Murdering sex offenders in Maine

B

Blade

Guest
It's been in the news about how deceased Canadian Stephen A. Marshall searched the sex offenders database to find the two registered men he executed. They haven't found anything connecting him with them yet, but it'll probably turn out to be something to do with the victims of the rapists.

Now, sex offenders are filing lawsuits, even suing, over the fact that the database can be used to locate registered users, making them easy prey for another vigilante like Marshall. It doesn't look like much will be changed, save maybe a new brief description of what each sex offender did so people can recognize serious threats from lesser ones.

What do you think?
 
[quote name='Blade']It's been in the news about how deceased Canadian Stephen A. Marshall searched the sex offenders database to find the two registered men he executed. They haven't found anything connecting him with them yet, but it'll probably turn out to be something to do with the victims of the rapists.

Now, sex offenders are filing lawsuits, even suing, over the fact that the database can be used to locate registered users, making them easy prey for another vigilante like Marshall. It doesn't look like much will be changed, save maybe a new brief description of what each sex offender did.

What do you think?[/QUOTE]
Not many sex offenders are executed as such per year, so I see no need to change the system.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Nothing should be changed at all. If someone sexually assaulted someone I love, I'd find it hard not to do the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Why permit your politicians to release prisoners in that case? Isn't the idea of the justice system to do that - enact justice? Whether you prefer punishment or rehabilitation, your statement is an explicit admittance that your elected officials have failed you by allowing people who you *expect* to reoffend back into the public.

Moreover, you do not respect the rights of citizens because you consider yourself more deserving of the basic rights and tenets of modern American philosophy than others. If a person was a criminal in the past, and they are released, then, ideally, they "served their time." They may have prison debt (quite a reality), they may be disenfranchised, they may not be able to get a job or find a place to live (all latent effects of, *ahem*, "serving your time after you serve your time"), but for you to demand more rights than other citizens is absurd.

Now, if you want to lock them up for the remainder of their days, or if you prefer to merely execute them, then I would genuinely have more respect for that point of view than for some inherently arrogant and falsely concluded belief that some people deserve less protection under the constitution than you do.
 
I'll just say. That any sex offender who has done so to a child, needs to be shot immediately. Thats my opinion or course.
 
As a father of two I can't be logical at all about this. I know its wrong but a part of me feels they got what was coming to them that is if their crimes were linked to children. Probably the one way I'd end up in prison is if someone did that to my kids because I would kill them slowly
 
hell, they screwed up how many children for the rest of their natural lives. i have no pity for them. if they destroy lives, then they, too, should be destroyed.
 
so the general consensus is that murder is okay if it's for revenge. got it. way to go internet.

murder is the worse crime, btw.

(meanwhile, the thread about the school teacher and the 13 year old rages with libido...)
 
[quote name='Apossum']so the general consensus is that murder is okay if it's for revenge. got it. way to go internet.

murder is the worse crime, btw.

(meanwhile, the thread about the school teacher and the 13 year old rages with libido...)[/QUOTE]
Retards...in my internet? Who'd have thunk?
 
If someone molested my wife or daughter, I'd act as though I were the antagonist in a spaghetti western.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why permit your politicians to release prisoners in that case? Isn't the idea of the justice system to do that - enact justice? Whether you prefer punishment or rehabilitation, your statement is an explicit admittance that your elected officials have failed you by allowing people who you *expect* to reoffend back into the public.

Moreover, you do not respect the rights of citizens because you consider yourself more deserving of the basic rights and tenets of modern American philosophy than others. If a person was a criminal in the past, and they are released, then, ideally, they "served their time." They may have prison debt (quite a reality), they may be disenfranchised, they may not be able to get a job or find a place to live (all latent effects of, *ahem*, "serving your time after you serve your time"), but for you to demand more rights than other citizens is absurd.

