Assholes who rape three-year-olds should be sent straight to hell

[XemaSab]

:cry:

Police say Yreka kidnap suspect sexually assaulted 3-year-old

The man accused of abducting a three-year-old Yreka girl from her home early Monday is being held today on suspicion of attempted murder and sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10.

Kody Lee Kaplon, 22, is being held this morning at the Siskiyou County jail in lieu of $135,000 bail.

A media bulletin released today by the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department lists Kaplon’s potential charges as felony false imprisonment, child stealing, burglary, kidnapping, felony willful cruelty to a child, attempted murder and sexual intercourse with a child under 10.

Kaplon contacted Yreka police via an Amber Alert line around 2 p.m., to ask why police were looking for him, police said.

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/mar/03/police-say-yreka-kidnap-suspect-sexually-assaulted/

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. That poor baby girl! *crying*

[Deja Q]

2. He is not a human being. Exterminate him. Hell will be there with open arms.

[tonysam]

5. He and Chester Arthur Stiles

can go right to hell. Stiles was convicted in Vegas today of child molestation charges. This was the creep who videotaped his crimes.

[CTyankee]

151. Once in prison, these folks will know what hell is. Child molesters often don't live very long there

When they do, they're lives aren't worth living.

[Politicalboi]

265. They usually put them with

Their own kind so that "they" will be safe. I say let them out in the general prison public. And let those guys know exactly what these fucks did. Men like this deserve the Death Penalty. Stop the circle. They CANNOT be rehabilitated.

[DutchLiberal]

23. No.

[Eryemil]

41. Hmm? He's as human as you or me.

The fact that due to some stroke of bad luck his desires are incompatible with our society does not automatically makes him another species.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. Yes. And that's where the true horror lies.

Jeffrey Dahmer was human.
Adolph Hitler was human.
Pol Pot was human.

HUMANS are capable of that. We try to escape that horrible truth by saying they're "not human."

[condoleeza]

69. Stroke of bad luck? pls expand on that.

[Eryemil]

77. Whatever conditions that lead to their having an attraction towards children

Whether genetic or (most likely) developmental in origin paedophiliac orientation has proven impossible to treat so far.
I imagine the desire manifests like any other form of sexuality. Sexual desire is a very potent and influential motivator.
I think their situation is similar to that of closeted gay conservatives like Ted Haggard that engage in illicit acts with men.
Their way of life depends on their playing it straight, their whole culture identity depends on it but they can't seem to manage to keep it in their pants.

[Maru Kitteh]

92. You are so fucking wrong.

People do NOT torture and attempt to murder and maliciously torture those they have an attraction to.

[Eryemil]

93. Most people don't, that's true enough.

I do not see the logic in your statement. Pedophiles are undoubtedly sexually attracted to minors.
There are scores of paraphilia just like it, with diverse sexual foci.

[HEyHEY]

286. However, this person is mentally ill

It would be almost like killing someone with DS or something. I think it's just terrible what happened and it's fucked up and all that, but you can't look at this as done by a person of sound mind. The mentally ill are oppressed enough without certain segments of them being executed for something they likely couldn't stop themselves from doing.

[condoleeza]

288. I don't give a shit if someone has "DS or something" They shoot horses, don't they?"

The criminal complaint charges Kaplon with attempted murder for abandoning the 3-year-old victim in a remote area of Hawkinsville. The complaint also alleges that Kaplon commited acts of sexual intercourse, sexual penetration with a foreign object and two counts of sexual oral copulation on a female victim under the age of 10 years. 
Kaplon is also charged with kidnapping and endangering the health of a child. Special allegations of great bodily harm and a claim that Kaplon was on probation or parole at the time of these offenses were included in the complaint. 
Kaplon pleaded not guilty to all charges and was appointed the services of the public defender to act as his attorney.

[HEyHEY]

290. Wow.....

So, you're actively campaigning for the execution of people who've got wires loose in their heads? Just because their particular condition causes them to do the most vile and unthinkable thing imaginable? I don't think you understand that there's no vengeance to be had in this. This person is just simply not all there in the head. So, you can't approach the situation like should have known better. Killing them does nothing, they wouldn't get the "Justice" aspect and it wouldn't bring that little girl back and it wouldnt deter anyone else. But, go ahead, be a barbarian.... Hitler like to murder the mentally ill too.

[condoleeza]

292. If a Pit-Bull attacked your 3 year old daughter how would you feel about euthanizing the dog?

Perhaps you should read through my posts before you accuse me of being Hitler-like.

[HEyHEY]

293. You're comparing a mentally ill people to animals and saying they should be killed

I read, and understood, your post very well, it's a very simple concept you're advocating. And the nazi comment stands.

[condoleeza]

295. I have been amazingly restrained during this conversation considering my personal interest in this

as a 3 year old who has lived a lifetime with this legacy. Easy for you to make a nazi comment. What is your stake in this?

[HEyHEY]

299. I'm mentally ill

I have OCD, and I know what it's like to not be in control of your brain. I've had treatment and medication and am MUCH better now, but there are days when It's a living nightmare. And I imagine for these guys it's insanely worse. As well, I live in a country right now where the mentally are seriously repressed (China) and the level of ignorance and hatred is astounding and I'm actually SCARED of what could happen to me if some of my co-workers found out. I don't mean being sent to prison, I mean being ostracized or even not having my contract renewed. I see what you're writing, and it has all the same undertones.


Killing this person won't do a thing. Studying them, trying to find out why they did what they did and then applying that information to prevent future tragedies is the answer.

[condoleeza]

302. You are not understanding what I have posted as comments on here,

during the course of this thread. I have posted links and statistics and many personal things that relate to my own experience as a 3 year old who was raped and has had to deal with being the youngest child in a family where 3 of my older siblings were also raped and two have since committed suicide as adults. Please look through the thread and see what I have said thus far. I am not one who has advocated violence against Kory Kaplon being perpetrated by the family of the child involved here, nor do I wish him to be raped or murdered or tortured by fellow prisoners, or by the community in a vengeful manner, as all of those actions would only serve to dehumanize those involved.

I know many people who have OCD, I myself might have OCD, I have had therapy to deal with my own personal experiences and how it has effected me. I have never had a desire to rape a child and I have been an Aunt to over 20 kids who I helped raise and who do not understand why I can not be a part of their life since the 2nd suicide of my closest sibling. I love them, I have raised 2 daughters of my own, I cannot be a part of a family who will not recognize why I don't want to come to Christmas with the men who raped me and my brothers and sister.

If you have an obsession that would involve something that would hurt a child in the way that my family was hurt, then I hope that you will do whatever it takes to not act out on that. I don't think that being labeled OCD would result in your being ostracized unless what your obsession is involves harming others. Obviously I have no realistic idea what it must be like to live in China and you have all my sympathies for what I imagine your life must be like there. It doesn't strike me as any kind of tolerant society.

We can apply statistics forever in an effort to prevent future tragedies. However, statistics show that the recidivism rate, despite treatment, is extremely high. While I have empathy, as I did not murder my older brothers, nor did I charge them with crimes, the reality is that in cases like Kory's, which is an aberration from the norm, he needs to be kept away from others he can harm to for the rest of his life. Regardless of what took him to this point, it is really beyond belief that a man who has his own child,(even though being simply a sperm donor doesn't mean he is a parent- although he does have a pic of him and his son on his MySpace page), a man who knew this girl and her family since she was an INFANT, could take her out into "nowhere", sodomize her in numerous manners, rape her physically, and then leave her alone in a disabled car with evidence of ligature, to survive on her own in an area where there are deer, wolves, coyote and mountain lions and wearing nothing but a wet T-shirt. At which time he leaves and walks to a nearby home to ask for a "lift" to town because his car was stuck.

He left her to die. If my dog tried to kill a child I wouldn't hesitate a second to have it put down. If your OCD is in this range and you cannot control it, then you need major intervention. Have you had a test to determine Heavy metal poisoning? This is a condition that is very common in Chinese. Chelation could save your life.

You are my 3rd debator on this topic. The prior two were apologists, I hope you are not a third apologist. If you have thoughts about abusing a child I hope you will get help and understand that what you are doing, should you abuse, is the same as murdering the soul of a child. At that point I couldn't care less about your "employability" or whatever social problems you might have.

[HEyHEY]

309. Wow, that's a big ball of bullshit you just made.....

My OCD has nothing to do with any of that, as well you've clearly demonstrated you don't know exactly what OCD is. It's not being obsessed with the idea of harming others, it's about being obsessed with the fear you MIGHT harm others. It's about being obsessed with the fear you might get germs, you might be gay, you might accidentally run over someone, you might need your urine later (so save it in a jar). It's all about fear, irrational fear. For example, I was always worried I was somehow offending people I loved, terrified of it. So, I used to go to unreasonable lengths to make sure that didn't happen in an obsessive way.

That's what the illness is, it's being afraid of something you fear to the point it controls your life. To that end those WITH OCD are the least likely to harm others because they naturally have higher inhibitions.

And as for your backhanded accusations I'm a closet child molester, go fuck yourself. But I love how when someone tries to not be a pro-death penalty whacko they're labelled a child molester. I'm trying to help you understand that people who do this are not right in their heads, and I agree they need to be kept from people and locked up, but you're advocating for their murder. These people are mentally ill, I don't think you even know what that means. And you certainly cant grasp what I'm telling you about how executing people like that is sick because it's killing someone who isn't comparable to you and me when it comes to the brains department. This reminds me of everyone howling for blood when the schizophrenic guy decapitated the man on the bus. He was a schizophrenic in a severe episode and is not responsible at all for his actions. The poor man is probably mortified with what he did when his condition took over.

And fuck you again for your comment on my employability. Do you understand that I'm in a place where if someone heard I had been on medication at some time for an illness that effects one in fifty people in the world, I could be fired? Do even have a fucking clue what it's like to live in a place where something that isn't your fault can cost you your job? Do you even care? No, of course you don't you're some barbarian who thinks we should slaughter the mentally ill. You're the one advocating death, and torture to someone, not me. Sorry what happened to you did, but channeling that and seeking revenge and lashing out at people like me will get you nothing at sundown.

[PeaceNikki]

311. Are you seriously comparing euthaniasia of dogs with people?

[uppityperson]

122. "I think their situation is similar to that of closeted gay conservatives like Ted Haggard that enga

"I think their situation is similar to that of closeted gay conservatives like Ted Haggard that engage in illicit acts with men." Are you seriously comparing hiring a male prostitute to kidnapping, raping and murdering a 3 yr old?

Bonus question: Do people really have no control over their actions?

[Eryemil]

137. Another straw man

I was merely pointing out that sexual desire sometimes overwhelms common sense, even when the person has so much to lose if they act on them.

And that last question is one I am not qualified to answer. I could give you my personal opinions on the subject, as I understand it.
But whether they can control it or not is not relevant to the discussion, except perhaps, as I pointed out below in terms of the severity of punishment.

[uppityperson]

153. replying to your comparison is a "straw man"?

Asking if you are seriously comparing them is a "straw man"? I think you do not know what that term means

"I think their situation is similar to that of closeted gay conservatives like Ted Haggard that engage in illicit acts with men." Are you seriously comparing hiring a male prostitute to kidnapping, raping and murdering a 3 yr old?

Bonus question: Do people really have no control over their actions? You are not qualified to answer if people have any control over their actions. Oh. Kay.

[HEyHEY]

287. And you are?

I don't get how one of you is and one isn't. I think basically what the poster is saying is that this guy is not a person of sound mind. Hence there isn't much point in trying to make sense and administer punitive measures based on the example set by people who aren't batshit crazy.

[babythunder]

282. You consider raping and torturing a 3 year old

a sexual desire? Wow that is truly disturbing.

[northernlights]

156. rape, torture and murder have nothing to do with desire or attraction

and everything to do with power, sadism. They are sociopaths, psychopaths, totally lacking in empathy or conscience.

[prayin4rain]

202. Exactly....... I am so sure.... "desires are just incompatible"

who the f**k comes up with this stuff? His desire to maim and torture children just happens to not be in vogue right now... what's the big deal?? Ridiculous.

:mad:

[Naturyl]

257. Some people think all morality is relative and culturally-conditioned.

It can be a difficult view to refute philosophically, but when something like this happens, we all know it is wrong.

Well, most of us do, anyway. Those who perhaps aren't so sure might say things like "his desires are just incompatible." In more than a few cases, those making such statements have "incompatible desires" of their own which they are attempting to justify to themselves by proxy.

[condoleeza]

289. Amen

[Cronopio]

247. The central issue isn't desire, it's consent.

You can't prove or compare the quality of desire between a homosexual and a pedophiliac, so it's a ludicrous exercise in futility to even attempt to equivocate the two as you have.

The fact is that legal, healthy sex - homosexual, heterosexual, or a Ted Haggard-hybrid of the two - is consensual.

There is no way in heaven, hell, or earth that the 3-year-old child could even understand what was being done to them as sex - to her it was an assault. So there is no way she could have given consent.

So the attacker wasn't even close to being in a similar situation to a closeted gay. QEFD.

[prayin4rain]

86. What? His desires are just incompatible with our society????

You are disgusting.

[Eryemil]

89. What part of that statement do you disagree with?

[uppityperson]

121. the "due to some stroke of bad luck" bit. This goes way beyond "bad luck".

He is human, but not humane. This goes way beyond "due to some stroke of bad luck his desires are incompatible with our society". Just because you are attracted to a child does not mean you need to kidnap one, rape one, possibly murder one. That is not "bad luck" about his desires but really bad actions on his part.

[eridani]

126. The "bad luck" is that a plain old relationship minus the kidnapping

--etc, would also be unethical, due to issues of consent.

[Dorian Gray]

135. I disagree with

the "just." They are incompatible with our society, and for good reason. Those actions damage our society greatly. They are outlawed, and those that break the laws and harm children need to be severely punished.

[Eryemil]

138. I agree, something must be done about those that harm others

But I do not believe in punishment after the fact. It's pointless, expensive and indulgent.
As long as the offender can be kept from re-offending, that's enough for me.

[uppityperson]

154. "But I do not believe in punishment after the fact."

How about consequences? Actions have consequences.

[BlueStateGirl]

166. No punishment after the fact? For all criminals or just child rapers?

[Eryemil]

183. For anyone. I think the legal system should be based around...

...prevention and rehabilitation (where possible). Not retribution.

In a way our current system is both more brutal and more lenient than it should be.
Murderers and rapists should rarely be re-introduced into the general population yet we release them anyway.

In case of child molesters, since they have proven themselves incapable of self-control and cannot be treated, there's little option but life-long isolation.

[uppityperson]

196. No punishment, ever. Just prevention & rehabilitation.

So, I can do anything I want, and if I get "rehabilitated" then everything is peachy keen? Good grief.

[prayin4rain]

201. His desires are irrelevant..... his actions are what spiritually, mentally, emotionally

and physically maimed the child. I don't care what goes on in people's heads. This is not about his "desires". It is about his choice to harm a child. I desire to steal my neighbor's Porsche... but I'm not going to do it.

