Pedophiles - I agree with 'Judge Judy' on this one.

[Deja Q]

Anyone watch Larry King yesterday? (link contains transcript to this topic) He had Judge Judy on, and she was really ablaze regarding what to do with pedophiles. Execute them. :wow:

She is spot-on when she says the life of the victim is altered forever. I know that personally too.

She has compassion for the victims and the families thereof.

She has none for the pig who violated the child.

And I'm compelled to agree with her 100%.

You don't fuck around with children. Figuratively. Or literally.

The relevant portion of the transcript is as follows:

SHEINDLIN: Child abuse. I think child abuse is the case that I find most abhorrent. And I cannot understand how a person, a parent, a grandparent, even a boyfriend, can mutilate and harm and burn and tie up and sexually molest a three year-old or a five year-old or a seven year-old.

I cannot understand why -- how a mother, even if she's addicted to drugs, will sell her eight year-old little girl for sex to get a couple of hits of crack. I can't -- I don't get that. I don't get that. And I don't know what to do.

You know, it was a problem in the family court, because you leave there and you say to yourself, you know, there are no answers. If you could test DNA and find out what, you know, what's in the brain causes that -- the ability to do that, I would say, you know, listen, you can have and you can't have, but we don't know what causes somebody to be able to do that to a child.

What causes a pedophile to kill a string of children? Children, you know, eight, six, eight, ten years old. I mean, I have no problem with killing them. And we talked about this before, because it's really the only way to cure a pedophile is to kill them. There is no other cure. And what has happened...

KING: You would capitally punish every convicted pedophile?

SHEINDLIN: Well, I mean, you know, unless you want to put them somewhere in the Sahara and make sure that they can't get away.

KING: This the would be a guess on your part, because so many of our guests have guessed at it. Why is pedophilia incurable?

SHEINDLIN: I no idea. I have no idea. Perhaps because it is so against nature that there is something so wrong with your wiring.

KING: So they can't help themselves, right? Obviously they can't help themselves?

SHEINDLIN: Well, I think that if they could help themselves...

KING: Who would do it?

SHEINDLIN: ... who would do it? Who would do it?

But then it comes down to, that's not a defense. I mean, my husband, when he tried a case once, that was the defense of the lawyer: he can't help himself. He can't help himself.

And your response has to be, you know, in sentencing, neither can I. This is what has to happen to you. You have to go away forever, because there is no capital punishment for pedophilia, you know, for sex offenses in our country.

KING: Do you believe in that theory, though, I think of compulsive behavior of -- you absolutely couldn't -- in the movie, "The Mark", which was a great movie about a guy who was a pedophile. And he described pedophilia as being in a car with no legs and no brake and at the bottom of the road is an eight year-old boy and you're the driver. Can't stop.

SHEINDLIN: Can't stop.

KING: Do you have any compassion for that?

SHEINDLIN: Do I have compassion for it? You know, my compassion is for the victim. My compassion is for the child, who, if they survive an act of pedophilia, will spend the rest of their lives a victim.

My sympathy -- my sympathy and compassion goes to the families of children who were killed by these pedophiles who can't control themselves. And, quite frankly, on a sympathy scale of one to ten, where is my sympathy for a pedophile?

About minus 50.

KING: But it's the case you least like to hear?

SHEINDLIN: Absolutely.

KING: How can people harm children?

SHEINDLIN: Right. I don't know.

KING: It almost boggles the mind.

SHEINDLIN: It does. You can understand why somebody would rob a bank. You can understand why somebody would steal a piece of jewelry. You can even understand why somebody would steal a car, either an adult or a kid would steal a car.

KING: You can even understand murder.

SHEINDLIN: Sometimes, sometimes. Absolutely. You know, especially with people who know each other, you know, their emotions...

KING: That's most murders, right?

SHEINDLIN: Right, most murders. Their emotions get the best of them. But that I cannot understand and neither can you, because you have your own children and you can't understand.

KING: Cannot.

[LiberalArkie]

1. I always thought it was best to send them to the worst prison - for life

And find out how it felt to be on the other side.

[zuzu98]

4. most of them already know...

A huge percentage of people who victimize children were victims themselves.

[Deja Q]

16. A huge percentage, yes.

But not all.

Why do a huge percentage of victims end up doing the same thing?

And if they saw what happened to those who did, consistently and evenly, would they not do it?

What about the few who don't? I can't speak for those, but all I want to do is live a productive and full life. Maybe I am brain damaged for not wanting to do what was done to me? :crazy: :shrug:

[VelmaD]

23. We can have such a discussion on this topic if you want

The majority of people who are sexually abused as children do not grow up to sexually abuse others. But a significant enough minority do. Discovering the differences between these two groups would go a long way to making sure NO child who is sexually abused carries that abuse on into the next generation.