Now, if you want to lock them up for the remainder of their days, or if you prefer to merely execute them, then I would genuinely have more respect for that point of view than for some inherently arrogant and falsely concluded belief that some people deserve less protection under the constitution than you do.[/QUOTE]


I'll get you a band aid for your bleeding heart "Professor Murder"



[quote name='Apossum']so the general consensus is that murder is okay if it's for revenge. got it. way to go internet.

murder is the worse crime, btw.

(meanwhile, the thread about the school teacher and the 13 year old rages with libido...)[/QUOTE]


No one ever said it was ok. I would fully expect to spend the rest of my life in jail or be executed if I killed someone.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Why permit your politicians to release prisoners in that case? Isn't the idea of the justice system to do that - enact justice? Whether you prefer punishment or rehabilitation, your statement is an explicit admittance that your elected officials have failed you by allowing people who you *expect* to reoffend back into the public.

Moreover, you do not respect the rights of citizens because you consider yourself more deserving of the basic rights and tenets of modern American philosophy than others. If a person was a criminal in the past, and they are released, then, ideally, they "served their time." They may have prison debt (quite a reality), they may be disenfranchised, they may not be able to get a job or find a place to live (all latent effects of, *ahem*, "serving your time after you serve your time"), but for you to demand more rights than other citizens is absurd.

Now, if you want to lock them up for the remainder of their days, or if you prefer to merely execute them, then I would genuinely have more respect for that point of view than for some inherently arrogant and falsely concluded belief that some people deserve less protection under the constitution than you do.[/QUOTE]

Another great ownage from myke. Good show, old boy!
 
it is really a no win situation. You remove the list, then as soon as a former inmate who has been relased performs another sexual act on someone, the community could/would sue for not having a list of local sex offenders living in there neighborhood. Is it right for them not to know, I dunno but a case could easily be made. Just like the attorneys of the sex offenders can easily make a case how it isn't right that there is a list of people that could easily be targeted by vigilante's.

And as for myke's ownage, besides the facts of life for a former prisoner, they really are 2nd class citizens. Besides the work problems and emotional scars, they could be on probation. If that was done somewhat the way it is supposed to, then there lifes could be invaded on a weekly/monthly life by a probation officer checking in on them. Don't ex cons also not have the right to vote in some states? IMO, the gov't has already deemed them 2nd class citizens, so why should we feel bad /guilty about it?
 
[quote name='evanft']Another great ownage from myke. Good show, old boy![/QUOTE]

And another thread where evanft doesn't actually add to the discussion, but just sticks his nose further up a vocal liberals ass.
 
Murdering is bad. Sexual molestation is bad.
Do it on the front end, either keep the kid-molesting scumbag in prison for life so *he* gets molested, or whack 'em there.
Now, if someone *walked in* on a molester attacking their kid, and killed the attacker, that would approach justifiable imho. But after the fact revenge murder, while I can sympathize, is wrong. However, will I be broken up about it? No.

Deciding to shun the scumbag when he moves into your neighbourhood, deciding to move out leaving no one there, deciding to start a 'neighbourhood watch' focusing around his house, as long as no illegal acts are performed, I'm fine with.

And I disagree that murder is "worse" than sexually molesting a child, especially when many/most molesters are repeat offenders. I think they're both pretty damn bad, and both should be capital offenses.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']I'll get you a band aid for your bleeding heart "Professor Murder"[/QUOTE]

That's all you can muster? I would expect more from you. Discussion, perhaps?

*sigh* such hopes and dreams I must have, no?
 
[quote name='ryanbph']it is really a no one situation. You remove the list, then as soon as a former inmate who has been relased performs another sexual act on someone, the community could/would sue for not having a list of local sex offenders living in there neighborhood. Is it right for them not to know, I dunno but a case could easily be made. Just like the attorneys of the sex offenders can easily make a case how it isn't right that there is a list of people that could easily be targeted by vigilante's.[/quote]

Why is it the public's right to have access to that information? Public knowledge of sex offenders and police access to, and mintoring of, people on the list can easily be mutually exclusive things. Do we sue to have access to a list of people the police monitor for suspected drug activity if a community member is murdered (e.g., a drug deal gone bad) by a person monitored by the police? Why select out one offense and decide that it's the public's right to know about the people on the list, and act as if we, as a public, are protected from other sorts of dangers? That's absurd, and any newspaper's "local" section will give you ample evidence to support that claim.