[eridani]

125. They are incompatible with basic ethics

Most other forms of unusual sexual preferences are not.

[Pavulon]

96. Human for sure

that problem can be solved very easily. Leave whats left for the creatures in the woods.

Seriously. demented post. If i woke up with that in my head,like this guy. And could not make it go away i would kill myself.

[Dorian Gray]

134. It just makes him a

danger and a menace to society. He should be punished accordingly.

[Eryemil]

139. Your first statement is right on par with what I said in my earlier post

Though I suppose it bears repeating

The second one is a matter of opinion.

[Sequoia]

145. His desires are sick and are not to be defended.

We better check your computer to see what you're viewing.

[Eryemil]

164. "We better check your computer to see what you're viewing."

I'm just going to quote this for posterity.

[condoleeza]

167. You keep digging yourself into a hole

I responded to your posts from yesterday somewhere way down the thread. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not malevolent here, but you are losing ground fast.

[Eryemil]

179. Your opinions of me are of no concern of mine

Just like this failed abortion above, calling me a pedophile for even daring to speak, without regard how such an accusation can ruin someone's life.'
And they probably thinks it would be just punishment too, ignoring the fact that I've done nothing but voice my opinion on an issue.

But yes, I am the warped one. Not all the savages posting in this thread about all the manner of barbaric punishments they'd like to inflict on another human being.
Anyone who thinks that's the moral highground has more issues than a teenager in an online message board.

[condoleeza]

185. You wouldn't be posting on this subject unless it hit a chord with you

and this is pretty obvious, especially after seeing that you are still in defense mode here, have been since your first post yesterday, have edited numerous posts and are generally wanting to argue rather than discuss. Please use the links on post #161 and get some knowledge.

I cannot be a part of this discussion anymore. I have tried to be civil, but I've reached my limit. Ask yourself why you read this post yesterday. I should have known better than to go there, my life story, jesus, we never learn.

[Sequoia]

175. You do that because you seem to be talking about keeping

your own self in check. Kids, stay away from this person.

[condoleeza]

181. Glad somebody else said that

I just posted some links and information downline on the latest news, but here is another story as well.

Kody Lee Kaplon, 22, who surrendered Monday afternoon by calling the Amber Alert hotline initially denied any responsibility for kidnapping the child Francis Ann Collins, 3, from her parents home.
The Yreka Police say Kaplon took Francis to a wooded area in the mountains.
The California Highway Patrol described her as having no diaper or underclothes on the lower part of her body.
"That's a long ways from anywhere that you'd be taking a three-year-old. Her chances of survival were very very slim," said Yerka police.
After an interview and medical exam of the girl, Kaplon was charged with kidnapping, burglary, willful cruelty to a child, sodomy with a child under 10 years of age, false imprisonment,violation of probation, rape and attempted murder.
California Highway Patrol says the car Kaplon was driving was stuck in the mud. He left Francis alone in the vehicle. A concerned citizen found the child walking and alerted the authorities.


This guy was invited to a party by a friend of the parents who met him for the first time that night. The girl's father heard her screaming and saw this guys car drive away at 4:45AM.

This little girl has now been put into protective custody, so she is completely traumatized.....she doesn't have her parents to comfort her.........well you can just imagine if this was your child...

They would not have charged him without evidence.

[Sequoia]

186. Oh, that is worse than I thought.

Anyone who defends him is sick as hell. Why can't she be with her parents, how were they to know what sort of person he was.

[condoleeza]

187. Frances was wearing only a soaked t-shirt when found by campers

http://www.kajo.com/news/local/stories.php?subaction=showfull&id=1236171288&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&

Child Abductor Held
22-year-old Kody Lee Kaplon of Hornbrook, California is under arrest for the abduction of Francis Ann Collins.

Yreka police are holding the man on suspicion of kidnapping and sexually molesting a 3-year-old girl. The actions caused Oregon State Police to issue an AMBER ALERT across the Rogue Valley.

Kaplon is facing multiple charges, including kidnapping, attempted murder, willful cruelty to a child and committing a sexual crime against a child. He is currently being held in the Siskiyou County Jail on one-million dollars bail and will be arraigned this afternoon.

Collins was found by a group of campers off a Siskiyou County road Monday afternoon in an isolated area about 15 miles northwest of Yreka. Four Yreka men found Collins wearing only a soaked t-shirt.

The youngster’s father says he woke to the sound of Francis screaming. He thought she was having a bad dream, but when he went to her bed, she was gone. When he heard a car start up, he ran outside and says he saw Kaplon driving away with his daughter in the back seat.

Kaplon is believed to have been drinking before the abduction. The girl's parents say they knew Kaplon through a roommate living in their house. Kaplon is also a father himself.

California Child Protective Services are investigating the suspected abuse.

[XemaSab]

204. And it was freezing out

:cry:

[condoleeza]

209. He left her there and walked to a house

The guy at the house drove him into town. As I said in my other post, there are mountain lions and coyotes in the area, there was snow on the ground. The latest news on this is pretty bad, he had bound her hands. The newspaper in Redding has an up to date account of what is going on. They raised his bail to 2 million yesterday. Known drug user, parents KNEW him for some time, didn't just meet him Sunday. He has a baby girl by a girlfriend. AAAAHHHHHHH!!!

[PaDem]

296. I'm not going to defend the perpetrator.......

but there very well may be more to the story where the girl's parents are concerned. If she was placed in protective custody there's a good chance that the parents were in some way negligent. There are so many details that aren't included in this story and anyone here would be guessing as to how exactly this went down.

[condoleeza]

305. The parents were friends with the perp since the victim was born,

poor choice for the parents. In what way does that excuse the perp?

[PaDem]

307. did I suggest that it did?

I was responding to a post that was lamenting the fact that the little girl isn't with her parents at the present time but instead is in protective custody.

[LiberalEsto]

268. She probably has horrendous physical damage

and is probably in extreme pain. She could face reconstructive surgery just to be able to go to the bathroom normally again.

Frankly this poor child and other victims like her end up serving life sentences of pain and trauma, for having the terrible luck to become a victim of one of these sociopaths.

I hope they lock this monster up and throw away the key. Anyone capable of doing this -- to a child! A baby! should be locked up with no chance of release EVER.

[condoleeza]

291. Ah, if it were only so

The reality is that this will never happen, has never happened from my experience, her life is not as valuable as a 3 yr. old as his life is. What will be portrayed to the court will be poor Kody as a disadvantaged and abused child. HER life will always be a question as we don't know if she will recover or become a drug addict self-abuser as an adult. What the court will be shown is that he was a victim.

The assumption being that her parents will do the necessary things to help her to have a normal life, which obviously neither of them has shown any capability for thus far, is what I hope CSD will take into consideration before they ever let this child go home again.

[geek tragedy]

155. And Pol Pot's bad luck was to be a genocidal dictator. n/t

[Stargazer09]

251. Okay

Then castrate the ones who attack children. Then they won't have the desire to hurt others, and they can be free to live their lives without destroying the lives of little children.

[Politicalboi]

271. You still have the anger

In them. They would probably use something else to rape a child with. It's not just a penis that commits the crime. They should either get Death or life in prison. Creeps that molest children should NEVER be let out.

[Stargazer09]

278. But with castration...

The testicles are removed, and with them, the main source of testosterone. From what I've read, men who are castrated (and who do not receive replacement testosterone) tend to lose most (if not all) sexual desire and a lot of their anger and aggression.

Oh, I agree that they need to be dead or locked in prison for life. But a more cost-effective method of dealing with child rapists may be castration. Then they can be released without posing a significant danger to others.

[condoleeza]

297. Read through my posts

Testosterone has nothing to do with an affinity to fuck children. It is a control and power issue and if they can't control their life by fucking children literally, they will find another way.

[Stargazer09]

303. Like I said in my other posts

The lack of testosterone tends to make men more mellow and less aggressive, thus less likely to feel the need to dominate others.

And like I said in my other posts, I still think the child rapists need to be either put to death or imprisoned for life. But castration seems like a decent option if our society can't incarcerate those horrible criminals long enough to keep them from ever hurting another person (child or adult).

[condoleeza]

306. Whatever it takes to neuter these bastards is OK by me

[Stargazer09]

308. I totally agree!

:hi:

[Naturyl]

256. His desires are incompatible with ANY society.

At least any society not based on utter insanity.

Whether or not it is "his own fault" in some philosophical sense is not the issue and is of no importance. The issue is his desires deny him a place in society and he should be removed from it, either by life imprisonment or by death.

[ReliantJ]

3. If they are found guilty

I'm all for the death penalty.

[MrSlayer]

4. This is a capital crime in my opinion.

I would expand the death penalty to include scum like this.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. I'd kill such a psycho myself if I had the chance.

BUT:

(1) I wouldn't want the state to do it, and

(2) I would expect to be prosecuted for the aforementioned act. I'd ask for leniency, though.

[Politicalboi]

273. Like Ellie Nesler

Did to her son's molester. Shot him dead in a court room. She did some time but the whole town supported her. They even had bumperstickers made up.

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-nesler30-2008dec30,0,945169.story

[DutchLiberal]

24. No. Abolish the death penalty!

[MrSlayer]

37. No. Expand it.

[RedCappedBandit]

40. Agreed.

I can't understand the level of stupidity it must require to believe the death penalty is a good idea.

[Sebastian Doyle]

53. You're right. The state doesn't need to execute these kind of shitbags.

Just throw them in the exercize yard at prison with a uniform that says "BABY RAPER" in huge block letters on the back.

The other convicts will take it from there. Give the ones who take care of the problem time off their own sentences for "good behavior".

[Naturyl]

258. The death penalty is a good idea insofar as it...

Removes people like these from society IRREVERSIBLY.

I'm perfectly willing to accept life in prison *without possibility of parole* as a substitute - provided future decisions do not overturn such a sentence. But where is the guarantee of that?

The death penalty is acceptable to me in such cases because it utterly ensures the removal of the threat. It's not about punishment for me, it's about protection.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

203. Same here

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Reminds me of Kell, Illinois

when a young girl was abducted, raped, and murdered. When they caught the man who did it, the entire town of Kell went to the county seat and told the sheriff, "Just unlock the cell and walk away, and we'll save the state whole lot of money."

The sheriff didn't, of course, and the creep was convicted in another area of the state. But I'd like to think that, just for a moment, that creep felt the terror his victim did....

[Canuckistanian]

70. That's what they used to do in the southern states back about 60 years ago

You don't want that kind of justice, do you?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

129. You didn't get it

No, they weren't able to lynch him--but they were able to put a scare into him, and made him realize the repercussions of what he has done. That was my point. It wasn't that I wanted him strung up--but I did feel it was a good thing that, for maybe only a moment, he felt the fear and terror of what might have happened.

[WildEyedLiberal]

220. Because killing pedophiles is exactly the same as lyching innocent black people?

God, epic fail. Comparing the murder of a pedophile to racially motivated hate crime murders shows a complete lack of comprehension of proportion. You can be against capital punishment and mob justice all you want; I'm not saying I disagree (although I do, on the subject of capital punishment, at any rate). But don't even compare the desire to kill a known violent offender guiltly of unspeakably horrific crimes with ugly racist hatred. The former is, if not commendable, at least understandable. The latter is just evil.

[dflprincess]

244. Because no innocent person has ever been wrongly accused of pedophilia

Even in cases this horrendous, mistakes may be made.

[Naturyl]

259. Yes, mistakes can be made. That cuts both ways, you know.

How many thousands of "mistakes" have been made when people like these were given light sentences, paroled, furloughed, etc?

[ColesCountyDem]

274. I'm from Benton-- not far from Kell-- and the story is true.

I don't agree with that sort of thinking, but I *can* understand it.

[daninthemoon]

8. at least put him in jail longer than the non-violent drug criminal.

These are the kind of creature who are always incorigble, and do this as many times as they can. Yet they usually aren't treated as such, but are realeased after a few years. they're sick and need to be permanently removed from the rest of us, first time every time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Has to be forever. There's a level of fucked-upness beyond which

no rehabilitation can be reasonably expected. Let him make license plates and look at walls until he dies of old age.

(Yes, I'm STILL against the death penalty.)

[mwooldri]

65. Agreed x2. nt

[daninthemoon]

66. me too. let em rot in jail instead. worse than death.

[norepubsin08]

68. Good for you!

I'm with you all the way!!!!

[FloridaJudy]

114. Yup.

This should be why we build prisons - not to lock up non-violent drug offenders.

And I don't buy the 'irresistible urge' argument. Yeah, the sex drive is powerful, but most of us manage to get through life without indulging it whenever we feel like it with whoever we feel like regardless of their wishes. Excuse me, but are both his hands non-functional? If he's hale enough to abduct a child, he can masturbate. That's what normal people do when sexually frustrated.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to rehabilitate these kinds of offenders. They need to be incarcerated for life for their safety and ours.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Child molestors should be beheaded so I can gain their power via the Quickening.

[JuniperLea]

44. I've been thinking that God should get back in the lightening bolt groove...

If ever such action was needed...

[Ilsa]

74. There you go! I haven't seen a Highlander marathon in awhile. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

97. ROFL...yup, that's about the speed of the comments on this thread

:thumbsup:

[myrna minx]

120. Well, who else could be the prince(s) of the universe? n/t

[chrisa]

146. There can only be one!

AAAAAGGGHHHHHH!!!

[depakid]

10. Creepy looking guy

and Hornbrook's a creepy town.

[seabeyond]

12. he looks like a reg joe to me. n/t

[depakid]

15. It's the stare and low set ears....

[seabeyond]

56. looks just like tom dick and harry to me. n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

22. He's got that crazy look in his eyes, like serial killers have

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. How much of that "crazy look" is our brains painting the picture with the facts we know?

LOTS of people look creepy. There's not that many psychopaths roaming the streets.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

34. It's like a flat look

My dog does it when he's herding. His eyes normally have a glow. When he's herding, which for border collies is done through pure intimidation, his eyes turn matte and black.

[alcibiades_mystery]

99. Highly scientific analysis

Discredited nineteenth century pseudoscience, but scientific nonetheless.

:rofl:

[seabeyond]

57. dont see it. dont see crazy, dont see creep. see a guy. n/t

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

59. Well, that's fine then

To me, he has a crazy look, and I'm usually pretty good at picking up on stuff like that.

[seabeyond]

61. of course it is fine. differing opinions

hey, i am damn good too

[anigbrowl]

174. So do most people's passport photos

Sorry, I don't think you can judge anything much from a person's mugshot. Frontal flat lighting doesn't flatter anyone.

[dustbunnie]

159. Jails don't employ make-up artists to make the subject of the mug shot look good -

Anyone, guilty or not, looks like barf in those pics. It's that "holy feck, how did I get here" look. Celeb mug shots don't look any better. They all look like serial killers.

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Baby rapers are one reason I support the death penalty...

Life in prison is too good for them...

[depakid]

13. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed

because it's basically a slippery slope with these sorts of deals.