I do have some thoughts on potential differences. One thing I notice in a lot of the kids in my agency (I work in juvenile justice) is a lack of any caring adult in their life. Not a family member or teacher or anyone who cared about them. There was no role model in their life to teach them how to process their emotions. There was no one in their life to comfort them in any way - no real emotional outlet for all the hurt. So they channel all their hurt into anger. I find it almost surreal that many of them come into the agency knowing one emotional state...pissed off. Everything they feel gets channeled into that.

[lonestarnot]

6. Yes, that way if we find out there was a mistake in conviction, we can let

the person out.

[calmblueocean]

Sentencing people to rape isn't something we should want.

Honestly, the whole prison system needs to be changed. No more cell-mates. Just small private cells, no tv, no radio, books and newspapers within limts and public exercise time only if you behave. The idea of sentencing someone to prison rape is repulsive to me, and I'm sure it is to most people when they think about it. Rape is not a punishment any civilized people should take pleasure in. It is not justice.

Sorry if this comes off like I'm calling you out as a bad person, I 'm not. I just read recently some personal stories about the horror of prison rape, and it disgusted and saddened me to think that as a taxpayer I played a part in letting that happen.

[VelmaD]

14. what you said

:yourock:

The peopl who make assinine comments about how someone deserves to be raped in prison don't understand what that does to a person. What do they think that person is going to be like when they get out?

[zuzu98]

2. if they "can't help themselves"

then it's a mental illness. Do you agree with executing the mentally ill?

[dysfunctional press]

7. that's what i keep coming back to...

they obviously can't help/control themselves- rather than executed, they should be permanently segregated from society.

[Deja Q]

19. I can not give a pithy response do your counterquestion...

But I will say that the mentally ill who do not hurt others deserve far better treatment than the people who DO hurt others. A civilized society does what it needs to with miscreants, but by and large should also be preventing miscreants from flourishing. This means a pedophile should get the chair. The victims should get what it takes so they recover and don't in turn become pedophiles themselves because, as we all know, anyone who is a victim becomes a perp. :eyes: (in which case, how come more people aren't pedophiles despite having been victimized by one? One pedophile does not restrict itself to just one child...)

[KarenS]

3. I agree with her as well. n/t

[NOLADEM]

5. Your anger is revealing of your ignorance on the issue

The perpetrators of child abuse are 100% UNIFORMLY without exception victims of past abuse themselves.

These people are the canaries in the coal mine regarding the health of our mental health and family services. Poor investment in child welfare programs, education, intervention, treatment, identification, etc of current abuse victims results in this problem.

Wanna prevent child abuse? INSIST that today's victims are treated and followed and supported so they don't become tomorrow's offenders.

Now, I support incarceration because they are a continuing and real danger to society with little hope of treatment once their offense cycle has begun. But the death penalty is ignorant and barbaric, and accomplishes NOTHING that life imprisonment could not.

We all share the blame for not taking care of children today that are victims of domestic, sexual, physical and emotional abuse. They are tomorrow's front page news.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Putting Aside The Death Penalty Which I Largely Oppose

I'd like to see the social science data that suggests (every) pedophile was him or hesrelf abused...

[NNN0LHI]

12. Do you have a cite for your statement that...

..."The perpetrators of child abuse are 100% UNIFORMLY without exception victims of past abuse themselves" by any chance?

I have heard this said before by others but have never seen any evidence to back it up.

Thanks in advance.

Don

[VelmaD]

13. I work in juvenile justice...

and I know that the vast majority of the youth committed to my agency for sex crimes have histories of being sexually abused themselves. It's enough to make you want to cry.

[Balbus]

27. That's a bullshit statistic.

I don't think anyone should be executed. But if I had to come up with an exception, I'd lean toward people who make up bullshit statistics to support their argument.

[madmusic]

28. LOL, have to agree with that one.

From either side of the "tough on crime" issue.

[madmusic]

29. If you mean any kind of abuse...

That may or may not be true, but if you mean 100% sexual abuse, that is not true.

[calmblueocean]

8. So kill pedophiles but not murderers or rapists? We should not kill, period.

Lock 'em up, sure, but don't kill them.

[Deja Q]

22. Yeah, that part bothered me too...

Judy saying how she can understand a murderer. Yes, flailing emotion, calculated intrigue, or whatever else. Doesn't make murder right either.

Maybe locking them all up is the better solution. I dunno.

I'd rather live a life of good in the first place. I'd like to know what causes people TO do those awful things. I'm a victim to them (well, not murdered yet...), but I never did and still don't understand WHY.