And as for myke's ownage, besides the facts of life for a former prisoner, they really are 2nd class citizens. Besides the work problems and emotional scars, they could be on probation. If that was done somewhat the way it is supposed to, then there lifes could be invaded on a weekly/monthly life by a probation officer checking in on them. Don't ex cons also not have the right to vote in some states? IMO, the gov't has already deemed them 2nd class citizens, so why should we feel bad /guilty about it?
Click to expand...

Because it's evidence that your system and elected officials have failed you. While I wouldn't suggest a policy that would disallow monitoring released felons, I do think that "criminal labeling" is in effect here. I don't think that all job applications should ask about felon status (though exceptions should be made, of course, for conflicts of interest, such as a sex offender applying to a day care center). On the other hand, many policies of "treating ex-offenders as second-class citizens" create a drout of opportunities to become decent citizens. It's a lose-lose scenario. The point I'm trying to make is that the current situation of released offenders is structured such that a successful (i.e., non-criminal) outcome is made more difficult, if not impossible, by the opportunities lacking and constraints put in place by society and the government. While I don't advocate eliminating it all, why should we feel guilty? It's not a matter of guilt. But why act surprised when criminals reoffend when we accept as a fact of life that ex-offenders can't get jobs, can't get housing, and are outcast and excluded by the community in which they reside as criminals? There's no surprise to be had there. It's the exception, not the rule, as 50%-66% of all prison releases return within 3 years. We can blame the criminals, but we also can not accept that fact. Such a rate of return is an indictment on our criminal justice system as much as it is on the ex-offenders themselves.
 
[quote name='thagoat']hell, they screwed up how many children for the rest of their natural lives. i have no pity for them. if they destroy lives, then they, too, should be destroyed.[/QUOTE]

There are many children victims of sexual assault who go on to lead happy, healthy lives. There are definetly some who will have psychological issues for their entire life but the point is that it is not a guarantee that a child victim of sexual assault will definetly be "screwed up."

Its been shown that children who are continuously teased throughout their school years can suffer lifelong psychological issues. Does this mean that bullying should now be a capital offense?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Its been shown that children who are continuously teased throughout their school years can suffer lifelong psychological issues. Does this mean that bullying should now be a capital offense?[/QUOTE]

I fear it won't be long until it is.
 
In my perfect world, sex offenders would never be allowed to walk the streets again. It's a gray area though - I mean I have no problem if someone stabs a child molestor in the balls until he bleeds out and dies but some old guy who gropes his secretary probably doesn't deserve the same punishment... probably...
 
Well I think Myke is right, if they've been released and they re-offend then obviously they shouldn't have been released. The list shouldn't be necessary if the criminal justice system is successful. But people don't want rehabilitation they want punishment, so that's what they get.
 
hahahah..the questions in yuor poll are so biased towards yrou view it is hilarious. Either you vote for not wanting a list, or for killing the offenders. What abut keeping the list but not promoting murder.

I say keep the list, but people still msut respect the laws of the land
 
All I'll say is that if you use the database to go deliver vigilante justice then you deserve punishment to the fullest extent. If you use it as a responsible parent (or adult since not all sex offense involves children, people fail to realize that) to keep yourself aware then there is nothing wrong with that.