[DutchLiberal]

27. Then you haven't seen an American prison...

It's barbaric.

[Stargazer09]

252. I feel the same way

Although I know that others don't. But I would be sorely tempted to kill anyone who did anything like that to one of my children.

[Warpy]

14. He needs to be disarmed.

It's a public safety issue, not a revenge issue.

The only alternative is locking men like this up for the rest of their lives.

[petronius]

42. At the wrists, elbows, or shoulders?

:shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

83. Considering the crime he committed

...you might want to aim a little lower.

[Stargazer09]

253. My thoughts exactly!

Chop off the offending body parts.

Doing this to a few child rapists might make people think twice about "indulging" in their sick fantasies.

[rebecca_herman]

16. so freaking sick

please tell me they can give life without parole for something this messed up? That worthless excuse of a human being should never see outside a prison again.

[condoleeza]

17. good to see the outrage here

and sometimes these guys are family - what then?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Well, MY assessment of the situation still stands.

Easier to put in practice, too.

[alarimer]

19. If they were my family, I would shun them at the very least.

They would not be welcome in my home or anywhere I was.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

25. If it was my family, his body would end up somewhere in the Meadowlands

[condoleeza]

30. Shunning doesn't work unless the whole family does it.

If they don't, it is the victim who is shunned, as is usually the case. I just hope this little girl gets the help she will need to survive in life. This guy deserves to die, I don't want to feed him and pay his expenses for the rest of his life.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

35. That's why the family needs to take him out

[XemaSab]

26. He was a friend of her parents

x(

[condoleeza]

32. It's usually a friend or relative

[Seedersandleechers]

180. No

"Her father had been introduced to the suspect only that night, Gamache said."

[backscatter712]

39. If this baby raping scum was in my family, I'd disown him.

That's a capital offense right there - I'd tell him he was dead to me.

Yeah, and I'd also ponder making him literally dead, and make sure nobody ever finds the body!

That or make sure he has "BABY RAPER" tattooed on his forehead, and bribe the guards at his prison to make sure he was unprotected in general pop. We'll see how long he lasts...

[Stargazer09]

254. Who cares?

Family or not, a child rapist is still a child rapist.

Punishment still needs to fit the crime, no matter the relationship.

[Naturyl]

260. Same thing.

If it were family, it would make no difference to me. There's something called "disowning," and it's easily done - especially when the disowned has done something like this.

Personally, I hate these people that stand by serial killers and rapists in the family. If there were a way to try them for conspiracy after the fact, I'd support it.

[Pisces]

21. I have zero tolerance for this, shoot him, hang him, whatever

[DutchLiberal]

28. Just lke they did in the 1200's. My, how far we've come.

[Pavulon]

33. No haloethane in the 1200

count back from 100, you make it to 97 and never wake up. See ya.

Fuck this guy, if there is dna evidence he should die.

[kestrel91316]

38. I hate to say this: It's OUR country, not yours.

We don't need to coddle these freaks. You folks would be wise not to, either.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. There's no way in hell any EU country will reinstate the DP anytime soon.

Even if EU rules forbidding it weren't in place.

And flame me if you like, but I like it that way.

But I must ask: since when is life in prison without parole "coddling?"

[Bluebear]

85. Wow.

[Hippo_Tron]

225. Yes lets try to be more like Saudi Arabia and Iran, they certainly don't coddle criminals there

The United States is the only western nation that has the death penalty and yet we still have more violent crime than non death penalty nations. I don't think that being too lenient on criminals is something we need to be concerned about in this country.

[Pisces]

46. Yes, just like that, put there heads on pikes and let them warn the other sickos.

keeping them locked up on my dime should not be an option when they are caught red handed with 100% proof like the sick video of the guy in Vegas.

[ContinentalOp]

67. Since it's on your dime...

you may be interested to know that the death penalty is way more expensive. Just saying...

[Pisces]

73. It shouldn't be. Put them up on the firing squad day after they are convicted not years later

[Bluebear]

91. Premeditated, state-sanctioned killing is not a progressive value.

[SidneyCarton]

142. Toleration of child rape is?

What is cheaper, to keep this individual in lock up for the rest of his life, protected from his fellow inmates, whose idea of cruel and unusual punishment for molesters is a little narrower than the general publics, or to give him an injection?

I don't love the death penalty, I actually think it is overprescribed for the most part, but there are crimes of such barbarism and cruelty that they should not be tolerated, and their perpetrators should be given the same consideration we give a rabid dog.

If this makes me inhuman, so be it, I stand in good company.

[anigbrowl]

176. Right. Because nobody's conviction has ever been overturned on appeal.

The justice system never, ever makes mistakes. If you're accused of a heinous crime then you absolutely must be guilty of it. I don't know why people even bother holding trials in the first place :sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

182. Yes, clearly I was calling for a new tolerance of child rape.

What is cheap is your response header.

[SidneyCarton]

190. I posted while angry, I apologize.

I made other posts down thread when I calmed down that I think you might find more reasonable.

[Bluebear]

191. No worries, best to you

[Hippo_Tron]

226. Yes, lets just circumvent that whole constitution thing

They just take people out back and shoot them in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China. It works out great for them too.

[condoleeza]

298. Easy for you to say, don't imagine you'd want a pitbull who attacked your child to be put down

[SOS]

255. Too bad for Mr. Blair...

Innocent Man Will Be Released From Death Row

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/26/231355/054

There have been 130 factually innocent men released from death row since the advent of DNA testing.

[kestrel91316]

31. You'll get no argument from me on that one.

[mokawanis]

36. Throw away the key

I hope they lock that fucker up forever.

[condoleeza]

45. Trust me, they won't

The average sentence for the crime in the past five years was eight to 25 years, minus time off for good behavior, of course. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty can't be applied for child rape last summer.

Related thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3367261

[Naturyl]

261. So this trash will see daylight in 8 to 25?

Yeah, that's about what I figured.

But it's amazing how "we don't need to be concerned with being too lenient" in some people's view.

Anything less than life without parole IS too lenient, and will quite possibly result in him repeating the offense. Whose kid will get the bad news next time he does it?

[Eryemil]

47. I don't know what appalls me more, the story or the reactions I'm reading here

It's always interesting to see what hides beneath the surface.

[Pisces]

49. I'm not hiding. These sickos will never be cured. Some things are black and white.

[Eryemil]

54. NOTHING is black and white as much as we'd like it to be so

But I'm a queer, atheist, cultural relativist.
To some I am right on par with a rapist.

Hah!

[LanternWaste]

71. I agree without reservation...

"NOTHING is black and white as much as we'd like it to be so"

I agree without reservation, and I'm a straight, Christian, cultural traditionalist... glad to meet you. :toast:

On a serious note though, whenever we apply the Either-Or equation onto a morals-based function, I can't help but think it's simply because we're not allowing ourselves additional perspectives.

(And yeah... sometimes it seems as though this board is becoming Limbaugh-lite)

[Pisces]

76. What other perspective when a someone video tapes themselves raping a 3 yr old????

[LanternWaste]

132. Perspectives-- read: options for the consequence.

Perspectives in this context-- read: options for the legal and moral consequences.

[anigbrowl]

177. That's a different case from the one the OP is about, you know.

[Pisces]

75. Nothing wrong with you, however, a person who rapes a 3 yr old, there is no other side.

[Eryemil]

82. He broke a social contract, that's obvious enough

But the people that have replied so far detailing all the manner of horrific tortures they'd like to perform on him disturb me just as much, if they actually mean it.
I understand in situations such as these people will say things like that as coping mechanism but it is still disconcerting.

Anyway. As I said, I am a moral relativist so there are a few assumptions in this thread that I find interesting.

1) The idea that crimes against a child are worse than those committed against an adult.
2) The concept of retribution in general.
3) The severity of specific punishments against those that break agreed-upon social contracts specifically.
4) The consensus of when and when not certain violent acts can be morally perpetrated upon others.

I would personally be content with isolating people such as him in a place where they can remain as content as possible without the access to children.
Ideally, treatment would be provided (if they so desired) but that is still out of reach.

[Pisces]

84. Do you have children? There is a big difference in a crime commited against a child

vs an adult. A this person should never be content. If he is not given the death penalty then he should suffer purgatory until his dying day. This is not an agreed upon social contract. A 3 yr old child is innocent and to violate a child this age in my mind is unredeemable.

You say the concept of retribution in general is something you find offensive??? Not sure where you are coming from, but I am pretty clear where I stand.

[Eryemil]

87. All subjective opinions I'm afraid. Both yours and mine.

[Bluebear]

88. Having children is not an entree into some special morality club.

[Jennicut]

94. I have a 3 year old and it would make me nearly insane if someone did that to my daughter

Still vengeance does not accomplish much. I get that these people have mental illnesses that cannot be "cured", I have a degree in psychology. But when you are the parent of a child that suffered like that its real hard to remain objective.

[alcibiades_mystery]

102. It's impossible to remain objective

That's why we have a criminal justice system, so you don't have to.

This point is of course missed by the torture fetishists on this board who desire not a criminal justice system in a modern society, but a pre-modern punishment ritual, with the scaffold, the withdrawal of entrails, and the drawing and quartering. These people are essentially monarchists of a premodern stripe. It's disconcerting and sad, really.

[Eryemil]

103. Hear hear.

[Pavulon]

104. Life in a happy isolated place or inhaled haloethane

painless death. CJ can dole out either. People who rape 3 year old kids DESERVE to die.

[alcibiades_mystery]

106. Keep saying it

The room is with you. Whip 'em into a frenzy!

[Pavulon]

108. Poster upstream's comment Florence is fine by me

let him climb the walls.

[alcibiades_mystery]

109. Yes, you appear very firm in your convictions

That's clear enough. You are the strong man. Good for you, ace.

[Bluebear]

111. Every other "civilized" Western country seems to survive without the death penalty.

They must not value children. :sarcasm:

[Eryemil]

107. According to you.

I hold no delusions as to how many people agree with you. Fortunately, the popularity of an idea does not lend credence its content.

[alcibiades_mystery]

100. Ding Ding Ding

Thank you. I have a three year old daughter, and I agree almost 100% with Eryemil. Obviously, of course, if this had happened to my daughter, I'd WANT to kill the guy, but ultimately I'm glad that our society doesn't operate through such desires. The whole point of having a well-constituted criminal justice system is to remove the act from the private sphere of an exchange between victim and perpetrator, and into a public sphere of reason. Nothing has set back criminal law in this country more than the lunatic victim's rights movement, which is essentially pre-modern and retrograde in its founding assumptions.

The punishment fetish on this board is itself a pathology. In a civilized society, the punishment for a crime is the deprivation of freedom, not physical attack and torture.

[Pavulon]

101. would you kill him if you caught him in the act?

that is an interesting question..

[alcibiades_mystery]

105. If it was necessary to prevent the continuance of the attack, of course I would

That is an immediate necessity.

For your point to be a requisite "gotcha," you'd also have to assume that I had perfect knowledge his ongoing attack would stop at rape (an impossibility). The more interesting question is what I would do if I found him immediately afdter an attack that had obviously occurred. I would likely kill him then, too. And it would be right to charge me with murder in that case, and I would likely plead temporary insanity, and that defense would likely be accepted.

The even more interesting ethical question is whether I should plead guilty to killing him if I knew myself to have been sane by the legal definition at the time.

This is why we have a criminal justice system: because the victim of a crime is never the best person to determine the larger questions at stake.

[Naturyl]

266. Don't confuse justice with a "punishment fetish."

Personally, I am a determinist and couldn't care less about "punishment." However, I support strong sentencing for these offenders, simply because society needs effective, irreversible protection from them. The death penalty or life without parole accomplish this and either alternative is acceptable to me - provided that the "without parole" part is not overturned later.

As for punishment, I don't care. The point is not to exact retribution - I agree with death penalty opponents that such is not a valid function of the state. If, however, the victim's family were to lynch this guy, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[condoleeza]

301. WHAT???

What is a "determinist"? On this thread we have had endless philosophies. If retribution is your core issue then I am completely confused. What do you believe is right?

[Naturyl]

313. Determinism means I do not believe in "free will."

I believe that all actions, including criminal actions, are caused by the circumstances from which they arise. In other words, I don't hold people "responsible" in some ultimate metaphysical sense. People's actions have causes, whatever they may be. Because of this, I focus less on retribution and punishment than on creating conditions which protect society from further crime.

[SidneyCarton]

143. And not having them does not automatically make you objective in this issue.

[bridgit]

149. Yeah it is, though not only; it's a relationship with a facet of humanity others never seek...

[readmoreoften]

188. While I think that crimes against children are horrific, I think it's equally horrific to say its a

lesser crime when its against an adult.

I was sexually abused as a small child. But to say that it's somehow "more okay" to rape me now is really grotesque. Either your for sexual assault or your against it. There is no "better age" to have a crime committed against you. It only makes the rest of society feel worse when happens to be a child. When it's an adult, people rationalize that they must have done something to "deserve" it.

[Pavulon]

98. That place is hell or 12 miles out

Really there is a difference. He should do us a favor and hang himself. Now.

Let him be content there for a while.

[Maru Kitteh]

116. He didn't break a social contract - he broke a CHILD.

The "logic" you have provided us with thusfar suggests: Some people think there is something wrong with me - there is nothing wrong with me - ergo there is nothing wrong with anyone.

This is NOT an act of "attraction." This was an act of predation by an evil shitbag, pure and simple.

The fuckwads that killed Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon were sadistic, predatory shitbags too.

Some people ARE evil.

At the very pinnacle of idiotic posts I have EVER wasted my time reading in the many years I have spent here - yours win the rhodium medal for their shameless display of totally blind obtuseness and mind-bogglingly vacuous qualities. What an accomplishment for you.

[Eryemil]

118. I understand this is an emotional subject for everyone involved but keep the discussion honest.

"The "logic" you have provided us with thusfar suggests: Some people think there is something wrong with me - there is nothing wrong with me - ergo there is nothing wrong with anyone."

This is a straw man.


"This is NOT an act of "attraction." This was an act of predation..."

It is both. Pedophilia, though used commonly to mean child molestation can also be used to make a distinction between the criminal offense as opposed to the actual paraphilia, the desire to have sex with children. So you can logically assume that virtually all child molesters will be pedophiles but a pedophile that does not act on his desires is not a child molester.

It is very much an attraction, just like zoophilia is a sexual attraction. I don't understand why calling it such bothers you so much?
As I wrote in above, paraphilia are very diverse in nature. The focus of the sexual attraction can be virtually anything.


"The fuckwads that killed Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon were sadistic, predatory shitbags too."

An emotional appeal to my sensibilities as a gay man.


"Some people ARE evil."

That is a philosophical debate which I am not willing to engage in in this thread.
If you would like to chat I would be more than willing to do so in PMs.

[uppityperson]

124. Just because someone is sexually attracted to something doesn't mean they have to act on that.

especially if it involves harming someone else, or something else.

[Eryemil]

133. Whether they compelled to act on it or not ins inconsequential

Both their actions and desires have no place in our society. So whether they can or cannot help themselves is not an important factor for me, though I imagine it might be to those advocating torture.

