an honorable way to "pander" to conservatives on crime

[liberalcapitalist]

I'm for an end to the drug war, and the legalization, not just decriminalization of drugs. I'm for enfranchising convicted felons. I think money should be spent on education instead of building more jails. I'm against the death penalty, and I think incarceration should be about rehabilitation, not punishment... HOWEVER.. One thing that always appals me is the lightness of sex offender sentences, especially in comparison to other far less serious crimes. Why doesn't any candidate ever come out in favor of harsh punishment of sex crimes? Particularly, repeat offenders and pre-pubescent child molesters? Who doesn't agree with this? Yet I've never heard a candidate advocate anything of the sort?

Second time sex offenders, violent sex criminals, and pre-pubescent child molestors = maximum punishment under law (where death penalty is legal, they get fried). I think an otherwise liberal candidate could get a lot of right-wing votes by advocating this.

Question is: Do you support such legislation?

[La_Serpiente]

1. I say we give the prisoners an option

We give them large prison sentences. If they want their sentence reduced, we give them then the option of chemical castration.

[liberalcapitalist]

2. anyone who molests a pre-pubescent child...

is a sick individual and should never be allowed to hurt a child again. Whether that be through chemical castration, or life imprisonment, whatever.

I think one thing we do have to admit is that NO ONE wants to be a pedophile-- the lowest form of scum on the earth. These people obviously have mental disorders. But the pain they inflict on a child cannot be undone, and therefore, anyone who acts on a pedophelic urge gets no sympathy from me.

One problem, though, is the lack of distinction between pre-pubescent molestation and pubescent non-consentual sex. You might say perpetrators of both crimes have a problem, and while you may be right, there is a VERY distinct difference.

One of my friend's brothers is a repeat sex offender, but far from a deranged rapist. He was maybe 18 when he had sex with a 14 year old. He then had sex with a 16 year old, and was sent to jail for 90 days. He got out and had sex with another 16 year old, and went away for like 3 years.

Now the guy is an IDIOT, but he's not a sexual predator. He was in his early 20's and completely lame, and therefore could not attract women his own age. Perhaps he had a penchant for liking young girls, but despite the fact that these girls may not have been emotionally ready for sex, you would not have to worry about leaving this guy alone with your 8 year old daughter.

My beef is not with the fact he did 3 years, but with the parole restrictions they put on him: 1) He can't be at any ADULT clubs, 2) He can't have any pornography... The dude is attracted to young girls-- we should encourage him going to strip clubs and viewing legal, adult porn!!! :)

[JHB]

5. Just to be pedantic...

...you shouldn't equate "child molester" with "pedophile" either.
There are pedophiles who don't act on their impulses (and thus aren't molesters), and there are molesters who aren't clinical pedophiles, but for whom the children are targets of opportunity (has access, easily intimidated into silence, etc.)

Discussions of the difference can be found at:
members.cox.net/kenny50/molester_vs_pedophile.htm
www.svsotp.com/pedofaq.htm

Don't get me wrong, I don't have much sympathy for people who harm children. Its just that, similar to the case you point out above, I'm also against loosely-worded but draconian sexual predator laws designed to fight (or at least sold as fighting) compulsive serial offendors being applied to people who might be misfits but haven't actually harmed anyone.

The final arbiter must be real harms done to real people.

[liberalcapitalist]

6. I think I made my point clear

If a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children, then I don't want them to be my friend, but it's their own business. The moment they act on that impulse, I think they should be locked away forever; draconion or not.

[Isome]

12. That doesn't work.

If I remember correctly about chemical castration, it's not permanent. If they don't take the drugs, they're back to normal. But, more importantly and inarguably, their crimes aren't motivated by actual sexual urges, but by power & domination. To put it bluntly: they don't need an erection to commit a sex crime.

[liberalcapitalist]

18. child molestation

Is almost always motivated by sexual urges

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. One's view on the death penalty have to be taken into account

Personally, I think rapists should be locked up and the key thrown away, but since I don't agree with the death penalty, that has to be a factor in my vote.

[TexasMexican]

4. depends

If its a guy who is just having sex with his younger girlfriend I dont think he should be treated as harshly with a person who is abusing a child (or multiple children).

I think there is definately a difference between just having sex with a minor and sexually abusing a child.

The former shouldnt be much of a crime while the later should be punished severly (maybe even death, depending on the scale and scope of the crime).

[liberalcapitalist]

7. yeah, but

I'm against the death penalty too.. But that isn't the question.

[forgethell]

8. I didn't vote;

my position wasn't listed. But I am curious. Sex crimes are appalling, but what about murder? Should forcible rape of an adult woman be punished with death? It used to be. What about consensual sex with a minor girl? minor boy? How minor?

Why shouldn't the courts punish, say assault. the best way to rehabilitate someone is to make it more distasteful to him/her to repeat the bad behavior than not.

By the way, I definitely agree with you that drugs need to be decriminalized, at the least. but then, I think, it should be made known to everyone that being under the influence of drugs, or alcohol could NOT be used as a defense in criminal or civil cases.

Just my opinion.

[liberalcapitalist]

11. how minor?

An important distinction must be made between pre-pubescent and pubescent victims.

An important distinction must be made between "date rape" and violent rape.

All of these crimes should be punished. Violent rapists and CHILD molesters cannot be rehabilitated.

I feel that rape or molestation is just as bad as murder-- a more despicable crime, even-- and therefore should be punished equally.