[quote name='mykevermin']Why is it the public's right to have access to that information? Public knowledge of sex offenders and police access to, and mintoring of, people on the list can easily be mutually exclusive things. Do we sue to have access to a list of people the police monitor for suspected drug activity if a community member is murdered (e.g., a drug deal gone bad) by a person monitored by the police? Why select out one offense and decide that it's the public's right to know about the people on the list, and act as if we, as a public, are protected from other sorts of dangers? That's absurd, and any newspaper's "local" section will give you ample evidence to support that claim. [/quote]

I was about to say this myself until I read your post. I have always wondered why this is limited to sex offenders and not drug addicts, wife beaters, drug dealers, people who commit hate crimes, drunk drivers, etc. The intentions of the database are good, but it does nothing to protect from first time offenders and that is the bulk of the problem.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I was about to say this myself until I read your post. I have always wondered why this is limited to sex offenders and not drug addicts, wife beaters, drug dealers, people who commit hate crimes, drunk drivers, etc. The intentions of the database are good, but it does nothing to protect from first time offenders and that is the bulk of the problem.[/quote]

in terms of drug addicts and dealers, it would make drug dealing just a tad bit easier IMO, then again I'm making the assumption that the "slap on the wrist" system doesn't work and one would go back to dealing/usage.

As for the sex offender issue my personal point of view might not be popular, but I'd take the islamic law approach. You commit a sex crime, they chop to make sure it won't happen again (you steal you lose a hand, commit a sex crime and .......!), then there'd be no need for a database. I know that this is viewed as extreme, but its only my opinion.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']in terms of drug addicts and dealers, it would make drug dealing just a tad bit easier IMO, then again I'm making the assumption that the "slap on the wrist" system doesn't work and one would go back to dealing/usage.

As for the sex offender issue my personal point of view might not be popular, but I'd take the islamic law approach. You commit a sex crime, they chop to make sure it won't happen again (you steal you lose a hand, commit a sex crime and .......!), then there'd be no need for a database. I know that this is viewed as extreme, but its only my opinion.
[/quote]

Well, some offenders have asked to be chemically castrated so that sort of idea isn't all that unusual. I don't know what could be done with a female offender though.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK'] I don't know what could be done with a female offender though.[/quote]

Send them to those all male prisons or male juvi, and let them get molested for thier sentence. And this would cancel out the "male bonding" that takes place in all prisons.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']Send them to those all male prisons or male juvi, and let them get molested for thier sentence. And this would cancel out the "male bonding" that takes place in all prisons.[/quote]

Your solutions would result in unequal punishment (ie. men get much lighter punishments than women). It would result in irreversable damage to innocent people wrongly convicted. And, in many cases, they would suffer a much worse fate than they inflicted. For example, a guy has sex with a 12 year old who looked 16 and consented, or even looked 12 but consented. Sure that deserves punishment, but there are varying shades of grey.

It also would be cruel and unusual punishment. And, especially when you have innocent people convicted, you are opening the system up to massive lawsuits since they were subjected to treatment that was intended to cause significant physical harm.

Also, such punishment tends to do little more than turn them into hardened criminals. Punishment only works if they think they will, or even consider the possibility, of getting caught. In many people that's not the case.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Your solutions would result in unequal punishment (ie. men get much lighter punishments than women).[/quote]
I did say islamic law, and the reality is that is how it goes. Also, I did not sit and think this through because my propositions will never become US law.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']For example, a guy has sex with a 12 year old who looked 16 and consented, or even looked 12 but consented. Sure that deserves punishment, but there are varying shades of grey.[/quote]

That's fair but I believe it would come down for the courts to decide. If the 12 yr old brought it on themselves then they are guilty, but when a kid is in a bathroom and all the sudden gets raped, no trial.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, such punishment tends to do little more than turn them into hardened criminals. Punishment only works if they think they will, or even consider the possibility, of getting caught. In many people that's not the case.[/quote]
I can't speak from personal experience, but if you ever encounter anyone that got their dick chopped off, or got molested (in a sense of equal punishment for what they have done to a child). Ask them just for the sake of arguement that after such a punishment, if they would ever molest again.

I see your point of view and its very logical, but I really am not proposing this in terms of "must be" policy. rather just for a little E-chuckle. Then again we have had ton's of people that have been killed innocently so I guess it begs the question would you rather be dead or dickless? (joking)
 
[quote name='javeryh']but some old guy who gropes his secretary probably doesn't deserve the same punishment... probably...[/QUOTE]

I just can’t help but see this last sentence be in defense of your premeditated actions.
 
