.

 

i think we should lower a convicted paedophiles sex drive, using drugs or removal of the testicles, so that they have more chance of ignoring their sex drive. and maybe promote the idea that being sexually attrakted to kids is ok, but actually having sex with them is not. that way, a paedophile could come forward for help before he has commited a crime. whereas now, paedophilic tendancys would be treated the same as actually having commited the crime by most.

 

if we could promote the attitude "oh, your attracted to kids - harsh. that must suck for you. well, good man to risist your urges" then maybe more people would get help and thus less people would offend.

[Bettina]

I agree' date=' we're just spinning our wheels here. Rather than endlessly debate the death penalty, how about we try to actually do something productive here? Why don't we try and think of some ways in which the situation could be improved without actually throwing the switch on old sparky?

 

Has anyone here actually seen the Florida registered sex offenders database, or the one for their state? I have. I looked up my neighborhood and was surprised to find 15 registered offenders within a mile of my house, including one just a few houses away.

 

The Florida database can be searched here:

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/sexual_predators/Search.asp

 

Each state has its own database. (Is that a good thing or a bad thing?) Where is yours?

 

[b']Important questions that need exploring: [/b]

What improvements could we make to the system?

Where is it weak?

Where does it cross the line?

How does your database differ from other states?

How does it differ from other countries?

How can we best track offenders who move within the state?

How can we best track them if they change states?

Is there a way to better track sex offenders without further violating their constitutional rights *aside* from tracking their whereabouts?

 

Pangloss

If you have children, PLEASE tell them what to do if approached. Geez.....they are that close to you? Now you have me worried.

Please reply....

 

Bettina