Is talking about executing sex offenders the political correct way to act like a rabid wombat?

[Smith_3]

I have noticed that often, when it comes to discussing what to do with sex offenders of all sorts, people seem to come up with all kinds of creative ways of how these people should be punished, from dismembering them to slicing and dicing them.

Sometimes these discussions have a tone that leads me to believe that the actual issue that is supposably being debated (crime and punishment) is secondary, and what it is really about is a political correct and safe way for people to mentally masturbate to their sadistic and cruel fantasies.

After all, everyone agrees that that child rapist is a less-than-human monster, right? Therefore it is okay to publicly talk about how you would like to see him dragged down the road by his testicles and then have him drowned in a barrel full of feces. Moreover, if anyone criticizes you for it, you can accuse them of siding with the perp, not caring about the victim and so on. So it is perfectly safe and sound.

At any other instance you would be looked at as if you were a complete psycho.

[Mandate My Ass]

1. Not just child rapists either

Most DP threads get lots of rabidly pro-death and suffering comments.

I think before the politicians had Arab terrorists to scare us into submission with, they had to rely on drug-crazed serial rapist torturer killers.

There is a fair amount of people here who believe that the primary function of criminal justice system is to punish someone cruelly and sadistically enough to quench their outrage and indignation. It's so Middle Ages.

[jobycom]

2. I don't think that's it, though I know what you mean.

I think it's frustration. People who commit crimes against children anger us, especially those with children or close to children, beyond all reason, more than almost any other crime. We see it over and over, and don't know how to stop it, and we are sick of seeing the missing kids, knowing the outcome even as we hope for something more. And we fear it happening to our kids.

And we assume, probably rightly, that the sick bastard who committed the crime enjoyed it, and would do it again despite the punishment, and the first instinct is to punish him so painfully that it will wipe out the sick pleasure he took from the crime. That's the most horrible thing for me, I think, is that nothing we do to these criminals will fix their victims, or will hurt them as bad as what they did made them happy. And it's infuriating.

So people think of the most extreme tortures, to punish them. To create some sense of balance against the horrors they've committed.

But I get squeamish at some of the rants, too. Maybe some are letting out their own fantasies. I think overall that they are just trying to overcome their own frustration, by imagining a punishment that might almost fit the crime.

I'm more of a "lock them up and let them suffer with what they are" person. One of the reasons I'm against the death penalty is because I believe every human should be allowed to live their natural life, and maybe come to some peace with themselves before they die. Whether they deserve it or not. And even that--a sudden realization at the end of their life of how despicable they were throughout--is worse punishment than the sickest sadist could invent, so those who crave vengeance should enjoy that solution, too.

Just my thoughts. Probably wrong.

[Dogtown]

4. Some are posers

using a wedge issue to disrupt our ranks.

They know they'll get no traction in arguing for killing retarded folks. So they pick emotionally laden issues to trick us and distract us.

"Hey, who doesn't hate child-rapists; I know *I* do!!"

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:


They then gently fan the flames and pit us against each other.

People need to *think*, not react, before posting here; before voting.

[jobycom]

8. Yeah, that's probably right.

We all know there are disrupters, and some are organized with clear agendas. Makes sense to think the death penalty is one of those agendas. And it would explain some of the rants.

But we've all seen regular DUers go off like that, too. It's an emotional crime.

[Dogtown]

17. apsitively, jobycom

I've seen it from posters I've read, and respected, for years; folks that absolutely could not be trolls.

It's a very emotional topic, one that's hard to step back from. Thanks for pulling me back on topic.



ALSO, i think I should mention that several of our members, one of whom I revere, are victims of violent child-abuse. Understandable that they're less than forgiving, and we have to give them a compassionate pass for venting.

[High Plains]

3. Yes.

[varkam]

5. I think that having a rational discussion on topics like this is difficult.

I strongly disagree with pretty much everyone who wants to see the maximum of harm inflicted upon anyone, regardless of who they are.

These crimes upset me, just as they upset anyone else, but I guess it's balanced out because I actually know one of these "less-than-human monsters". I would say that he's a human being who did a terrible thing, feels genuinely remorseful for his actions, and has paid the price. I think that a lot of people who clamor to skin people like that and drain them of their blood have sort of a mental template of a sex offender, and think that one size fits all.

That's not to say that the prototypical sex offender doesn't exist. You know, the one who has no remorse and will never change his or her behavior - but that's certainly not the description of everyone who has committed acts such as this.