[imperial jedi]

35. I agree 100%

Life no parole.No executions period.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Here is the part where King tries to defend Foley

<snip>KING: What do you think of the Congressman Mark Foley matter, in dealing with a page, in this 17, 16 years old, that's not pedophilia, is it?

SHEINDLIN: Sure is.

KING: It is to you. That's pedophilia?

SHEINDLIN: Sure is. He's -- he's 50 and there's a 16 year-old person, who is in an inferior position. Here you have someone who is powerful, in control, not necessarily in control of your life, but you know that this person could be important to you, is a hero, is a Congressman.

That's why you're there, you are there in Congress because that's the seat of power in this country. And here you've got some jerk sending you lewd and lascivious e-mails.

It's a 16 year-old, you know, you've had 16 year-old kids, I've had 16 year-old kids. I have kids now who are much older than 16. They're just about getting cooked, 16 years old is a baby, is a baby. And yes, 16 years old and a 50 year-old man, that's pedophilia, no question.

[VelmaD]

11. I'm always stunned at the level of ignorance...

some people have about what is and is not pedophilia. An older adult having sex with a teenager is not pedophilia by definition. Pedophilia is about being attracted to and having sex with pre-pubescent children. Now, that said, adults having sex with teens is still WRONG WRONG WRONG because of the differentials in power and experience. But to refer to a 16 year old as a "baby" is insane.

[Deja Q]

20. Agreed on that point.

A 16 year old is still developing, but is not necessarily helpless like a baby. (maybe if there's a severe PDD... after all, some bastard in Minneapolis was molesting an autistic child in public and everybody just stood there and WATCHED it. x( And that was just a few weeks ago... )

I remember when grown adults watched teenage punks beat up other people (I'll spare you my stories for once.) To hear where defenseless children, who are almost babies themselves because of autism, get violated so crudely with what is an accepting audience watching it all (let's be glad there wasn't a popcorn vendor in the park x( )... I'm livid.

[baldguy]

15. Pedophiles can change.

I worked with a guy who had been in prison for molesting children. He did his time, got out, got counseling and turned his life around. When I knew him he was working two jobs and in a stable long-term relationship.

Then one Sunday evening he was murdered. Evidently he met someone who agrees with Judge Judy.

Human beings make mistakes. If they threaten the safety and property of the people around them they should go to prison. They should be confined as long as they are a threat - and if they cease to be a threat then they have earned the right to re-enter society.

The fact is, those who wish to keep you in fear don't want you hear about those who choose not to repeat their mistakes.

[Deja Q]

21. Everybody can change.

But define change and if people want to do it... again, it's a matter of context.

I'm glad your friend cleaned up his life and found a proper, consenting adult to have relations with.

[derby378]

24. Come to think of it, we don't even treat convicted rapists and murderers this way

We certainly don't put rapists on a national sex offender registry for the rest of their lives, last I heard. The double standard that is being applied to pedophiles is beginning to sound worse and worse the more I hear about it.

It's even approaching the dreaded "witch hunt" level.

[rman]

17. lock m up for life

"but that'll cost taxpayers money"

Yea, so what do you want? Justice on the cheap?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. capital punishment is inhumane and is a poor reflection of society

that said: i think life in prison w.out the possibility of parole is deserved

[IdaBriggs]

25. I agree with Judge Judy -- they are a danger to society, and should be

executed. They bring no value to the rest of us. Period.

Let their families mourn the loss of what was once a worthwhile human being. They are no longer. Now, they are worse than rabid animals; they are predators, with the wiles of a human being.

Use the resources wasted on maintaining them to help their victims.

[madmusic]

26. Is 'Judge Judy' an idiot or did she fall for the moral panic hysteria?

Her argument so defies logic it is near impossible to know where to start. A 16 or 17-year-old is a baby? They are legally adults in many states. It doesn't matter to me if (real) pedophiles get life without or are executed. What does matter is if those decisions rest on rational foundations.

Her argument doesn't. Far from it. Compared with the facts, it is a ludicrous argument that should be ignored. But it is exactly this kind of argument that keeps the moral panic alive, and as long as "tough on crime" moral panics live, the Right can't lose. It's no wonder they can't think of any solution if they are using moral panic as the foundation of the problem.

First of all, "mutilate and harm and burn and tie up and sexually molest" is not a pedophile. There are many other crimes in that equation that have nothing to do with pedophilia, and someone can mutilate, burn and tie up a person without any sexual intent at all. And they would still be a heinous criminal. That is the danger of using the extreme in rhetoric. All of that would be heinous child abuse, but then she qualifies it and adds the "sexually molest" as if only that were the real crime when it fact it could be the least harmful crime of the lot. The implication is that "mutilate, burn and tie up" are not real social concerns unless there is a "sexually molest" connection. So the other kinds of tragic child abuses are relatively ignored. Our laws reflect that.