[uppityperson]

152. I imagine it is cosequential to the 3 yr old in the OP.

whether or not they can help themselves IS an important factor for other people, esp those whose lives they interact with. I think I do not like you or your attitude here.

[Maru Kitteh]

192. keep the discussion honest

you first.

[uppityperson]

157. thank you. eom

[uppityperson]

123. One of the things that makes a decent society is protecting those who can't protect themselves.

Children, the elderly. I am very sorry that you do not see this.

I am against the death penalty, would like to see people like this isolated and hoping they go to hell, if there is one, when they die, or they get some sort of reaction beyond mere isolation in response to their actions.

[Eryemil]

140. How can you say that I am against protecting anyone?

Protection does not require torture after the crime has been committed and I am sorry if you feel otherwise.

"<...>or they get some sort of reaction beyond mere isolation in response to their actions."

I understand this emotional response. I cannot, however, agree with it.

[uppityperson]

158. I did not say that. I wrote that in response to this bit of yours...

Anyway. As I said, I am a moral relativist so there are a few assumptions in this thread that I find interesting.

1) The idea that crimes against a child are worse than those committed against an adult.
-------------
Hence the higher outrage for crimes against children.

"How can you say that I am against protecting anyone? " I did not say that. You accuse me of "straw man" yet then you also say things like this that are not true. Disingenuous. At best.

[Naturyl]

263. He did more than "break a social contact."

Let's suppose someone abducts YOU and renders you absolutely powerless to resist. Imagine that this person is more than ten times your size, and proceeds to perform a horrific assault on you that is completely against your will and without consent.

Something tells me you would view it more than "breaking a social contract."

Jesus. It's people like you who make a mockery out of progressive values and make us easy targets for the right. If your posts haven't already been copied and pasted to some conservative hate site, it's only because they haven't seen the thread yet.

[FloridaJudy]

115. Good grief!

There's a world of difference between a normal homosexual and a pedophile and/or rapist! Only right wing creeps confuse the two.

I'm opposed to the death penalty too, but I don't believe child molesters should ever be allowed to prey on the vulnerable again. Lock 'em up and don't let them loose until it's time to call in hospice.

[Eryemil]

119. I think so too, since consent and unfair intellectual/emotional dynamics are...

...important parts of my personal morality.

Vengeance however is not. Any way that it could be assured that they do not re-offend is good enough for me.

[bridgit]

150. Playing the "queer, atheist, cultural relativist" card in response to the even alleged rape...

of a 3 year old little girl is too cheesy. It demeans and belittles her body that harbored no sexual component until she were laid siege because some see children themselves as abstractions understanding that to put milk on their little breakfast tables will be the primary, day-to-day chore of others.

[Sebastian Doyle]

264. No shit. There's no "cultural relativism" involved in raping children

Or if there IS a culture somewhere where that is considered acceptable, then that is one country I'd feel completely justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on. :nuke:

Thank God no such place exists.

[Naturyl]

262. So, in which hypothetical culture would baby-raping be acceptable?

In which hypothetical moral framework would such an act NOT be deserving of the strongest possible condemnation?

Go ahead, I'd like to hear about it.

Actually, I wouldn't, but I'm sure the readers get the point.

[Libertyfirst]

48. If I were the little girl's father I would kill him. I don't think any jury

would convict me, but if they did, I would gladly pay the price.

[condoleeza]

62. Sure, they'd convict you

and then what about your wife and possible other kids who are traumatized enough already, if you are in prison? Where would you be most needed? It's just a really complex issue.

People get more time for drug offenses than they do for child rape. The statistics are that less than 10% of child rapes are ever reported because it is usually a family member with all the ramifications of that. These guys are never cured whether they are punished or not,

[Pavulon]

95. jury nullification

lady dumped a magazine into a kid rapist in open court. no conviction.

There is no "normal" reaction to that act.

[Naturyl]

267. I'd convict you too.

The law is the law, and guilty is guilty. Ten years, suspended sentence, you're free to go.

Don't do it again, wink wink, nudge nudge.

[PatGund]

50. Convict him.....

....and dump him in the general population in prison. Let nature run it's course.

[SidneyCarton]

144. That's murder too.

And it would be a brutal, sadistic murder at that. Far more civilized to execute him.

[TK421]

52. If this happened to any of my nieces, Hell would be a much safer place for this

sick fuck to be.....hang the bastard

[condoleeza]

55. Link to Supreme Court Ruling of last June

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/story?id=5037450&page=1

[flvegan]

58. That's not punishment. Life in prison will be.

If he's guilty, why free him from misery? Let him live every day looking over his shoulder, caged.

He deserves to be punished for as long as his forever exists.

[AlCzervik]

72. i agree, a very small cell and then allowed out in gen pop for a few hours a day.

stories like these make me feel violent which is not how i am at all.

[HughBeaumont]

79. And among the GP, that will be a very short one, rest assured.

Many inmates are not only fathers who never get to see their kids, but sexual abuse victims themselves.

Putting a child rapist to sleep is too good for them.

[Bluebear]

90. Absolutely.

[Doctor_J]

60. Is this another Limbaugh thread?

:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

63. Just vaporize them!

No death, just disappear into wind and be written out of history.

[G_j]

64. the horrors are everywhere,

perhaps we should examine ourselves..

[OmahaBlueDog]

78. Take him to ADMAX Florence and lock him up for life

It's where the feds lock up some of their personal faves (Sammy Gravano, the Unabomber, etc.).

1 hour a day in the yard. 23 hours a day in the small cell with a concrete bed.

Apparantly, you are just driven insane after a year or so. Honest to goodness, I like it better than the chair for these guys.

[Maru Kitteh]

117. I'm good with that. Life would take WAY too long to end for him. That would be fitting.

[wartrace]

80. General population in prison.

That is what they deserve, what they will get is segregation. I have a hard time understanding people who would do that.

[deaniac21]

81. Works for me.

[chollybocker]

110. This happened in the United States?

Of America?

[madinmaryland]

112. Have we become Freepers here? "Guilty until proven innocent."

If he is found guilty by a jury of his peers then we can say what we want about him. Part of being Americans is allowing the system of Justice to work.

And if what the "police say" turns out not to be true, this man's life has been ruined.

[SidneyCarton]

148. You're right Mad.

This is no light matter, two lives lie in the balance here. The girl cries for justice, but justice demands that we consider the life of the accused as well, for either way it is going to be forever changed. He deserves his day in court, and due process like any other person brought up on charges. As this crime is heinous, the Prosecutor must make doubly sure that the evidence is sound, for if not Justice will be denied with tragic consequences either way.

[anigbrowl]

172. Indeed. Being a suspect =/= being found guilty

I'm fine with him being in jail while the matter is investigated, but a lot of people here are talking as if the guy had already been convicted. I was struck by this sentence in the original news story...

"Kaplon contacted Yreka police via an Amber Alert line around 2 p.m. Monday, to ask why police were looking for him, police said."

Now maybe the guy is spectacularly stupid or arrogant, but criminals don't generally phone up the police to inquire what the problem is. I'm going to wait on the full story, because this doesn't really add up.

[BreweryYardRat]

193. Yeah, that seemed off to me too.

Another article said he "surrendered", but there wasn't a link to it. I'd be obliged if someone could provide one. It might have more details.

I'm in favor of child rapists getting the death penalty. In cases like the one in Vegas where the guy took his own VIDEO of his actions, thereby proving himself guilty, I'm even in favor of expediting the death sentence.

But the guy calling up the police to ask why they were looking for him? Not generally criminal behavior. Needs more details before we can make any sort of judgment call.

[Hugabear]

219. Don't forget the bloodlust & vengeance illustrated in this thread also

State-sanctioned murder will not reverse what happened. The death penalty has been proven ineffective as a deterrent - people still commit heinous crimes. The only thing putting this man to death would accomplish would be to satisfy the bloodlust of a bunch of random strangers.

[BostonMa]

113. The state does/should not believe in "hell" or "sending someone there"?

[Oeditpus Rex]

127. After they're convicted, please

I'd like to draw and quarter the sumbitch myself, but only if he's found guilty in a court of law. That's how we do it in America.

[eridani]

128. We'll probably never know how many benign pedophiles there are

And by that I mean people who only fall in love or sexual like with the sexually immature, but who avoid acting on their desires. I'm betting that there are more that a few who have an intact ethical compass and realize that acting on their desire would mean running into the basic problem that kids aren't capable of consent in the way that adults are. Probably more than a few work with kids as a career and/or establish long-term friendships with them. Historical examples are Lewis Carroll and Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts. As far as anyone knows, neither ever laid a hand on any of their young charges.

Pedophilia is only a problem when combined with sociopathology, whence comes the sense of entitlement that says it's OK to do anything you want to anybody else if it enhances your pleasure.

[cboy4]

130. I immediately feared the worst after they cancelled the Amber

Alert and heard the initial details.

I mean, why else would he take her?

Sick fuck

[varkam]

131. Threads like this kind of make me glad we have the 8th Amendment.

:hide:

[treestar]

136. Right. This is the type of crime that is so horrible, people lose

track of the fact that a mere accusation should not be enough and that the rule of law should prevail.

[SidneyCarton]

147. You are correct.

As awful as this man's crime may have been, he deserves his day in court and due process. Why? Because I believe that I deserve it, and if we resort to mob violence for the extreme cases, we will soon be lynching shoplifters and traffic violators. Justice does require that we swallow our outrage and follow the law, suppressing any fantasies of vigilantism or punishment. As the crime to which this man is accused is infamous, he deserves the maximum penalty, if found guilty. As such, the burden is going to lie heavily on the prosecution, who will need to prove to a jury that this man undoubtedly did this heinous crime, because the penalty will be severe, and even if exonerated, he will live with the stigma of accusation for the rest of his life.

As angry as this makes us (and I am no exception, as my posts in this thread prove) this is no light matter of torches and pitchforks, this involves the ruin of a young girl's childhood, and the life of an accused man. Two lives lie in the balance here and as such Justice demands that we look upon these things with a sober eye and a careful consideration of the law and evidence. As I have little skill for such things, I have not chosen the law as my profession, but I respect it nonetheless. I may want this man to suffer death for his crimes, but as this is denied by the law, I will abide by the findings of the court, and the penalty affixed if guilt is proved.

Nevertheless, I can honestly say that such an admission is hardly cathartic.

[Naturyl]

269. Has anyone in this thread suggested he should be denied due process?

If so, I haven't seen it.

Give him all the due process he is entitled to. Then, IF he is found guilty (as the circumstances suggest is likely), apply justice to the fullest extent of the law.

[SidneyCarton]

141. Right after he teabags a wood chipper.

Lest anyone believe I'm serious... He should be locked up, forever. Depending on the depravity of his act, execution should be an option, but as the Supreme Court disagrees, I am content with his spending the rest of his earthly existence (if proved guilty) in a cell.

[Silent3]

160. Thank you, Nancy Grace.

Terrible crimes happen. People who commit terrible crimes, after a fair trial to make sure they're really guilty of what the mobs with torches and pitchforks think they're guilty of, should be punished accordingly, in a way that keeps the role of government an institution for justice and deterrence, but that doesn't lower the State to acting as an instrument of formalized mob violence and revenge.

I don't see what good it does, however, to wallow in sensationalism and anger. Anger that motivates productive change -- like getting the Republicans out of control of the federal government -- is useful. But unless you have a plan that will stop or curb all terrible, essentially random violence, where the cure wouldn't be a police state worse committing more injustice than the injustice it prevents, what's the point?

We already jail a higher percentage of our own population than any other country. Especially now that we've seen the OLC memos, Bush was clearly trying to turn the US into a police state, but none of that made us safer, it only diminished our freedoms. Politician after politician has fed off the bounty of "GET TOUGH ON CRIME!" rhetoric, but the effectiveness has been negligible.

[XemaSab]

169. My point:

They should let all the stoners out so they have room in prison for assholes like this. :grr:

[Silent3]

171. Reserving prison for violent criminals...

...and getting people out of jails for non-violent drug charges is something I can fully support.

[condoleeza]

173. Could not agree more

[uppityperson]

195. Way. eom. nt. etc. Yes, I very much agree.

[condoleeza]

161. Interesting to see how this thread progressed by postings

This is obviously a highly charged subject, and it took a turn to the ugly yesterday for me with Eyremil’s comment: “The fact that due to some stroke of bad luck his desires are incompatible with our society does not automatically make him another species.” At that point I had to step away, as this is a subject that I have spent a great deal of time researching, and unfortunately know all too intimately.

Returning to this subject today I have tried to have an open mind to Eyremil’s comments in regard to his being a moral relativist, which explains a good deal. However I take issue with this being used to somehow excuse the actions of one person against another, as being subjective within a society.
IMO, a society must have laws or we will have total chaos, and while you may find some laws to be personally unjust, a total lack of them is nonsensical. As humans we do not have a right to prey upon each other and take whatever we want.

Short of the permanent elimination or total isolation of a predator, there simply is no way to assure that they do not “re-offend”, whether that predator is animal or human. Justice is imperfect, but a total lack of justice is intolerable, and in the case of human predators, it is pretty clear that in cases like this (statistically) punishment IS a deterrent, whether you agree with the punishment or not.

And as to Eyermil’s comment about the “assumption” “that crimes against a child are worse than those committed against an adult” – well, how does one not see the difference? Setting aside the actual physical damages that can last a lifetime, the psychological damages follow a child and effect the decisions they make all of their life. Some are strong enough to get help to deal with it, but two of my siblings were not. I have survived, but my participation in this thread is proof that you never forget.

In an effort to educate, rather than react further (and believe me, this is taking all the restraint I have), I am going to post some links. In the 3rd link, beginning on Page 13, are explanations of the various Theories and Etiology of Child Sexual Abuse by Males. I tend to believe in the Cognitive-Behavioral and the Integrated theories.
Where I began:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/links
Linked to:
http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/
Linked to gov’t. statistics:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/litreview.pdf

[suzie]

206. The John Jay material is excellent, as are your comments.

And kudos to you for posting with restraint.

Eyremil chooses to ignore the fact that most child molesters aren't permanently removed anywhere unless what they've done is so obviously heinous, and unless they haven't been able to sufficiently destroy their victim enough to make them a bad witness.

In fact, as you point out elsewhere, they mostly serve less time than drug offenders and those who commit property crimes.

[condoleeza]

215. I wish more people would read through the links I posted and learn more

about this. Instead people seem to focus on the perpetrator's rights. Megan's Law does not protect the vast majority of children who are raped and molested by family members or trusted acquaintances. I feel it has given people a false sense of security in this country, but it is a start. Cases like this one are a rarity, fortunately, but they are the ones we hear about because they are so obviously horrific. For every one case like this where the perpetrator is caught, there are hundreds, if not thousands, that are not resolved or reported because the children are afraid or have taken responsibility for it. This is where the true damage is done quite often, in that they bury it, but it never goes away. I remember seeing a show many years ago on Oprah about repressed memories, which is what happened to me. On some level I always remembered some of it, but it wasn't until I became a mother to daughters myself that it all came back. For many who make poor choices in life and abuse drugs and alcohol, this is the source of their need to escape. Clearly the long-term cost to society of these sorts of crimes surpasses those of drug offenders and those who commit property crimes.