[izquierdista]

6. Just blowing off steam

As horrified as they pretended to be at the Abu Ghraib atrocities, many people, even a lot of DU members, have a dark side that wants to commit brutality -- as long as it is well deserved. With the number of those who deserve torture dwindling, sex offenders are one of the last group that can be threatened without casting the pall of Torquemada on the proponent. They can't possibly admit that offenders come with a range of dysfunctions, some minor and some requiring major psychological help. No, better that they all be punished, as cruelly and unusually as possible.

They indignantly rant about Rush's comment on soldiers "just blowing off steam", but they would be the first in line to blow off steam when someone is accused, let alone convicted of an offence of a sexual nature.

[Karenina]

11. 44% of Americans support torture for terrorists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3365694

Amis are indeed a brutal lot! ;-)

[izquierdista]

13. Too much watching of '24'

If Goebbels were to come back today, I'm sure he would want to be president of the Kiefer Sutherland fan club. Why, the thought of turning propaganda into sought after television would please him no end.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Many seem to think

that the only way to express opposition to the crime itself is to advocate the most draconian punishments. They think if you don't want them killed horribly and painfully, then you don't disapprove strongly enough of what they did. It's dumb.

[MedleyMisty]

9. I haven't clicked on any of those threads

because I knew that would be there and because I just can't stomach it anymore.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. You have to remember the percentage of people who've suffered some form of abuse....

....or witnessed it, and some who may not even realize it happened. There is a lot of anger there, and I don't blame anyone for having it.

I prefer bringing them out to the middle of the ocean, cutting their arm and tossing them to the sharks, but that's just me.

[varkam]

12. While I can understand such anger...

it's not as though emotion justifies a given course of action.

I prefer bringing them out to the middle of the ocean, cutting their arm and tossing them to the sharks, but that's just me.

I say we skin them alive, drink their blood, and then wear their flesh like a costume!!1! Then, we can cut off their skinless head and put in on a pole in the town square...or maybe we can put it on the roof of a "child molester" car and drive it around town - you know, to show everyone that we mean business!

(Since my sadistic masturbatory fantasy far surpasses yours in brutality and creativity, I must therefore have a stronger opposition to the crime of child rape than you do!)

:sarcasm:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. You sick bastard!

So wasteful....the sharks need to eat! :nuke:

[readmoreoften]

32. What's the cut off age for caring about the victims of brutal rape?

Does it become their fault when they're 16 or 18? Or 13? When does it become super-bad again? Is it a dismemberment worthy crime when the victim is 48 or 58 or does he or she need to be on SSI?

For most people the victims seem to be "asking for it" starting around 17-18 and lasting until 50. It's a mentality that completely identifies with the rapist--not that victim. "I can't imagine wanting to fuck someone between the ages of 1-16 or 50-80...so they didn't ask for it because I don't consider them as having sexuality. But any woman between 17 to 49 is suspect because someone might think she's hot and misunderstand her intentions."

The whole phenomenon is baffling to me. Child molestation is fucking awful. So is starving kids to death and taking their water supply but we never talk about ripping the arms off predator CEOs. How about we feed the child rapists to the CEOs and then feed the CEOs to the kids? I mean, while we're solving problems here.

[varkam]

35. I wish I could rec this.

For most people the victims seem to be "asking for it" starting around 17-18 and lasting until 50. It's a mentality that completely identifies with the rapist--not that victim. "I can't imagine wanting to fuck someone between the ages of 1-16 or 50-80...so they didn't ask for it because I don't consider them as having sexuality. But any woman between 17 to 49 is suspect because someone might think she's hot and misunderstand her intentions."

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winna!

[Mountainman]

15. It's futile to go against the tide at DU. All the pc players come out of the woodwork as if there

is some warning bell ringing or something.

[anitar1]

41. You are correct, Mountainman. My ,My. I think we have an expert

on board who has done a bit of time.

[alfredo]

16. Putting a child rapist in the general prison population is a death sentence.

Many men in prison are also sexual and/or physical abuse victims. The rapist would have to be segregated from others, even then their lives are at risk.

[varkam]

18. That's something that bugs me, too.

For one, I hear people hoping that the perpetrator gets raped themselves in prison. :crazy: Are we raping people now to show that raping people is wrong? I would guess that people who recommend that course of action have never been raped themselves.

In addition, there are people who say that they are anti-DP, but then wax hopeful about how they'll get murdered in prison. Again, what the hell?

[alfredo]

25. Usually sex offenders do not tell why they are in prison because it

would put them in even more jeopardy. I have no sympathy for rapist and if they find themselves living in a concrete and steel hell, it is of their own making. The state is responsible for the prisoner. If they allow or cause harm to come to that prisoner, they are liable.