Just take the male offenders, handcuff them, and put them in a room with the ugliest and horniest women on earth. That'll kill their horny for life.
 
[quote name='AYATOLA']
That's fair but I believe it would come down for the courts to decide. If the 12 yr old brought it on themselves then they are guilty, but when a kid is in a bathroom and all the sudden gets raped, no trial. [/quote]

If there's no trial, wouldn't that send the amount of wrongly convicted skyrocketing?


I can't speak from personal experience, but if you ever encounter anyone that got their dick chopped off, or got molested (in a sense of equal punishment for what they have done to a child). Ask them just for the sake of arguement that after such a punishment, if they would ever molest again.
Click to expand...

Well, just because they swear they'll never do it again doesn't mean they won't. It's not even a mattery of lying, as often they genuinely believe that. There's a child rapist that I've seen interviewed on fox news a few times. He's a very interesting person, as he detailed how difficult it was to get through his daily life. He said that whenever he's near a child the urge to rape them is overwhelming, to the point where he can't even get on a bus that has a kid on it. He simply can't control himself and has to go to extraordinary measures to do it.

Also there's a disorder called antisocial personality disorder, and they are very difficult to treat. About 3% of men have this disorder, but some estimates show that up to 80% of the prison population has it. There are obviously degrees of it, just like any psychological disorder, but the textbook case is someone who lacks empathy, shows little anxiety, and doesn't learn from punishment. Needless to say, many are in prison. But a trademark of this disorder is intelligence, charm, and false sincerity. They also tend to be impulsive. The ones who avoid prison are higher on those traits, and tend to commit lesser crimes.

When you pair that with something such as pedophilia (most of the time pedophiles don't act on their desires), then the results can be disasterous.

Because of that, and the fact that few criminals actually expect to be caught, I don't have much faith in punishment. For a prisoner without such a disorder (or without a severe form of it) there's a sweet spot, a point that gets the message across but doesn't turn them into a hardened prisoner. That differs depending on the person, but that's what I feel you should be aiming for.

I see your point of view and its very logical, but I really am not proposing this in terms of "must be" policy. rather just for a little E-chuckle. Then again we have had ton's of people that have been killed innocently so I guess it begs the question would you rather be dead or dickless? (joking)
Click to expand...

Well, castration isn't 100% effective. But, again, what do you do with all the people who were wrongly convicted? They don't just have to deal with the trauma of their punishment, but actually have an impedement to ever living a normal life again.

I know you weren't completely serious, and was saying what you think is the ideal, but your opinion isn't exactly an odd one among the general public. If you ran on a campaign of treating child rapists this way, you'd likely get a lot of votes.
 
people who break the law (namely sexually assaulting another human) forfeit many of their constitutional rights and deserve less protection than a law-abiding citizen

if you don't want your name on a published sex criminal list, then don't attack, beat, rape, molest or defile another person.

if you DO decide to live out your sick, criminal fantasy then be prepared for all the consequences.

lose your family, lose your job, lose your privacy, lose everything you care about.

in short, someone who is a registered sex offender does indeed deserve less protection under the constitution than i do. they did it the old fashioned way... they EARNED it.

;)
 
It's extreme to take the opinion that someone that commits a crime should be punished for the rest of their life.

There is a reason we have beliefs against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Situations such as sex offenders are one particularly hot issue in this very gray area.

If you commit a crime, ANY crime, and you are sentenced according to the laws of the land and serve your punishment-- the debt has been paid.

By having things such as these databases to make your crime (that was already paid for since you are obviously out of prison) punished for the rest of your life-- does it not begin to cross into the realm of a punishment not fitting the crime?

I don't support sex offenders. I certainly think they should be punished. But that should be handled by the judicial system. If people believe there should be stiffer crimes, then laws can be enacted as such.

But it seems a bit absurd to me that you have databases and laws that basically slap a scarlet letter "A" on you for the rest of your life if you are guilty of such an indiscretion. People have to be willing to let the rule of law guide these matters and not let emotions guide them.