[Dukkha]

162. O'Reilly would certainly support his execution

since he's a big advocate on suspending society's core values when they're inconvenient.

There’s no better punishment than prison for a child rapist. Crimes against children is the one thing the most hardened violent criminals are united against.

[Silent3]

163. I don't care what the crime is, however...

...we shouldn't be taking advantage of an expectation of prisoner-on-prisoner violence as a hoped-for function of our penal system. That's just violating the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment with a wink and a nod. The result is a system where the most violent, and therefore the most deserving of punishment, often come out on top. It's also a system that encourages inmates to become more violent as a means of self-protection, so that when people are released from prison they're even less suited for life in the outside world than when they went in.

It's not like I've never harbored violent fantasies of the terrible things that should, at least in terms of poetic justice, happen to people who commit terrible crimes. In the heat of the moment I can easily see myself acting on that anger if I were confronted with someone doing trying to hurt loved ones, myself, or even a stranger, especially a child. But those kinds of violent fantasies and sound public policy should be kept far, far apart.

[Dukkha]

165. where did I advocate prisoner-on-prisoner violence?

All I stated was that Child rapist are not welcomed into the general prison population, and are often kept in isolation anyway.

Also you make the wrong assumption that these kind are redeemable and can re-enter society. A child molester will be the first one to tell you they are incurable and should not be allowed out of incarceration for they will commit the crime again in a heartbeat. Society does not create them, they are born that way. Nothing can be done for them besides removal from society. That is why these sexual predator databases exist and the obligatory mailings informing the neighborhood.

[condoleeza]

168. Please check the links on post #161 & click on the last link

if you want to understand child molesters

[Silent3]

170. I didn't say you were advocating prisoner-on-prisoner violence...

...but bringing up how "welcome" a child rapist would be in prison certainly brings that issue in mind, and you must know that many people cackle with glee at the prospect of "justice" being meted out this way.

As for the rest of what I said, I was talking about the effect of prison violence in general, not about the particular redeemability of particular types of criminals. Regardless of how much some people (not necessarily you) like the idea of "justice" being administered by prisoners abusing other prisoners, that's a very slipshod, inexact, and far from fair form of justice that ends up having detrimental side effects for all of us.

That is why these sexual predator databases exist and the obligatory mailings informing the neighborhood.

That's the supposed rational why such databases exist. The reason they exist is public hysteria. The vast majority of sex crimes happen among family and acquaintances, they aren't the result of the dread stranger lurking in the shadows, attacking out of the blue. Such lists appease the public desire for action and ongoing punishment, but they don't address the major source of such crimes, and they end up trapping people who may have gotten drunk and pissed in a public park, or who had a 15 y/o girlfriend when they were 18, in the same mess, with the same stigma, as the far more rare case of the stranger child rapist.

[varkam]

189. Actually, that's not exactly correct.

Also you make the wrong assumption that these kind are redeemable and can re-enter society. A child molester will be the first one to tell you they are incurable and should not be allowed out of incarceration for they will commit the crime again in a heartbeat. Society does not create them, they are born that way. Nothing can be done for them besides removal from society. That is why these sexual predator databases exist and the obligatory mailings informing the neighborhood.

According to the CSOM, sex offenders generally have a lower recidivism rate than any other type of criminal. Further, most people who molest a child tend to be intrafamilial / situational offenders, and have an even lower recidivism rate. Depending on the study that you look at, rates tend to be around 8-15% at 3 year follow up. IIRC, the recidivism rate for other types of crimes such as drug crimes and property crimes are at about 60-70%.

Furthermore, the sex offender registry and community notification are, in the end, politically expedient solutions that have little basis in reality. For example, since most cases of child abuse are committed by someone known to the child, the playing up of "stranger danger" likely just lulls people into a false sense of security about their children's safety.

[suzie]

205. The research you cite is pretty much bogus.

Many of the studies on recidivism cited by CSOM were done in the 80s and 90s. Public acknowledgment, enhanced reporting and prosecution of child sexual abuse only started happening in the 1980s.

CSOM cites many studies which were done on recidivism at a time when there wasn't great reporting or record-keeping. One of the effects of enhanced prosecution was that child sexual abuse cases stopped disappearing. In the times in which the research you cite was done, offenders were caught, perhaps plead to a reduced non-sex crime sentence, or served their time and moved on to a new jurisdiction where they could molest more children before they were again apprehended.

Most people who molest children are known to the child--'intrafamilial' gives one the notion of parent, stepparent, when most cases are relatives, friends, neighbors. And even among the 'intrafamilial' group of molesters, the offender usually has victims outside the family as well as within.

Before these cases were well-investigated, law enforcement didn't think to ask 'intrafamilial' victims if their parent/stepparent had also molested all their friends. When they started doing so, they discovered that very often the offender had molested a much larger group of children.

Sex offender registries are probably not the most effective tool against sex offenders--lifetime parole is likely the only reasonable solution. But again, your statement about them is misleading. Someone who lives in the neighborhood is 'known to the child' and a patterned child molester will find all kinds of kids to 'befriend' within a short period of time.

[varkam]

207. So...

if "public acknowledgment, enhanced reporting, and prosecution of child sexual abuse" only started happening in the 1980's, then wouldn't that make research done in the 90's a good indicator? For instance, there's the DOJ study in 1994 which bears it out, but if you don't like that there was a study out of Alaska done in 2008 which bears it out further.

Most people who molest children are known to the child--'intrafamilial' gives one the notion of parent, stepparent, when most cases are relatives, friends, neighbors. And even among the 'intrafamilial' group of molesters, the offender usually has victims outside the family as well as within.

Yes - most cases of child sexual abuse involve someone known to the child. Most of those cases (i.e. where the perpetrator is known to a child) involves a member of the family.

Before these cases were well-investigated, law enforcement didn't think to ask 'intrafamilial' victims if their parent/stepparent had also molested all their friends. When they started doing so, they discovered that very often the offender had molested a much larger group of children.

Do you have any support for the statements that either law enforcement didn't investigate these crimes prior to the 1980's or that traditional intrafamilial offenders tended to have multiple victims?

Sex offender registries are probably not the most effective tool against sex offenders--lifetime parole is likely the only reasonable solution. But again, your statement about them is misleading. Someone who lives in the neighborhood is 'known to the child' and a patterned child molester will find all kinds of kids to 'befriend' within a short period of time.

I hardly think that lifetime parole is "the only reasonable solution". You further assume two things: first that someone who lives in proximity is "known to the child" in the same fashion that is borne out by the statistics - which is really just playing semantics. A lot of CSA involves not someone who lives down the street, but someone who the family knows and trusts (e.g. a teacher or someone like that).

And sure, a patterned child molester probably will find kids to befriend - but that also assumes that anyone convicted of a sex crime is a patterned child molester - which is patently false. It does tend to run contrary to the premise of residency restrictions though - hardened child molesters don't find their victims through physical proximity.

[suzie]

208. Your recidivism argument holds little water to anyone who's had a lot of contact with the criminal

justice system. You want to compare drug recidivists with child molesters? How much trouble is it to rearrest a drug offender and prove that he was in possession of drugs? Or a shoplifter in possession of stolen goods? A bad check writer has written more bad checks?

You want to compare that with finding child victims and then getting them to testify in court. I'd say you were comparing apples and space stations in terms of complexity of building a case to certify a child molester as a 'recidivist.

But, you give misleading statistics even about the recidivism rates googled from federal websites. Child molesters are rearrested at a rate of 43% for all crimes, other offenders at rates like 68%. And even that may be misleading. A child molester with a previous conviction may be more willing to plea bargain for a non-sexual crime on his record.

My support for the my statements about law enforcement finding more victims came from listening to detectives on a daily basis and to prosecutors requesting that they follow up on information about other victims.

You want to make some kind of odd distinction between "intrafamilial" and "stranger cases". I'd categorize "intrafamilial" as molestation by a parent/stepparent.

Most cases of child sexual molestation are by someone who is known to the child, but NOT a parent or stepparent. Which may mean the babysitter's boyfriend, mom's new boyfriend, a family friend, distant cousin, a person from the family church, and very often, a neighbor. Again, you mislead by your assumption that these are not patterned child molesters who befriend a parent, child, join a church, to gain access to children, and do it over and over and over again.

My information about intrafamilial offenders came from training sessions and published articles by sex offender experts who estimated that the "lazy pedophile" who offends within the family had an average of 29 victims, while the "patterned offender" had something like 150-300 victims. My impression from years of dealing with the whole population of children who'd been molested in an urban jurisdiction led me to believe that those figures were realistic.

Very often the child molester will move to a new jurisdiction and will even mention that he "had some trouble with the law but it was a woman who didn't like him and got her child to lie." The registry at the least allows parents to find out what the real conviction of the offender was. It also enables the police to easily do the same.

And I misspoke about lifetime parole. I should have included lifetime intensive probation in my statement. Unfortunately, many probation/parole officers tend to go easy on child sex offenders--who are often less obnoxious in the rest of their lives than other offenders. I think that hiring the kind of folks that will check their computers, check their associates and their patterns of hanging out around schools and children and get these guys rearrested would go a long way toward preventing recidivism--by locking them up to serve out their full sentences.

As for Alaska, let's see, if I were trying to come up with a state in which the rural nature of law enforcement would tend to depress rates of arrest and prosecution (does Wakulla ring a bell), high numbers of children who live in isolated settings, high numbers of children who live in a traditional and extended family culture which may make disclosure less likely, not to mention one in which the party in control of the executive branch seems quite anti-child sexual abuse prosecution--all of which would tend to depress prosecution and therefore recidivism, what state would I come up with?

Why...Alaska.

[varkam]

221. .

You want to compare drug recidivists with child molesters? How much trouble is it to rearrest a drug offender and prove that he was in possession of drugs? Or a shoplifter in possession of stolen goods? A bad check writer has written more bad checks?

No one's saying that everyone who commits a new offense is caught. I'm more than willing to bet that there are plenty of child molesters who commit repeat offenses that are never apprehended - just as there are many drug addicts, shoplifters, and people passing bad checks that are never caught.

You want to compare that with finding child victims and then getting them to testify in court. I'd say you were comparing apples and space stations in terms of complexity of building a case to certify a child molester as a 'recidivist.

As I'm sure you're probably aware, upwards of 90% of CSA cases end in a plea agreement with the prosecution. Testimony of the victim is often-time irrelevant.

But, you give misleading statistics even about the recidivism rates googled from federal websites. Child molesters are rearrested at a rate of 43% for all crimes, other offenders at rates like 68%. And even that may be misleading. A child molester with a previous conviction may be more willing to plea bargain for a non-sexual crime on his record.

I did no such thing - I merely referred to the data that the Dept. of Justice has on file. I do not believe that the studies that I had referenced included things like technical violations of parole conditions which can lead to an arrest but are not technically crimes.

I'm not so sure though that there is an epidemic of prosecutors out there offering sexually-oriented offenders an opportunity to cop to crimes with no sexual element. Do you have any support for that assertion?

My support for the my statements about law enforcement finding more victims came from listening to detectives on a daily basis and to prosecutors requesting that they follow up on information about other victims.

What I was asking for was not your anectdotal experience (which is subject to all sorts of psychological pitfalls such as retrofitting and confirmation bias) but rather any sort of empirical support. FWIW, there seems to me to be a big difference between following up on information and an additional criminal conviction.

You want to make some kind of odd distinction between "intrafamilial" and "stranger cases". I'd categorize "intrafamilial" as molestation by a parent/stepparent.

That's how I'm categorizing it - though I would extent it not just to parents but also to anyone in the family who has interaction with the child. Uncles and Aunts, Brothers and Sisters, Grandparents, etc. It seems to make little sense to me to limit such a categorization to just the parents.

Most cases of child sexual molestation are by someone who is known to the child, but NOT a parent or stepparent. Which may mean the babysitter's boyfriend, mom's new boyfriend, a family friend, distant cousin, a person from the family church, and very often, a neighbor. Again, you mislead by your assumption that these are not patterned child molesters who befriend a parent, child, join a church, to gain access to children, and do it over and over and over again.

As I had written, most cases involve someone known to the family. Most of those cases (i.e. the majority of the subset of cases where the victim and the perpetrator are known to one another) are intrafamilial (well, unless you decide to arbitrary limit such a definition to just the parents and not to any other family members). That is according to the Department of Justice.

My information about intrafamilial offenders came from training sessions and published articles by sex offender experts who estimated that the "lazy pedophile" who offends within the family had an average of 29 victims, while the "patterned offender" had something like 150-300 victims. My impression from years of dealing with the whole population of children who'd been molested in an urban jurisdiction led me to believe that those figures were realistic.

And I would like to know what the empirical basis for those conclusions are, which is what I keep asking you for.

Very often the child molester will move to a new jurisdiction and will even mention that he "had some trouble with the law but it was a woman who didn't like him and got her child to lie." The registry at the least allows parents to find out what the real conviction of the offender was. It also enables the police to easily do the same.

That assumes that everyone on the sex offender registry is a continuing threat - an assertion that's pretty easily rebutted.

nd I misspoke about lifetime parole. I should have included lifetime intensive probation in my statement. Unfortunately, many probation/parole officers tend to go easy on child sex offenders--who are often less obnoxious in the rest of their lives than other offenders. I think that hiring the kind of folks that will check their computers, check their associates and their patterns of hanging out around schools and children and get these guys rearrested would go a long way toward preventing recidivism--by locking them up to serve out their full sentences.

Again, you seem to be assuming that everyone who commits a sexual crime is a persistent threat. It's exactly the same mis-fire of logic that screwed up the SOR so bad in the first place. In addition, a recent study out of Indiana would tend to disprove your statement that many POs go soft on sex offenders. They tended to be returned to prison at higher rates than any other group of offenders for technical violations.

As for Alaska, let's see, if I were trying to come up with a state in which the rural nature of law enforcement would tend to depress rates of arrest and prosecution (does Wakulla ring a bell), high numbers of children who live in isolated settings, high numbers of children who live in a traditional and extended family culture which may make disclosure less likely, not to mention one in which the party in control of the executive branch seems quite anti-child sexual abuse prosecution--all of which would tend to depress prosecution and therefore recidivism, what state would I come up with?

That's a whole mess of sloppy assumptions. I think your tin-foil might be on a wee bit tight, there. Do you have any support to offer (outside of your own thoughts) that the rates of arrest for sex crimes in Alaska are significantly less, per capita, than any other jurisdiction? Also note that the Indiana study that I referenced above also bore out the low re-offense rate (once you subtract technical violations, that is).

[suzie]

227. Sorry, but I have neither the time nor temperament to argue with a pedophile apologist.

And the insult about 'retrofitting and confirmation bias' is so off the mark that I had to laugh at it.