[varkam]

26. I guess I view it like this...

people should be given a shot at redemption, even people who do terrible things. It's their decision, though, whether or not to seek out that redemption or not. Nonetheless, I think that there should be a path to it, regardless of what someone has done. You know, the old belief that someone should pay their debt to society and then be on a clean slate.

[alfredo]

27. That's true, but the conservative method is tough love that is heavy on

the tough lacking in in love.

[varkam]

28. I agree.

I think that there needs to be a balance, though. I don't think that our primary concern in doling out punishment should be inflicting as much suffering as is humanly possible to satisfy our own need for the pound of flesh. Suffering is an inherent part of removing someone from society - personally I think that is sufficient.

I think that our desire for vengeance needs to be balanced out with the fact that (a) punishment is only a small aspect of our criminal justice system and that (b) the majority of these people will be back on the streets at some point, like it or not, and I think that a better way of going about things would be offering treatment programs and rehab as opposed to...well....just putting them through the animal factory.

[alfredo]

29. It does us no good to put that person back on the street with no skills

and no real way back into society.

[varkam]

30. Exactly.

We're dealing with a 70% general recidivism rate at three year follow-up, now. I would rather those incarcerated have access to treatment and jobs training so that they can try to become productive members of society again, rather than go back into the same habits and patterns that got them there in the first place.

[alfredo]

33. More progressive states do that, but the corporate prisons don't.

[varkam]

34. I disagree. Neither do.

That's the general number, not referring to parolees from state versus privatized prisons.

[alfredo]

37. So no prisons have education and rehab programs.

[varkam]

39. Of course they do.

But the state that they are in is piss-poor. Prison has been, and continues to be, primarily a warehousing operation. If you are in doubt, please ask someone who has been incarcerated for any length of time.

[alfredo]

46. I have a couple friends that have been in prison. One was a war

resister who spent several years up in Jackson State. He was able to work in the library. He was helped by Amnesty International and some Mennonite groups. Another was convicted of manslaughter, also in Jackson state got his GED. The Former is now a foster parent and community activist, the latter, dead. A third was sent to Eddyville in Ky. He sat in his cell. They didn't do shit to rehab.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

19. you are absolutely spot on!

[DavidDvorkin]

20. Excellent post

You hit the nail on the head.

Recommended.

[Lyric]

21. The whole "death penalty for child rape" thing is disturbing.

Either rape is an execution-worthy crime, or it isn't. Are there states that allow execution for murder *only* if it's the murder of a child? Sure, if the victim is a child, that could be considered an aggravating factor when determining whether or not to hand out the death penalty, but I highly doubt if there's a death-penalty state that ONLY executes child murderers.

If rape is not an execution-worthy crime for adults, then it isn't an execution-worthy crime period. I'm against the death penalty wholeheartedly, for all crimes, but I am particularly disturbed when our government wants to select out a certain group of people who commit a particular crime and only execute THEM. That is not justice--that is vengeance.

I also dislike the idea of child rape being considered execution-worthy while teen/adult/elder rape is not, because it seems to imply that something *extra horrible* happened. I firmly believe that raping an eight-year-old is no more traumatic or damaging than raping an eighteen year old, a thirty-eight year old, or an eighty-year-old. Hell, raping an elder is probably the most damaging of all--their bodies don't heal well at that age, and they're far more likely to die from the shock and trauma of it.

It seems like what they're saying is, "Teens and adults are already "tainted", so raping THEM isn't death-worthy. But little kids are Pure and Holy and Good, so we'll kill your ass if you defile them." It just doesn't sit right with me. Rape is horrible, period. The punishment should be uniform.

[Phillycat]

22. "Supposably"?

[papapi]

45. thank you

[Iggo]

23. They NEEEED permission to kill someone.

They are not happy unless someone is being killed.

Punishment fetishists....pffft!

[tjwash]

24. Not really a rabid wombat. It's more like a tasmanian bird-fuck.

nt

[readmoreoften]

31. Child porn wasn't even considered any worse than regular porn until 1982

In fact the medical books are replete with Victorian horrors for what should be done to dirty-minded little children until the 1930s. At the turn of the century, 32% of people in "idiot asylums" were there due to masturbation. Clitoridectomies, castration, burning the genitals with hot coals and acids were not uncommon practices to stop youthful masturbation. Graham crackers and Kellogg's cereal was created to produce intestinal regularity, as Graham and Kellogg believed the urge to masturbate was exacerbated by constipation. In one letter Kellogg urged patients to monitor their children's sleeping habits to make sure they weren't masturbating. Another doctor said for adults to monitor child sleeping habits, and if they caught the child masturbating--rush in and punish them genitally.