I'd say in the case of someone misusing that list to take the law into their own hands-- the vigilante should be punished to the full extent of the law as 1st degree murder.
 
[quote name='penmyst']It's extreme to take the opinion that someone that commits a crime should be punished for the rest of their life.

There is a reason we have beliefs against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Situations such as sex offenders are one particularly hot issue in this very gray area.

If you commit a crime, ANY crime, and you are sentenced according to the laws of the land and serve your punishment-- the debt has been paid.

By having things such as these databases to make your crime (that was already paid for since you are obviously out of prison) punished for the rest of your life-- does it not begin to cross into the realm of a punishment not fitting the crime?

I don't support sex offenders. I certainly think they should be punished. But that should be handled by the judicial system. If people believe there should be stiffer crimes, then laws can be enacted as such.

But it seems a bit absurd to me that you have databases and laws that basically slap a scarlet letter "A" on you for the rest of your life if you are guilty of such an indiscretion. People have to be willing to let the rule of law guide these matters and not let emotions guide them.

I'd say in the case of someone misusing that list to take the law into their own hands-- the vigilante should be punished to the full extent of the law as 1st degree murder.[/quote]

Well said.
 
[quote name='penmyst']It's extreme to take the opinion that someone that commits a crime should be punished for the rest of their life.

There is a reason we have beliefs against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Situations such as sex offenders are one particularly hot issue in this very gray area.

If you commit a crime, ANY crime, and you are sentenced according to the laws of the land and serve your punishment-- the debt has been paid.

By having things such as these databases to make your crime (that was already paid for since you are obviously out of prison) punished for the rest of your life-- does it not begin to cross into the realm of a punishment not fitting the crime?

I don't support sex offenders. I certainly think they should be punished. But that should be handled by the judicial system. If people believe there should be stiffer crimes, then laws can be enacted as such.

But it seems a bit absurd to me that you have databases and laws that basically slap a scarlet letter "A" on you for the rest of your life if you are guilty of such an indiscretion. People have to be willing to let the rule of law guide these matters and not let emotions guide them.

I'd say in the case of someone misusing that list to take the law into their own hands-- the vigilante should be punished to the full extent of the law as 1st degree murder.[/quote]

well said +1

but.............

Although I agree with you in terms of the morality of the issue, I don't agree with not having it documented. An act of shame, such as violating the innocence of a child is something that should be marked and documented. I don't think they should have an "A' on their chest, or a tattoo that says "sex offender" rather a database is fair. If I had kids I'd want to know whether or not a sex offender is near.

Really how many people actually check these databases. Our local news did a report in which a within 15 miles of a school 15 sex offenders were employed, 2 at the school itself.
 
[quote name='penmyst']It's extreme to take the opinion that someone that commits a crime should be punished for the rest of their life.

There is a reason we have beliefs against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Situations such as sex offenders are one particularly hot issue in this very gray area.

If you commit a crime, ANY crime, and you are sentenced according to the laws of the land and serve your punishment-- the debt has been paid.

By having things such as these databases to make your crime (that was already paid for since you are obviously out of prison) punished for the rest of your life-- does it not begin to cross into the realm of a punishment not fitting the crime?

I don't support sex offenders. I certainly think they should be punished. But that should be handled by the judicial system. If people believe there should be stiffer crimes, then laws can be enacted as such.

But it seems a bit absurd to me that you have databases and laws that basically slap a scarlet letter "A" on you for the rest of your life if you are guilty of such an indiscretion. People have to be willing to let the rule of law guide these matters and not let emotions guide them.

I'd say in the case of someone misusing that list to take the law into their own hands-- the vigilante should be punished to the full extent of the law as 1st degree murder.[/quote]

Indeed, well said, but one of the victims in question only served five months community service for molesting a minor, then was released into the community. I've served community service before as a part of a school program, so I don't see his sentencing as just punishment.