However, I will make a few statements for others who might have followed this thread.

1. Prosecutors don't usually accept cases that they can't try in court. And sorry, but that is anecdotal, I have no googled source for it.
You want us to believe that it's as easy to build a case for a child sexual abuse conviction as for a drug offense, and that simply is untrue. It's never as easy to rely on the potential testimony of an 8 year old child victim as on that of a police officer who confiscated drugs at a traffic stop.

Occasionally, you have a case with a lot of evidence, like the child whose anus has been ripped into her vagina, but that's rare. Mostly you have an adult ready to testify against a child--and however you google it, that's a more difficult case to make than the one against a shoplifter that was caught on video and apprehended by an off-duty cop who can testify.

2. I categorize 'familial' cases differently because a parent/stepparent has a different level of control over a child and that child's ability to reveal abuse and testify than a cousin, uncle, grandparent, friend, relative who doesn't live in the house.

3. You ask repeatedly for the empirical basis of my opinions and yet I find no links mentioned for your studies. Perhaps you've made them up?

4. You seem to think that parents and police should not be able to know what a person's offense was, because of your belief system that offenders rarely reoffend. We're not talking statistics here, we're talking individual children who a parent desires to protect. We're talking about cases that the police are investigating.

And this is anecdotal and I have no way of googling it up, but very few professionals who are police, prosecutors, judges, prison personnel will tell you that they can know who will reoffend and who won't--it's a guess. But, in the real world, those professionals actually have to deal with people who rip children's anuses into their vaginas--your conjectures about "that can be easily rebutted" have a lot less relevance than they do here.

5. Alaska. Seems to me that there was some news about a Governor there and the head of the State Police. And she fired him because he went to Washington to seek millions of dollars to attack their intractable problem about their high rate of sexual assault, especially child sexual assault. I read a little bit about that. I spent a little time in this field and it seemed to my little 'tinfoil hat' brain that Alaska was about 10 to 15 years behind other states, which had organized those efforts considerably earlier.

And then using my feeble logic, I thought that Alaska might have more trouble securing convictions for child sexual abuse cases than some other states.

6. Interesting obsession about 'technical violations' that you have, but since you provide no links, I assume that you put on your 'tinfoil hat' and made that up. And since you're so knowledgeable about this and I'm obviously so inadequate, perhaps you could explain. When parolees are picked up on violations of their parole status, does that count as a 'rearrest', because in many states they are under the jurisdiction of the corrections system at that point.

And just an FYI, police and prosecutors usually have all the business they need. So when they followup on information about other victims, it's always aimed at an additional conviction.

[varkam]

229. Owie. My poor wittle feewings.

I've been called worse by better, so you'll have to excuse me if I save the tears for another day. I do think it's fun though that such insults tend to prevent any sort of a reasoned discussion on the subject.

And the insult about 'retrofitting and confirmation bias' is so off the mark that I had to laugh at it.

So you're not subject to psychological principles that operate on all of us? Sorry that you seemed to take that as an insult - I guess I forgot I was dealing with someone who is so far above those psychological pitfalls that hinder us all that I failed to realize it would be construed as an insult.

1. Prosecutors don't usually accept cases that they can't try in court. And sorry, but that is anecdotal, I have no googled source for it.
You want us to believe that it's as easy to build a case for a child sexual abuse conviction as for a drug offense, and that simply is untrue. It's never as easy to rely on the potential testimony of an 8 year old child victim as on that of a police officer who confiscated drugs at a traffic stop.

Occasionally, you have a case with a lot of evidence, like the child whose anus has been ripped into her vagina, but that's rare. Mostly you have an adult ready to testify against a child--and however you google it, that's a more difficult case to make than the one against a shoplifter that was caught on video and apprehended by an off-duty cop who can testify.

And where did I say that it is as easy to prosecute child sex cases as other types of crimes? Oh that's right - I didn't. I really don't know why you're bringing this up - I'm left to assume that your major unstated premise is that recidivism rates are artificially low because they're harder to prosecute.

Shame that much of the data is based on re-arrest rates.

And, FWIW, I disagree with your assertion that prosecutors don't accept cases that they can't prove in court. Prosecutors do that all the time (e.g. Mike Nifong). Thankfully, since upwards of 90% of cases are ended with plea agreements, they don't have to prove them in court.

2. I categorize 'familial' cases differently because a parent/stepparent has a different level of control over a child and that child's ability to reveal abuse and testify than a cousin, uncle, grandparent, friend, relative who doesn't live in the house.

More sloppy assumptions. For example, many families aren't just a parent and a child living alone in a house. And the child doesn't often just stay in that one house (for example, going to visit other family members).

3. You ask repeatedly for the empirical basis of my opinions and yet I find no links mentioned for your studies. Perhaps you've made them up?

And why should I have to provide such information to someone who has "neither the time nor the temperament to debate with a pedophile apologist"? Feel free to dig them up yourself.

4. You seem to think that parents and police should not be able to know what a person's offense was, because of your belief system that offenders rarely reoffend. We're not talking statistics here, we're talking individual children who a parent desires to protect. We're talking about cases that the police are investigating.

And this is anecdotal and I have no way of googling it up, but very few professionals who are police, prosecutors, judges, prison personnel will tell you that they can know who will reoffend and who won't--it's a guess. But, in the real world, those professionals actually have to deal with people who rip children's anuses into their vaginas--your conjectures about "that can be easily rebutted" have a lot less relevance than they do here.

Tell me - do you farm all that straw, or do you buy it at market? Police should not be able to know what a person's offense was? Please.

My belief system? It's the data. Most sex offenders rarely re-offend, but that's probably because there's a whole mess of sex offenders who never molested a child (as you can get put on the SOR for having underage sex while you were a teen yourself, public urination, etc).

And why do my "conjectures about 'that can easily be refuted'" have less relevance? Because CSA is an emotionally difficult thing?

And I'm assuming that you're familiar with risk assessment techniques, such as actuarial assessment, the STATIC-99, etc, correct? RA is far from an exact science, but I think it's a pretty silly proposition that someone who has, for example, urinated in public should be construed as a "patterned child molester"

5. Alaska. Seems to me that there was some news about a Governor there and the head of the State Police. And she fired him because he went to Washington to seek millions of dollars to attack their intractable problem about their high rate of sexual assault, especially child sexual assault. I read a little bit about that. I spent a little time in this field and it seemed to my little 'tinfoil hat' brain that Alaska was about 10 to 15 years behind other states, which had organized those efforts considerably earlier.

And then using my feeble logic, I thought that Alaska might have more trouble securing convictions for child sexual abuse cases than some other states.

And again I ask if you have any empirical support at all for that claim. I guess you do not (as a reminder, arguments that you remove from your posterior do not count as empirical support - empirical generally means that you should be looking for something like numbers and statistics - not half-baked conspiracy theories).

6. Interesting obsession about 'technical violations' that you have, but since you provide no links, I assume that you put on your 'tinfoil hat' and made that up. And since you're so knowledgeable about this and I'm obviously so inadequate, perhaps you could explain. When parolees are picked up on violations of their parole status, does that count as a 'rearrest', because in many states they are under the jurisdiction of the corrections system at that point.

And just an FYI, police and prosecutors usually have all the business they need. So when they followup on information about other victims, it's always aimed at an additional conviction.

Not so much - it was in the IN study (which you can feel free to dig up on your own). And yes, in most studies that I have seen on recidivism, technical violations of parole count as a rearrest for recidivism purposes. You're welcome.

[suzie]

230. I am sorry that I insulted you, because that's against DU rules.

And it was a gratuitous, generalized insult. If I wanted to transgress the rules, I should have directed it more personally at you. So, for that I'm sorry.

Reasoned discussion was never a possibility between us on this subject. I take prosecution of crime very seriously and you take it lightly. That should have been the end of discussion.

I've worked with and watched prosecutors and sat through a lot of trials. And you like to talk about Mike Difong on internet forums. That doesn't really form a basis for "reasoned discussion", as you put it.

And you're right, I have no empirical evidence about Alaska except for a long history of working in the public sector and in criminal justice. And generally, I've never seen the chief law enforcement officer ask for funds to do a better job of arresting people when they were already doing a good job of arresting people.

But, I don't know any TV Chief of Police personalities that I can reference, so it's difficult for us to have a basis for discussion.

Just a question, out of curiosity. This thread has been about child sexual molesters. You've argued that SEXUAL OFFENDERS don't reoffend at high rates. But, you've added in the whole universe of sexual offenders. You include those who you argue are not sexual offenders because they were involved in underage sex or public urination.

However, you still want to claim that child molesters reoffend at very low rates compared to other criminals, based on studies that include people who are not child molesters or even sexual offenders--according to you.

How do you have the gall to criticize someone else as pulling things out of one's posterior when you continue with that kind of dishonest argument?

[varkam]

231. You know, if you're going to apologize, you could at least *try* to be sincere about it.

I know that you're somewhat new to DU, and so you might not realize it, but there's a sarcasm tag for just this sort of moment. You're sorry because it's against the rules? Well hopefully the admin and the moderators accepted your apology. If you want to apologize to me, then go ahead because I'm still waiting for one that doesn't reek. I'm just going to assume (given the content of the rest of your post) that it was never your intention to apologize or to even be sincere about it, so I won't hold my breath.

Reasoned discussion was never a possibility between us on this subject. I take prosecution of crime very seriously and you take it lightly. That should have been the end of discussion.

No - I would say reasoned discussion was never a possibility because of you're willingness to drop right into ad hominem arguments. For the record, I have been the victim of violent crimes in the past - including being raped as a child. A very good friend of mine was also recently raped by an acquaintance of hers. Yet, somehow, according to your pronouncements from on high, I take criminal prosecution lightly and am a pedophile apologist.

I've worked with and watched prosecutors and sat through a lot of trials. And you like to talk about Mike Difong on internet forums. That doesn't really form a basis for "reasoned discussion", as you put it.

And more lame ad homs sprinkled with assumptions. You've yet to refute anything that I have argued and, instead, you decide to just make assumptions about who I am. I know that you keep referring to your vast experience with the criminal justice system as an attempt to shut me down, but I think that it's because there's really no substance underneath your bluster and histrionics.

And you're right, I have no empirical evidence about Alaska except for a long history of working in the public sector and in criminal justice. And generally, I've never seen the chief law enforcement officer ask for funds to do a better job of arresting people when they were already doing a good job of arresting people.

Conceding speculative points based on conspiracy theories is one of the hallmarks of reasoned discussion. We might be getting somewhere!

But, I don't know any TV Chief of Police personalities that I can reference, so it's difficult for us to have a basis for discussion.

What?

Just a question, out of curiosity. This thread has been about child sexual molesters. You've argued that SEXUAL OFFENDERS don't reoffend at high rates. But, you've added in the whole universe of sexual offenders. You include those who you argue are not sexual offenders because they were involved in underage sex or public urination.

Again with the straw men. I never argued that those who engage in underage sex or public urination are not sex offenders. Quite the contrary: they are sex offenders. You can go and look them up right now on the internet if you choose to do so.

However, you still want to claim that child molesters reoffend at very low rates compared to other criminals, based on studies that include people who are not child molesters or even sexual offenders--according to you.

Not even close. If you had bothered to examine any of the research, you would see that many such studies do in fact break it down based on offense (such as the AK study and the DOJ stats). The type of offender with the highest rate of reoffense is, IIRC, adult males who have a sexual attraction to same-sex, prepubescent boys. But even their reoffense rate is lower than your typical criminal.

How do you have the gall to criticize someone else as pulling things out of one's posterior when you continue with that kind of dishonest argument?

That might give me pause if I thought you were fairly construing my argument. But I don't, so it doesn't.

[suzie]

232. Gee, I have to admit that you're correct, that wasn't a very sincere apology.

Vewwie sowwie.

And that was probably because you seem determined to minimize the numbers and impact of child molesters.

You point to 'the research', in your case CSOM, and yet talk about 'situational offenders' as if there's some difference between those who rape their own children and those who rape children with no relationship to them.

The only difference is as Andrew Vachss accurately states it: "If you break into a stranger's house and rape their 10-year-old daughter, you'll get 10 years. If you walk up your own stairs and rape your daughter, you get therapy".

And 'the research' states that there's no difference between the incest offender and the extrafamilial offender. Which sort of blows your 'they have an even lower level of recidivism' nonsense out of the water. (Studer and Alwyn).

"The research" in 2000 also indicates that among Colorado offenders who were monitored using polygraph and treatment. 64% of incest offenders admitted to having victims outside the family. (Colorado DPS) Wow, what lame ideas you have been throwing out here, in contrast to the research.

I did look at the Alaska study, which like the other research that you pointed to seems to have some flaws. First, an article about it, said that they didn't track criminals who moved out of state. And then, it seems that the criminals tracked had served at most 3-4 years. Which would indicate that they were offenders without a huge history or severity of offense, or they would have served more time.

I recall asking a sex offender treatment expert about cases that we'd seen where the child molester chose a child that would reveal the abuse immediately. The child abused by the babysitter's boyfriend who told her parents in about 30 minutes after they walked through the door, for example.

She categorized them as 'incompetent molesters' who may have been caught early in their career, before they'd gotten very good at choosing victims who were unlikely to tell or grooming victims for a length of time so that the child feels complicit and will reveal more slowly. It seems likely that some of the offenders in the Alaska study were of this type. Some lack of rearrest may be due to better choice of child and better grooming of the child.

The Alaska study also extended for a fairly limited amount of time. Differing dynamics of the crimes may simply mean that drug addicts and burglars may commit crimes that show up within the study period, while the victims of child molesters may be more delayed in reporting.

My impression is that the emphasis you give to the CSOM and DOJ recidivism studies are also part of your tendency to minimize the criminal activity of child molesters. Offenders who commit property crimes tend to age out of their crimes. Demographics usually show a lowering or raising of the level of crimes as the numbers of males between the ages of 18-25 changes. And law enforcement personnel don't expect to chase many 55 year old armed robbers down the street.

But child molestation doesn't seem to have that kind of age limitation. The guy who molested all 8 of his children, both male and female, molested/attempted to molest some 20-30 nieces, nephews, cousins, and has started on the grandchildren--all over a 30-40 year period--is not uncommon. Of course, you would consider that an 'intrafamilial' molester, the kind not likely to reoffend.

Nor is the step-grandfather who is now molesting his step-great grandchildren in exactly the same way as he did his own daughter 40 years ago. Although now he has chosen children whose mother is a druggie and who will not be as credible as his own daughter. But, given the fact that he was accused but never arrested because it was a different era--I suppose you'd say that he wasn't likely to reoffend--because he wouldn't have counted in the statistics. He would have one of the many guys that you like to cite--who are not dangerous because the RECORDS show that they've never committed a sex crime.

And I doubt that you'd admit the fallacy in your statistics for the offender who never committed a sex crime--well at least as an adult, anyway. He may have a long history of sexual assaults as a juvenile. But since, for statistical purposes at least, those records are sealed, he's not a repeat sex offender--at least in your reasoning.

I find it interesting that you are so insistent in your repetition that sex offenders are not likely to re-offend. And even if they do, it's only 5% or 11% or 17%. Gee, and that means that out of 100 molesters, only 11 might reoffend against say, 5-10 more children each. So, 55 or 110 more child victims.

Gosh, that's not many--surely not much in societal cost. Because it's not like 85 percent of everyone who ends up in any kind of institution in this country hasn't been sexually abused as a child, is it? And compared with the societal damage of say, burglars, shoplifters, who have higher rates of recidivism--why, I'm sure the societal cost of those small numbers of child molesters is--cheap.

[varkam]

234. Well, I guess sincerity isn't among your strengths.

And that was probably because you seem determined to minimize the numbers and impact of child molesters.

I'm just looking at the data. Vewwy Sowwie if that doesn't comport with your previously held beliefs.

You point to 'the research', in your case CSOM, and yet talk about 'situational offenders' as if there's some difference between those who rape their own children and those who rape children with no relationship to them.

That's because the data bears that out (i.e. that offenders who rape children that are strangers to them tend to have higher recidivism rates than those who don't). Again, vewwy sowwie if that doesn't comport with your previously held beliefs.

The only difference is as Andrew Vachss accurately states it: "If you break into a stranger's house and rape their 10-year-old daughter, you'll get 10 years. If you walk up your own stairs and rape your daughter, you get therapy".

Uh, that's not exactly true. I'm familiar with several cases of intrafamilial offending that resulting in significant jail-time. Thanks for playing, though.

And 'the research' states that there's no difference between the incest offender and the extrafamilial offender. Which sort of blows your 'they have an even lower level of recidivism' nonsense out of the water. (Studer and Alwyn).

That seems strange, because it contradicts research that I have read. I tried searching for "Studer and Alwyn", on Scholar, but didn't come up with any hits. Can you be any more specific?

"The research" in 2000 also indicates that among Colorado offenders who were monitored using polygraph and treatment. 64% of incest offenders admitted to having victims outside the family. (Colorado DPS) Wow, what lame ideas you have been throwing out here, in contrast to the research.

Again, you're going to have to be a bit more specific.

I did look at the Alaska study, which like the other research that you pointed to seems to have some flaws. First, an article about it, said that they didn't track criminals who moved out of state. And then, it seems that the criminals tracked had served at most 3-4 years. Which would indicate that they were offenders without a huge history or severity of offense, or they would have served more time.

I don't really see how either of those are flaws that wreck the validity of the study. For example, if they were offenders without a significant history, then how would that make a difference as to recidivism rates? Further, that would seem to comport with the notion that the majority of people who commit sex crimes are first-time offenders. It's fun when you help me prove my points!

She categorized them as 'incompetent molesters' who may have been caught early in their career, before they'd gotten very good at choosing victims who were unlikely to tell or grooming victims for a length of time so that the child feels complicit and will reveal more slowly. It seems likely that some of the offenders in the Alaska study were of this type. Some lack of rearrest may be due to better choice of child and better grooming of the child.

Or it may simply be due to the fact that they didn't reoffend. If you're absolutely convinced that everyone reoffends, then I suppose that your proposition would make sense - except that the data doesn't bear it out.

My impression is that the emphasis you give to the CSOM and DOJ recidivism studies are also part of your tendency to minimize the criminal activity of child molesters. Offenders who commit property crimes tend to age out of their crimes. Demographics usually show a lowering or raising of the level of crimes as the numbers of males between the ages of 18-25 changes. And law enforcement personnel don't expect to chase many 55 year old armed robbers down the street.

My impression is that you're still engaging in bullshit ad homs. Do you really think the Department of Justice has a tendency to minimize the criminal activity of child molesters? Note that aging out also occurs with sex offenses. Various actuarial tools such as the S99 revise down risk for older age.

But child molestation doesn't seem to have that kind of age limitation. The guy who molested all 8 of his children, both male and female, molested/attempted to molest some 20-30 nieces, nephews, cousins, and has started on the grandchildren--all over a 30-40 year period--is not uncommon. Of course, you would consider that an 'intrafamilial' molester, the kind not likely to reoffend.

Even in your hypothetical there's a problem - "reoffend" tends to mean what happens after someone is brought to the attention of authorities. I'm not doubting that there are cases like the one you describe - I'm doubting that every case of intrafamilial offending is as you describe. Mostly because of what the data say.

Nor is the step-grandfather who is now molesting his step-great grandchildren in exactly the same way as he did his own daughter 40 years ago. Although now he has chosen children whose mother is a druggie and who will not be as credible as his own daughter. But, given the fact that he was accused but never arrested because it was a different era--I suppose you'd say that he wasn't likely to reoffend--because he wouldn't have counted in the statistics. He would have one of the many guys that you like to cite--who are not dangerous because the RECORDS show that they've never committed a sex crime.

Given that the vast majority of sex crimes are committed by new perpetrators, I would never say that only people who have committed sex crimes in the past are the dangerous ones. Quite the contrary (which is one of my problems with SOR in that it largely gives people a false sense of security - if you think that the only people that you have to worry about are on that list, you're in for a pretty grim surprise).

nd I doubt that you'd admit the fallacy in your statistics for the offender who never committed a sex crime--well at least as an adult, anyway. He may have a long history of sexual assaults as a juvenile. But since, for statistical purposes at least, those records are sealed, he's not a repeat sex offender--at least in your reasoning.

You're familiar with the Adam Walsh Act, correct? It requires that people who have committed sex crimes as juveniles be registered (though many states are making hay about that one - some people who are determined to minimize the impact of child molestation--as you would say--are saying that it's a bit too much).

I find it interesting that you are so insistent in your repetition that sex offenders are not likely to re-offend. And even if they do, it's only 5% or 11% or 17%. Gee, and that means that out of 100 molesters, only 11 might reoffend against say, 5-10 more children each. So, 55 or 110 more child victims.

Well, of course that assumes everyone that reoffends is going to have multiple victims. But yes, some people will re-offend and they will have children victims. Your point?

Gosh, that's not many--surely not much in societal cost. Because it's not like 85 percent of everyone who ends up in any kind of institution in this country hasn't been sexually abused as a child, is it? And compared with the societal damage of say, burglars, shoplifters, who have higher rates of recidivism--why, I'm sure the societal cost of those small numbers of child molesters is--cheap.

Gosh, and that's because I argued that the societal cost is low, right? Oh wait a minute, I never said anything of the sort. You're really racking up the fallacies, aren't you? I counted at least two on that pass: straw man and a red herring. I forgot, were we talking about recidivism rates or about the societal cost of child molestation? So hard to keep track of that sort of thing when you're jumping from subject to subject.

[suzie]

235. My 'beliefs'?

"You point to 'the research', in your case CSOM, and yet talk about 'situational offenders' as if there's some difference between those who rape their own children and those who rape children with no relationship to them.

That's because the data bears that out (i.e. that offenders who rape children that are strangers to them tend to have higher recidivism rates than those who don't). Again, vewwy sowwie if that doesn't comport with your previously held beliefs.Re: Offenders who rape children with no relationship to them."

The sample size of offenders who rape strangers is extremely small--I believe you stated that. And I concur. So, you're only talking about 1-2 of the whole child molester population when you talk about recidivism? We're only going to worry about that tiny group that walks up to a child on the street and kidnaps them? Really? You want us to base public policy on the idea that only the total stranger rapist is the group that recidivates?

However, if you're considering offenders where the child is known to the offender--which you yourself stated previously was the majority--then point to research that uses the Colorado method of polygraphs to determine whether the offender ever offended within the family.

Re: Statement by Andrew Vachss:

Oh no, you won't allow anyone else to use data from their personal experiences. Research only, please.

Re: Studer and Alwyn, CO study.

Look it up yourself--why should I provide that to someone who insults me?

The 2008 Alaska study doesn't reference whether juvenile history is counted or not. And, you really think that juveniles prior to 2001 were not allowed to plead to lesser charges? Anyone who's ever dealt with these cases would say yes, but you don't ever allow personal experience to count (except, of course, when you want to reinforce your argument) so I guess the answer is no.

Re: societal cost of child molesters

Do you really think that constantly labeling anyone who disagrees with you with the terms 'strawmen', 'ad hominem' 'racking up the fallacies', is a good strategy for presenting your arguments?

[varkam]

236. Yawn.

The sample size of offenders who rape strangers is extremely small--I believe you stated that. And I concur. So, you're only talking about 1-2 of the whole child molester population when you talk about recidivism? We're only going to worry about that tiny group that walks up to a child on the street and kidnaps them? Really? You want us to base public policy on the idea that only the total stranger rapist is the group that recidivates?

I can't even make out what you're trying to say. You're going to have to rephrase that and be a little more coherent if you want a response.

Re: Statement by Andrew Vachss:

Oh no, you won't allow anyone else to use data from their personal experiences. Research only, please.

Oh - more anecdotal bullshit from you.

Re: Studer and Alwyn, CO study.

Look it up yourself--why should I provide that to someone who insults me?

Then I guess I'll be as charitable as you were to me and assume that you made it up.

The 2008 Alaska study doesn't reference whether juvenile history is counted or not. And, you really think that juveniles prior to 2001 were not allowed to plead to lesser charges? Anyone who's ever dealt with these cases would say yes, but you don't ever allow personal experience to count (except, of course, when you want to reinforce your argument) so I guess the answer is no.

Do you hear that whooshing sound? It's the point, and it's going right over your head. How would whether or not any criminal history at all is counted have any bearing on a prospective study? Answer: it wouldn't.

[suzie]

237. Yawn?

If you can't make out what I'm saying, it's because I couldn't understand what you were saying.

Read your own statement--from what you just stated, you believe that the group of offenders who recidivate in large numbers are those that rape strangers. The incidence of 'stranger' kidnap and rape in the child molesting population is extremely rare. I know of no research or individual who after the 90s makes the claim that it's high--I thought all that stuff about kidnapping and missing children was debunked then.

But you still believe those are the offenders that have high recidivism rates?

Yawn?

That's what I always think when I read someone's arguments who can only talk about strawmen and ad hominems.

Yawn, one more law student/lawyer who never sets foot in a courtroom.

[varkam]

238. Yes, yawn.

Read your own statement--from what you just stated, you believe that the group of offenders who recidivate in large numbers are those that rape strangers. The incidence of 'stranger' kidnap and rape in the child molesting population is extremely rare. I know of no research or individual who after the 90s makes the claim that it's high--I thought all that stuff about kidnapping and missing children was debunked then.

Still pretty incoherent. Are you taking issue with the assertion that they have high recidivism rates or the assertion that kidnapping and rape by strangers is rare?

That's what I always think when I read someone's arguments who can only talk about strawmen and ad hominems.

So you're blaming me for your own shortcomings? Classic. You know, if you didn't have to rely so heavily on straw men and ad hominems, perhaps I wouldn't be talking about them. You should go back to just referencing your vast personal experience and making pronouncements from on high - you don't come across as quite as desperate as you do when you're rushing so quick to insult your opponent that you manage to mangle their claims beyond recognition.

Yawn, one more law student/lawyer who never sets foot in a courtroom.

You've been checking up on me! I must have gotten under your skin - I like that! I imagine I'll probably spend most of my time in a courtroom given my career path - but whatever.

Beyond that, though, I find your brand of hyperbole to be boring and uncreative (hence the whole "Yawn" bit). If you're going to insult me, you could at least do me the courtesy of trying to come up with something good.

[suzie]

239. Umm, I didn't have to check up on you.

Trial lawyers don't ever use terms like strawmen and ad hominem, even on the internet. That's always the indicator of the individual who's not been in or doesn't go into a courtroom.

You might want to think about tax law, real estate, social security claims, patent law, and not even detour by the courtroom.

Prosecutors would like you--they always like to see a slam-dunk winner on the other side. And the judge's staff would love you--they always get off on watching the judge "handle" the smartass lawyers--makes the day more interesting.

And jurors are gonna laugh out loud when some poor, dumb witness hands you your hat. Your clients may not be so amused when they're going to the joint or they're out some money.

[varkam]

240. Was there a point to any of that?

I mean, other than you clumsily trying to insult me, that is.

Yawwwwn. If you're going to talk trash and not substance, come up with something good because at this point, I'm getting pretty bored with you.

[suzie]

245. duplicate message

[suzie]

246. The Studer Study

http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/42.html

"In summary, there are significant problems with the distinction between incestuous and nonincestuous offenders against children. Perhaps a continuum of behavior is a more accurate postulation, with a multitude of factors contributing to its expression either within or outside the family unit. More important to us, given our position as treatment providers, are the presumptions and assertions that continue to be attributed to those labeled as incest offenders. Many court and case management decisions are influenced by this label, and these may not be appropriate in all cases. Being an incest offender makes one much more likely to be assessed as low-risk to recidivate based on the existing actuarial risk assessment instruments."

Interesting that these researchers make the same breakdown of familial-incest offenders to include parent and stepparent, that I originally stated.

Could you possibly be wrong?

http://www.justicemercy.org/positions_sexoffenders.html

"Second, the study reveals another issue that has often been ignored by previous research. Because most research studies separate sex offenders based on their first convictions, past sexual offences that did not result in a conviction have often not been taken into consideration. Studer et. al. (2000) reported that 58.7% of the sex offenders classified as incest child molesters had reported other non-incestuous victims."

If you truly want a career in the courtroom, you might consider that the best trial attorneys can look through the small window in the door of the courtroom and pick out the foreperson of the jury. Good trial attorneys make their case to the foreperson.

Internet forums probably contain a higher percentage of forepersons than the average population. The trial attorneys that I've seen on forums always seem to be practicing their arguments to the forepeople.

[condoleeza]

284. I am waiting for a response here, guess I replied to the wrong post

[suzie]

241. The Studer Study.

http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/42.html

In summary, there are significant problems with the distinction between incestuous and nonincestuous offenders against children. Perhaps a continuum of behavior is a more accurate postulation, with a multitude of factors contributing to its expression either within or outside the family unit. More important to us, given our position as treatment providers, are the presumptions and assertions that continue to be attributed to those labeled as incest offenders. Many court and case management decisions are influenced by this label, and these may not be appropriate in all cases. Being an incest offender makes one much more likely to be assessed as low-risk to recidivate based on the existing actuarial risk assessment instruments.

Interesting that these researchers make the same breakdown of familial-incest offenders to include parent and stepparent, that I originally stated.

Could you possibly be wrong?

http://www.justicemercy.org/positions_sexoffenders.html

Second, the study reveals another issue that has often been ignored by previous research. Because most research studies separate sex offenders based on their first convictions, past sexual offences that did not result in a conviction have often not been taken into consideration. Studer et. al. (2000) reported that 58.7% of the sex offenders classified as incest child molesters had reported other non-incestuous victims.

If you truly want a career in the courtroom, you might consider that the best trial attorneys can look through the small window in the door of the courtroom and pick out the foreperson of the jury. Good trial attorneys make their case to the foreperson.