[forgethell]

13. Ok

what I meant by how minor was age, pubescent and pre-pubbescent is a good dividing line, except that ages for puberty vary among individuals. I think, myself, that any violent rape is despicable and, frankly, I would not be averse to the death penalty. On the other hand, I was on a jury for a murder trial once. After it was over, they did not disiss us as they were short on jurors that week, so I amused byself by sitting in on a statutory rape case. This took place, if i recall correctly about 6-9 months after the alleged incident. I call it alleged because the 2 previous trials had had hung juries, and he was acquited this time.

Frankly, I know he was the adult, and all that, but honest to God, the girl was 15 and looked 25, even dressed for trial, and according to both of them, she had told him she was 20. What should this guy have gotten?

I do not agree that date rape is different. If it was in fact forcible rape, then it should be prosecuted as such. If he was simply insistent, and she neither threatened with, or subjected to force, then it was not rape. Maybe something else, or maybe she was just a wimp who would rather have unwanted sex than make a scene. should a man go to prison for that. If it was not rape on Saturday night, it isn't rape on Sunday morning.

I know this is not the PC version, but I don't care. Injustice is injustice, black or white, man or woman, rich or poor.

[liberalcapitalist]

14. statutory

What should the guy have gotten? Well, if the girl looked to be 25, said she was 20, and there is no reason to believe he could have known she was under age, I don't think he should have been found guilty. Isn't intent required for crime?

On the other hand, I think that someone having sex with a 15 year old is wrong, no matter how they look. BUT it is CERTAINLY not the same as having sex with a 8 year old.

I'm 25. I see 15 year old girls who look 18 that I think are attractive. That's natural. I'm also smart enough to know that they are not emotionally ready for a relationship with someone my age. What's NOT natural is attraction to pre-pubescent girls or boys.

[forgethell]

15. I'm going to play devil's

advocate here. Up front, I want it clearly understood that I agree with you 100%. It is entirely unnatural to lust for children. I think child molesters, once found guilty, should never again breathe free air, or any aiar for very long. but there are those who disagree. Have you checked out the NAMBLA website? Neither have I. but I've read, aand seen, news stories about them. Our heros, the ACLU is supportting these monsters on free-speech grounds. So far, so good. But is it reasonable to think that people who are attracted to young children, who read how it's OK on these websites, and who have no moral center, no core set of beliefs, do deny themselves their little pleasures?

Now, if we deny them these "relationships", how are we better than, say, homophobic bigots who feel same-sex sex will send you to hell? OK, you say that children are harmed. They say these relationships are "consensual", and that children have a "right" to "loving experiences".

I am going to repeat, I find this reasoning specious and evil. But it is out there.

This has gotten away from the original topic. Mypoint, I guess, is, who decides what is punishable and what should be rehabilitative? what line is drawn. where do we finally say,"this behavior is unacceptable in this society?"

I am not proposing any answers here,although I have my own opinions. I'm just throwing the question out.

[liberalcapitalist]

17. I support the ACLU and NAMBLA's free speech

But touch one child, and they need to be put away for good. You can have whatever desires you want in your head, but when you violate a child, you are committing the worst crime I can think of.

[forgethell]

19. OK, then

n/t

[forgethell]

16. dupe

n/t

[iverglas]

9. don't know, can't vote ...

But based on general knowledge of US sentencing practices, I'd have to go for the "sentences are exponentially too harsh already" option, I imagine.

"Second time sex offenders, violent sex criminals, and pre-pubescent child molestors = maximum punishment under law (where death penalty is legal, they get fried). I think an otherwise liberal candidate could get a lot of right-wing votes by advocating this."

Sometimes I do just think I've stumbled into some alternative universe where this sort of stuff actually looks "progressive". And red would look blue, I suppose, no double entendre intended.

In what universe in which there is recognition of human rights, and rights are formally set out in a constitution, could this actually be done?

You are aware that there actually is a universe, and that the US is not it? And that in the rest of the universe, intelligent/progressive people really just don't think, let alone say, things like this? And that saying things like this would attract the 1% neo-fascist hard core vote and a few loons, but not much else? Anybody ever contemplate what the reasons for this might be, and what the effects of it might be?

I can think of all sorts of stuff that would get that vote (and 20 times more in the US, I'm sure), but I really can't think of any reason why I'd want it, or want to be heard to advocate it.

Sentencing, in a society that recognizes rights, is required to follow a basic set of rules. This does not begin to meet them.

But I'm curious. Do you really, really think that anything you've proposed would actually stop children from being sexually abused? Do you really, really think that the possibility of a harsh sentence is a deterrent to your average multiple-child abuser? If you do, do you have some basis for that thought that hasn't been revealed to any of the experts in the field yet?

And if you don't, what possible justification can you offer for the purely retributive action you propose to take against one class of criminal offenders, in violation of a whole lot of rights and a whole lot of sentencing principles?

The getting of right wing votes?

Charming. Human beings' lives as means to an end, and a rather venal one at that. Kinda not what liberal democracy is all about.

.

[forgethell]

10. Intelligent people do support

the death penalty. Others oppose it, but your universe is too small.

As for me, yes, I believe the death penalty would at least stop those who are executed from molesting again. As this seems to be a crime with an extremely high number of recidivists, it seems worthwhile to pursue the option. At least, life without parole on the first offense. Maybe individual X can be rehabilitated, maybe not, but why should we rish our children and grandchildren to find out. X had his chance, and blew it.