One of the men suing and speaking out against the sex offender list claims that he doesn't want to be killed for having a consentual relationship with a 12 year old girl when he was 31. I haven't heard much else, so I assume either the trials are scheduled for later, or it was quickly shot down.
 
[quote name='Blade']Indeed, well said, but one of the victims in question only served five months community service for molesting a minor, then was released into the community. I've served community service before as a part of a school program, so I don't see his sentencing as just punishment.[/QUOTE]

This is what I think is most people's problem with the handling of offenders, and it drives their opinions that it's okay to basically tag these guys with big neon signs for the rest of their lives.

The severity of the penalty and it's subsequent enforcement (or lack thereof) by the court is what should be addressed.

While in the case of the OP threadstarter-- it's obviously vigilantism abusing the database.

That is something that HAS to be considered when not only making these databases, but also (by laws in some areas) forcing that information to follow a person no matter where he/she goes. It's a very gray area.

I might surmise though, that this type of "targetting list" use of databases isn't exactly a raging phenomenon.
 
[quote name='penmyst']It's extreme to take the opinion that someone that commits a crime should be punished for the rest of their life.

There is a reason we have beliefs against "cruel and unusual punishment".

Situations such as sex offenders are one particularly hot issue in this very gray area.

If you commit a crime, ANY crime, and you are sentenced according to the laws of the land and serve your punishment-- the debt has been paid.

By having things such as these databases to make your crime (that was already paid for since you are obviously out of prison) punished for the rest of your life-- does it not begin to cross into the realm of a punishment not fitting the crime?

I don't support sex offenders. I certainly think they should be punished. But that should be handled by the judicial system. If people believe there should be stiffer crimes, then laws can be enacted as such.

But it seems a bit absurd to me that you have databases and laws that basically slap a scarlet letter "A" on you for the rest of your life if you are guilty of such an indiscretion. People have to be willing to let the rule of law guide these matters and not let emotions guide them.

I'd say in the case of someone misusing that list to take the law into their own hands-- the vigilante should be punished to the full extent of the law as 1st degree murder.[/QUOTE]

the fact of the matter is....

if you commit a sex crime, the notion of should or shouldn't goes out the window

whether you're free or in jail you will be treated as the lowest form of scum on the planet

let's say... for instance that your Mother, or Sister or girlfriend.. or Daughter was brutally raped by someone or even just had someone ATTEMPT to rape them.

would you feel differently about that specific person?

of course you would.

the vast majority of people would tattoo a scarlet R on the bastard's forehead then follow with a couple of bullets for good measure. they wouldn't stand around and go 'let's enact some tougher laws! that's showing the no-good raper!'

so, i agree with your point in theory, but the world isn't fair.... not by a longshot

just ask the people who are sexually assaulted, and have to deal with the consequenses of that EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES

quid pro quo Clarice
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']the fact of the matter is....

if you commit a sex crime, the notion of should or shouldn't goes out the window

whether you're free or in jail you will be treated as the lowest form of scum on the planet[/quote]

And how exactly is that going to prevent more rapes? If you want to make someone such a pariah then they risk become nothing more than a ticking time bomb.

let's say... for instance that your Mother, or Sister or girlfriend.. or Daughter was brutally raped by someone or even just had someone ATTEMPT to rape them.

would you feel differently about that specific person?

of course you would.
Click to expand...

Let's say a woman rapes a guy, would you still feel the same? I know a lot of guys who don't even think it's a crime. Yet men, by a sizeable percentage, are more likely to suffer long term affects from rape than women.

the vast majority of people would tattoo a scarlet R on the bastard's forehead then follow with a couple of bullets for good measure. they wouldn't stand around and go 'let's enact some tougher laws! that's showing the no-good raper!'
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt the "vast majority" support your suggestion.
[
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And how exactly is that going to prevent more rapes? If you want to make someone such a pariah then they risk become nothing more than a ticking time bomb. [/quote]

i never said it would. i said that's reality, and you can't change it


[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Let's say a woman rapes a guy, would you still feel the same? I know a lot of guys who don't even think it's a crime. Yet men, by a sizeable percentage, are more likely to suffer long term affects from rape than women. [/quote]

link? source? what are you even talking about? how do you figure that EITHER sex would suffer more long term side effects from rape? a human is a human and would suffer the same regardless of sex. that is by far one of the most bizarre things i've ever read or positions i've seen someone take. perhaphs i'm just misunderstaning you.