The crack anecdote is the same one used by the Right to enact the 100 to 1 mandatory crack sentencing law. So crack users get 100 times as much time as coke users get. Again, that moral panic completely lost sight of any underlying solutions and blamed it all on the crack. It's all part of the "liberalism causes crime" meme.

Then she turns to genetics and covertly suggests a eugenics solution. Once again, this slants the discussion away from any liberal polices that could help though we now have http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/109th/edr/inhomeed092706/ridge.htm">proof that this is bull.

Then she makes this equation: "What causes a pedophile to kill a string of children? = the only way to cure a pedophile is to kill them." In other words, pedophilia = murder, and since murderers deserve the death penalty, so do pedophiles. There is so much wrong with that argument it is loony.

Again, I'm not debating or contesting what the sentence should be, but am only analyzing her argument, but will say this: would a mandatory death sentence result in more murder of children? She doesn't even consider that, which leads me to believe she is more interested in expanding the power of the state, or maybe revenge for some reason, than the welfare of children. She must be a die hard conservative or a Nancy Grace democrat, and neither really have the welfare of children as their predominate purpose, I don't believe. Despite all they say.

She also talks about "cure" above. Some of these "can't be cured" arguments are based on a very old study of a very small population of the worst of the worst, but if the question is asked in terms of "risk of recidivism" over the entire sex offender population, the problem is not so severe, and in fact there are very promising possibilities. (For example, recidivism is less that 4% during the first 3 years of release from custody.) The point being, the death penalty based on extreme cases would not be justice in the average case. Anyone who is interested in the studies can Google them with the keywords "sex offender" and "recidivism." The data is there.

I could go on, but to what end? Unless someone is willing to put the effort into researching the statistics for themselves, they will believe this moral panic propaganda, and more laws will be enacted that do not really protect children. "Soft on crime" liberal polices will continue getting attacked no matter how effective, and the Right will maintain power despite election results. That's why the Right hijacked the "victim's rights" movement. There may be some real concern for children in it and of course we all share that concern, but their top priority was more political power at the expense of the Left. It worked.

[madmusic]

33. Support for this argument:

"The backers of Prop. 8 might have been interested in victims' rights, but they were much more interested in increasing the certainty of conviction and punishment of criminals. Prop. 8's backers wanted to reform a court system that they perceived to be "soft on crime" to one which was more punitive."

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mccoy.htm

McCoy's book is about the hijacking of "victim's rights" with the purpose of the conservative backers of Prop 8 to swing the debate and the social policy to the right, and away from any liberal policies. That helped swing the entire state to the Right, and the most powerful union in the state, the prison guard union, keeps it that way. Have to say, politically speaking, it was a stroke of genius that still serves them well.

More support for this is found in the link in my sig file.

[sproutster]

30. You should probably kill their victims too - it's a vicious circle - Best to be sure

[upi402]

31. yep, where does it stop? the final solution?

She didn't answer the question about following law. She just went about the obvious, villainizing the sickos.
I turned it off because I knew the answer.

This society is messed up, and for a reason. Better to not listen for solutions from those twisted freaks who have messed it up... conservatives.

[951-Riverside]

32. She also wants more cameras in court rooms

...which I agree with. I think the lack thereof gives this judges too much leeway to do whatever they want without fear of public scrutiny.

[madmusic]

34. Them damn liberal activist judges!

Off with their heads!

-
The Key Issue of Judicial Independence:
With Conservatives' Rhetoric Effective, and Supreme Court Justices Concerned, How Should Progressives Respond?
By EDWARD LAZARUS

----
Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006

In legal circles, the issue of the moment is judicial "independence."

For many years now, right-wing conservatives have been conducting an unrelenting attack on supposedly out-of-control "activist" judges, as part of their campaigns against abortion rights, affirmative action, and the judicially-imposed ban on prayer in public schools.

In the last few years, however, the assault on the judiciary has developed a new fury. In the wake of the legal maneuverings surrounding Terri Schiavo's tragic death, conservatives have not only ratcheted up their anti-judge rhetoric, they've started acting on threats to seek impeachment of federal judges they don't like, and to set up systems for monitoring judges who depart from their preferred legal views.

The legal community, including the judiciary itself, has started to circle the wagons. Most visibly, retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is traveling the country excoriating judicial critics while trumpeting the virtues of judicial independence. And in a sign of the times, no less than seven Supreme Court justices - normally a pretty reticent bunch -- attended a recent conference decrying the rise of judge-bashing.

In this column, I'll consider why conservative attacks on judges have been such a successful tactic, and consider, too, what response progressives ought to make to such attacks.

more: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20061012.html