Internet forums probably contain a higher percentage of forepersons than the average population. The trial attorneys that I've seen on forums always seem to be practicing their arguments to the forepeople.

[condoleeza]

242. I'm waiting, varkam, for your response to this

[condoleeza]

248. Still waiting

[uppityperson]

249. if you want varkam to reply to you, might be better to reply to her/him rather than suzie

people have more of a tendency to see replies to themselves than to others.

[condoleeza]

285. Point taken.

[Naturyl]

270. 43% recidivism is not a "very low rate" in my eyes, anyway.

1% recidivism in cases as egregious as infant rape would be sufficient to justify holding the offenders permanently, in my view.

Some risks are simply too big to take. Some crimes are so horrific that a "one strike and you're out" policy makes sense.

[condoleeza]

178. Link to latest news on this

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/mar/04/alleged-yreka-kidnapper-expected-to-be-charged/?partner=RSS

From another source: Kody Lee Kaplon, 22, who surrendered Monday afternoon by calling the Amber Alert hotline initially denied any responsibility for kidnapping the child Francis Ann Collins, 3, from her parents home.
The Yreka Police say Kaplon took Francis to a wooded area in the mountains.
The California Highway Patrol described her as having no diaper or underclothes on the lower part of her body.
"That's a long ways from anywhere that you'd be taking a three-year-old. Her chances of survival were very very slim," said Yerka police.
After an interview and medical exam of the girl, Kaplon was charged with kidnapping, burglary, willful cruelty to a child, sodomy with a child under 10 years of age, false imprisonment,violation of probation, rape and attempted murder.
California Highway Patrol says the car Kaplon was driving was stuck in the mud. He left Francis alone in the vehicle. A concerned citizen found the child walking and alerted the authorities.

[dustbunnie]

184. What I find awe-striking...

is that everybody wants to kill this man because he's in his right mind. The last child rape, the other day involved another guy, who was mentally challenged - raped a boy and somehow everyone was aghast that he was put in prison. The crime is still the crime. For the victim at least. No?

[uppityperson]

194. Intent matters. eom

[Naturyl]

272. I happen to agree with you.

In both cases, the perpetrator should be permanently removed from society. I do not care what the motivation or intent behind the act was. The act is what is important, and it is an act which requires that we act to protect society from further abuse.

[4lbs]

197. If he's found guilty, then I'm all for punishing him viciously. However, something about the story

is bothering me.

He contacted police to ask why he was being regarded as a suspect.

When's the last time you heard of a pedophile that had the intent to harm a child in his/her custody doing that? By calling them on the phone, he was essentially letting them trace the line and track him down.

Wouldn't a pedophile instead be trying to get as far away as possible once they learn that the authorities are seeking them?

Right now, the main witness is the father of the girl. Since he supposedly awoke to her screaming as she was being shoved in the car and driven away, wouldn't others in the surrounding area have also heard it? Anyone else in the apartment complex hear it as well?

What if the girl's father "sold" her to him for money or even drugs, changed his mind, and then reported her as being kidnapped to cover his own tracks? I'm not saying this is what happened, but there is still a lot to the full story we don't yet know.

[uppityperson]

198. Depends. Could be playing it totally innocent.

Dad Id'd him driving away with the kid. We shall see though.

Whomever did this, the poor little kid.

[condoleeza]

199. Latest info I've found on this - it keeps getting worse

Against my better judgment, I am unable to walk away from this story, which becomes more disturbing the more you learn, and I can only assume that anyone still following this thread is here because of "personal" reasons.

What parent would leave a 3 yr. old sleeping on a mattress on the floor in the living room in a 3 BR Apt. after a party? Kaplon is someone who they have known for years. He is the father of a young daughter by a girlfriend who he had had a fight with earlier that day. He is a known drug user. As traumatic as it is for this little girl to be in a completely strange environment in protective custody, she is clearly better off. He left this child alone, wearing only a T-shirt, and walked to a house in the area and asked for a ride home. There was snow on the ground, mountain lions, deer, and coyote in the area.

The most recent news I found w/details about the family - read comments!

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/homepage/x594735262/Charges-named-for-kidnapping-suspect?popular=true
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READ the comments on this article from locals who know the people involved. http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/homepage/x594732633

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment from someone who lived in Apt. Complex with them and knew them from the above link:

My heart went out to the kids before this happened..I was neighbors with these people for years until recently escaping the cespool called the Pine Garden Apartments.I would see the older sister who is pretty young herself running around unsupervised ALOT ,even when a child molester moved into the Apartments.when April became pregnant with Francis I knew that this child had a hard life to look forward to.I even observed April drinking alcohol at a local bar while pregnant with her.
I know from observation that they drink and use.I was the child of an addict and I remember how it made me feel as a child...worthless.and another thing WTF is the little girl sleeping in the living room when they live in a 3 bedroom Apartment?? Why was a party going on with kids in the house?
I also know Kody and beleive it or not this was way out of the ordinary for him,he just had his own baby and worked very hard to take care of her.it makes me totally sick to my stomach what he did to that poor little girl who already had enough to deal with.I hope he fries for this,I just finished watching the news where they said he has denied doing all of this...what did Bigfoot suddenly appear and do this to the child? gimme a break! I also feel for Kody's girlfriend who is left to raise her baby on her own. she also has to live with what happened.and when Kody's infant daughter grows up she will have to live with the sickening truth about her own father.this situation is sad in all directions. I also wanted to add that no parent willingly allows a man to kidnap and rape their child.I know Kody was no stranger to these people they knew him for many years and they had no reason to think he would ever do this.I know they would not have wanted this to happen to their little girl,they do not deserve to lose their kids over this but what they DO need is a huge intervention with the way things are.
they DO love their children even Francis' father accepts the older sister as his own.I hope and pray little Francis is young enough not to remember this.and that maybe the older sister is watched a little more carefully.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This link will take you to Kaplon's My Space Account - check out the "friends" he has:
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/03/kody-kaplon-california-man-jailed-after.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will he get out? Check the site at www.co.sisqjustice.ca.us/ go to 'In Custody' Agree to rules at bottom of page, Look for his name, Click on 'VINE' right side of name, enter your info if you want to be notified of any changed status.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting history of CPS and how it began - very sobering commentary on the "protection of children" in the US

CPS was actually borne out of the SPCA back in 1874 because of a little girl named Mary Ellen who was being horribly abused..long story short...the landlady who found out about Mary Ellen contacted a Methodist social worker , Etta Wheeler, who went to the police who said they could do nothing unless assault could be proven. Etta Wheeler wouldn't give up and she enlisted the help of Henry Bergh who founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals...Ms. Wheeler reasoned that children were part of the animal kingdom and deserved protection....

[carlyhippy]

200. creep, anyone who harms a child should be tortured daily for 10 years at the very least..

that poor little girl, she didn't deserve any of this. I hope there is such a thing as hell just for people like this.

[Hugabear]

210. Do people here on DU support the death penalty for mentally disturbed individuals?

This sort of behavior is not the action of a sane person, there must be some serious mental defect in this individual. Nobody's saying that this person should be set free, allowed to do as he pleases - in fact, he should be kept away from society for the rest of his natural life. But since when do we start advocating state murder for mentally disturbed people?

[Pavulon]

213. Yes. I have no problem stopping the heart

of a person who rapes a 3 year old. In cases where there is DNA and compelling proof they should be put to sleep.

I could handle him climbing the walls in ADX until he dies as well.

I repeat, fuck him and his situation.

[condoleeza]

217. What if it is an animal that is "mentally disturbed"?

Society seems to have no problem euthanizing animals who attack and destroy humans, or even if they are attacking another animal as a food source. Animals are put to sleep for this all the time and I just have to ask - then why don't we take these animals to a psychologist and try to help them through their "issues"? A human who preys on other humans has given up whatever right they may have had AS a human, IMO. I do not advocate the torture of anyone, even though I certainly understand the emotions behind wanting to, but clearly anyone who commits this kind of a crime is not in their right mind and too often was a victim themselves. However, it is a choice they made to become an offender, and when there is clear intent to take the life of another person to cover up a crime or while committing a crime, then that person should be humanely euthanized. The comments made throughout this thread about putting him into prison and letting the other prisoners rape them or kill them, while understandable from an emotional level, does not take into consideration that these "prisoners" would also be further damaged by their actions and thus be even more violent should they be released. The same is true with "letting the family" take care of it.

We have laws in this country for a reason. Society should not be expected to mete out the punishment. The Supreme Court has taken the death penalty for rape off the table, which I feel is a tragedy and should be overturned. I do not see a difference in the value of the life of a police officer vs a 3 year old child.

[Naturyl]

275. In all likelihood, there IS a serious mental defect in this individual.

However, because the modern American capitalist culture refuses to treat sociopathy as a diagnosable mental illness, there is probably little that can be done in terms of that approach.

The reasons we refuse to treat sociopathy as a legitimate mental illness should be rather obvious - so much of our culture is founded upon it in the form of celebrating greed, selfishness, etc. Because these forms of sociopathic behavior are intrinsic to the American experience, other forms of sociopathy (such as this individual's alleged actions) cannot be treated as what they truly are.

The upside of this is that at least he will not get off on an insanity defense. As long as Gordon Gekko is not considered insane, his fellow sociopaths (of other proclivities) will not be, either.

[babythunder]

294. Enough with the excuses!

I am so sick and tired of people coming to these threads about heinous crimes with " but they are mentally disturbed". Some people are just damaged and yes maybe evil (if you believe in that sort of thing) and they're crimes should not be chalked up to a mental deficiency. If this man committed this crime he should be prosecuted the fullest extent of the law and should at the very least be locked away if not executed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

211. I Would Support Him Being Tortured First And Then Shot Right On The Spot. Total Filth He Is.

Fuck it. I say he should be chained to a wall, have two large razor blades coming out of the wall facing towards his sides, then have a large flame come up from the ground right between his legs, so that as he twists, turns, wiggles, jiggles and sways from the pain of the flame, he slowly cuts himself apart.

Fucking piece of shit.

[TK421]

212. Hey...that is not very nice! Think about him....think about HIS feelings!

:sarcasm:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

214. I Am Thinking About His Feelings...

Hence, the razor blades, fire and stuff lol.

[TK421]

216. ......

:thumbsup: :D

[Mad_Dem_X]

218. Child rapists should be punished to the fullest extent

of the law. If that means the death penalty, so be it. People like that are never rehablitated; they are sick individuals who need to be removed from society.

[condoleeza]

222. Our wonderful Supreme court took the death penalty off the table for this

I guess we can thank our own Liberals for this.

[Naturyl]

276. Yep, we can.

No political movement is perfect, and this is an area where the liberal movement has repeatedly and consistently missed the mark. It is one of two or three issues on which I find myself deeply opposed to the values of a movement I strongly support in other regards.

And I'm far from alone in that.

[condoleeza]

300. I agree completely

[depakid]

310. Well, you fell for the bait

How does it feel to be emotionally hijacked into proposing something utterly stupid?

[Naturyl]

312. And what would that be?

If you're a death penalty opponent, BTW, I'd ask you the same question. This tired old "emotionalism" argument cuts both ways, you know. Maybe you've missed all the "sympathy" threads on DU where people cry over convicts being executed.

But again, emotionalism isn't the issue for me. I support the death penalty (in some cases) because it offers irreversible protection against some of society's most egregious offenders.

[DailyGrind51]

223. Even hell is too good for them!

[Skip Intro]

224. Jail - probably forever. But don't dispose of this guy. Find out why.

Learn what makes someone do something like this.

Something went wrong.

I'd bet the guy had a traumatic childhood.

Not trying to defend him at all, please.

Put him in jail. Keep him in jail.

But take the opportunity to find out how things went so wrong.

[suzie]

228. Most of god's children that go to prison had traumatic childhoods.

Most of them were physically, sexually abused as children.

Most of them did antisocial things which landed them in the joint.

Most of them did not sexually abuse children.

Which is why prison is so difficult for the 'baby rapers'. The guys know just who and what people like this guy are.

We spend far too much time worrying about what went wrong with those who commit the most heinous acts.

Our time and money would be better spent figuring out why the kid who was beaten and raped and starved and still made it out without doing any of that to others is a survivor. What made him different?

How can we help the kid who was beaten and raped and starved and became an alcoholic or a drug addict but not a child molester?

If you don't believe in the death penalty, fine. But let's not worry anymore about him.

[bluedawg12]

233. Frye the mutherf*cker. FRYE HIM!

I'll bring the oil. :grr:

[Bluebear]

243. "Frye"??? What is this, renaissance Englande?

[Stargazer09]

250. How can ANYONE do that sort of thing???

Why are so many men raping babies nowadays? Was this something that was always happening but never reported? Or has this deranged practice just exploded thanks to the internet?

That poor little girl! I have a three-year-old girl right now, and I can't imagine anyone hurting her like that.

Yes, the man belongs in hell. If people are squeamish about the death penalty, then I suggest cutting off the equipment used to rape children. Castration fits the crime, in my opinion.

[Naturyl]

277. Castration is ineffective.

Physical castration removes neither the desire or the capability to commit such crimes. The human body has numerous appendages, and removing one will not not incapacitate those determined to abuse and violate.

Chemical castration (squelching the desire) is better, but better yet is irreversible removal from society.

[Stargazer09]

279. I think you misunderstood

Castration removes the testicles, the main source of testosterone in the male body. In essence, it removes the hormone most involved in these cases.

[Naturyl]

280. I didn't misunderstand.

I've done a bit of research on this, and found that in many cases, these crimes are not primarily sexual in motivation, despite being sexual in nature. Removing the sexual motivation does not guarantee that other motivations are removed.

[Stargazer09]

281. That's true, but...

Without testosterone, men tend to be less interested in sexual acts AND aggressive acts. Basically, they become a lot more mellow, less hateful, and less in need of dominating anyone.

No, removing the sexual motivation does not guarantee that other motivations are removed. However, the root cause of those child-attacking motivations may lie in hormonal disturbances that might be mitigated by castration.

As I've said before, I would prefer that child rapists be locked up for life or given the death penalty. Castration might be another tool to use, although I doubt that our society will ever seriously consider it.

[pink-o]

283. Everyone has their hypocrisies. Pedophiles are mine.

I am a bleeding heart liberal in every way, but I can tell you: if I ever came across a man raping a child and there was a gun close by, I'd have no problem blowing that fucker to kingdom come.

And if there wasn't a gun, the bastard would still be dead by my hands somehow.

So let's hope I never encounter such a situation. And as for the pedophiles who do get caught raping babies, I agree with the earlier poster who said stick 'em in with the general prison population and have the guards turn a blind eye to what happens.

I know it's hateful and horrible to wish that kind of ill on someone, but if you've ever listened to a thirty-five year old man testifying against a priest or a teacher who raped him as a child, if you watched a good man dissolve in agony and weep on the stand after keeping his shame to himself all those years, fury would overtake you as well!

[condoleeza]

304. I've seen that, I understand the agony