[quote name='alonzomourning23']
I sincerely doubt the "vast majority" support your suggestion.
[[/QUOTE]

you go ahead and doubt that... i'm cool with it, b/c i didn't say that the 'vast majority' of people would 'suport my suggestion'

i said that the vast majority of people who had their sister raped would want to do bodily harm to the rapist

disagree with that. i dare you
 
[quote name='PKRipp3r']link? source? what are you even talking about? how do you figure that EITHER sex would suffer more long term side effects from rape? a human is a human and would suffer the same regardless of sex. that is by far one of the most bizarre things i've ever read or positions i've seen someone take. perhaphs i'm just misunderstaning you.[/quote]

I love when people accuse me of making outrageous statements, since those always seem to be the easiest statements to back up.

But it makes perfect sense, as there are social factors that contribute to every psychological disorder, and prevalance rates often differ based on gender and ethnic group. This is particularly true in PTSD, where there are often massive differences in terms of gender. Men are more likely to be blamed, to be mocked (because men are supposed to like sex and be in control), to blame themselves, and to have their experience dismissed as insignificant. As much as there's a problem with people acting like the woman deserved it, it gets much worse when men are the victim.

Rape is the most likely trigger of PTSD, 65% of men and 45.9% of women who are raped will develop the disorder.
Click to expand...

http://www.adaa.org/AboutADAA/PressRoom/Stats&Facts.asp

Link is to the anxiety disorders association of america. Also, pretty much any psych text book that goes into detail about PTSD will have the same statistics.

Though the point was to attempt to show that your emotional argument was flawed.

you go ahead and doubt that... i'm cool with it, b/c i didn't say that the 'vast majority' of people would 'suport my suggestion'

i said that the vast majority of people who had their sister raped would want to do bodily harm to the rapist

disagree with that. i dare you
Click to expand...

Not quite.

the vast majority of people would tattoo a scarlet R on the bastard's forehead then follow with a couple of bullets for good measure.
Click to expand...

Your new comment is much more subdued and much less violent. I think you'd find a difference betweens peoples inner thoughts and their actions.
 
zo, you refuse to respond directly to exact statments, insisting instead on replying to what you think I MEANT, so i simply cannot have any sort of realistic discourse with you

i said i'd like to see a link to back that up, and that perhaps i had misunderstood you

you provided one... thanks

see how easy that was?

and the two statements about the 'vast majority' are consistent, although worded slightly differently

i notice you didn't disagree

super

the weird thing is i see you respond sanely to other people. not sure what's so different about me.

here's to you getting brutally raped in a back alley someday.

toasting-art-2005.10.25-22.43.01.jpg


i'm sure you'll forgive the loveable mug that splits your ass cheeks apart with a crowbar though. that's just the kind of guy you are.

*adds you to ignore list with extreme prejudice*
 
The majority of people that have had a friend or family member damaged by a crime probably WOULD want to be as extreme as possible. That doesn't make it either right or acceptable to most of society.

Laws are a reflection of a society's general beliefs (since you elect the representatives that put together those laws) and in the U.S. the general belief is that only murder or treason is warranting enough to be punishable by death. And heck, it's very hard to make even the most unrepentent, guilty murderer be put to death.

Our society does not subscribe to the idea that sex offenses need to be punished by death. And if a person is doling out their personal opinions by taking the law into their own hands, they are every bit as dangerous if not more so than the very people they are passing their personal brand of justice against.

Laws by their very nature require the logical and rational use of judgement. Letting emotions affect them opens up a pandora's box. We all feel sympathy for victims, but it's important to be sure that the laws are just and fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top