This was not "fringe" thinking. This was mainstream thinking. Children were dirty little beasts in need of social training. Adults were the successful creatures who matured without incident--hence automatically innocent.

So what happened? How did all this reverse in the late-middle of the 20th century?

My thesis:

The 20th century was marked by massive war mobilizations. The reason for battle in previous centuries had always been concepts like "honor", "courage", "God", and later "nationalism" but also "protect the women." After WWII women became more independent (even though the 1950s became extremely repressive because of this very inevitability.) By the late 1970s and early 80s, equality was not a *fact* but it was a cultural value--a major cultural demand.

"Woman" was no longer the abstract, weepy, diamond-eyed movie star of the silver screen. The man's abstract "war muse." Plus we were fighting internationalist proxy wars that made it difficult to see the clear heroism in dying for "Nation".

So the new "Idealized Victim" became the big-eyed child instead of the teary-eyed woman. Children have gone from filthy savage to human icon for total purity and goodness in less than a century. My general sense is that all this rage at victimizers isn't about real kids. It's about having hard lines for "good" and "evil." This is why many people who are most adamant about carving the eyeballs out of molesters often seem slightly skeeved by the molested kids themselves.

Meanwhile 5 babies a day in the US are having doctors operate on their genitals to make them more 'normal looking' to their care takers (cutting down the clitoris if it's too big, increasing the depth of the vagina, etc.)

Do I make apologies for child molesters? No. But using abused children to live out our revenge fantasies does no one any good. What about elder abuse? Not as hot a topic. That's why it was so important that the little Iraqi girl Abeer was called a GIRL and not a WOMAN--as a woman the fact that she was raped and burned alive wouldn't mean much. Which in itself is disgusting.

[varkam]

36. It is not often that I say this, but...

you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

So the new "Idealized Victim" became the big-eyed child instead of the teary-eyed woman. Children have gone from filthy savage to human icon for total purity and goodness in less than a century. My general sense is that all this rage at victimizers isn't about real kids. It's about having hard lines for "good" and "evil." This is why many people who are most adamant about carving the eyeballs out of molesters often seem slightly skeeved by the molested kids themselves.

I think that is absolutely spot on. Bravo. :toast:

[readmoreoften]

38. Well. I mean the clues are out in the open.

First of all, people are very strange about survivors of abuse. They make jokes about them ending up as strippers. Or they make sad faces about them ending up as strippers. Or when adult women try to advocate for adult women who are raped, they snicker and say that she was probably abused herself and can't think 'clearly'. Or they make sad faces and say 'she is probably being too emotional'.

And, well, most people who abuse were abused. In other words, the cute little boy with the big sad eyes breaks my heart. But when no one intervenes and that little boy grows up and gets a beer gut and a beard and acts out his own abuse, then he's a monster. If so, when you're looking at the cute little boy with the big eyes does it break your heart because you realize he might grow up to be a monster too? Is there a component of that in there? Is that also the sadness felt towards the little girl? To be a "ruined slut" at such a young age?

This subtext became very clear to me when a friend of mine was telling me how his female cousin was molested by the ice cream man. The response of his parents and his other aunts and uncles to their children was "did she touch you?!!!" All of them said "no" and thought the question was thoroughly bizarre.

The trick is to break the cycle. In all seriousness, considering that we're still only a few generations past the Victorian era, I'm surprised we're not more fucked up than we are...

[anitar1]

40. Smith 3 . I see you do not have a profile--secret person ? Too bad

you have not experienced being raped when you were a child.It changes one's life drastically and never leaves the mind. one wonders what life would have been like if these rapists were done away with. There are many more of them than you can imagine.

[kiva]

42. Too bad s/he wasn't raped as a child?!?!?

As several people have noted above, many of us are aware that some DU members were abused as children. That said, saying it's "too bad" it hadn't happened to the OP is vicious and unnecessary--disagreement with a point of view is one thing, this is over the top.

[Batgirl]

43. "Too bad you have not experienced being raped when you were a child" ???

Some rabidly pro-death penalty people seem to just not be able to help themselves. Perhaps they are overflowing with so much love for their fellow humans, that some of the surplus compassion molecules clog up their synapses causing them to feel that opposing the DP is the equivalent of waving pompoms in support of the world's murderers, rapists and other evildoers.

That's when you get people who feel entitled to wish rape upon a DP opponent.

[varkam]

47. Wow. That's utterly disgusting.

:puke:

[Drum]

44. It's a hot-button issue

and particularly for wombats.

[Danger Mouse]

48. People who harm children...if it were up to me, no amount of agony would be enough for them.

Of course, it's not up to me. It's up to our justice system...as it should be.
I don't know about executing them, though. It might do more harm than good? :shrug: