Texas Considers Executing Repeat Child Rapists

[Josephine]

I think those who have experienced certian crimes or situations do have a inside view of things that others don't. I'm not saying that my opinion is better than anyone else's...because I know it's not, it's just an opinion.
The fact is child rapists (of boys and girls alike) and molesters are being let out of jail all the time, with warnings to the public that they are a high risk to rape again. There was a rapists last summer let out in the Sarnia area and on the police website they gave a physical description, a general area where he was released and then said beware, he's likely to rape again. To me, that's a pathetic way to protect the public...to protect the children. But the authorities can't do anything because the rapists has already done their time for the single crime they were caught for.
I say lock him up until the authorities no longer consider him a "high-risk" offender.

I don't believe this is "fear mongering" either...this is the way it is. I don't believe things are being blown out of proportion...our system truly sucks! As adults, we need to be aware of the reality of this situation...we need to know the dangers and know the signs and be able to protect our children, because they are children...they can not protect themselves.

 

[the caracal kid]

Normbc9:

Man, I don't know what to do. Not the specifics anyway. But maybe a list of priorities might help:

1) Stop the person from doing more harm.

2) Determine guilt or innocence.

3) Determine punishment.

4) Attempt rehabilitation.

5) If you can reasonably believe that the rehabilitation was effective and that person has been adequately punished, release them. And monitor them.

And never forget priority #1.

Incredibly vague and open-ended, I know. But one must always start at the beginning, do they not?

Pangloss

agreed.

add to that, we learn from the guilty.

imagine past scenarios like the wolf and the town. out of fear, man killed the wolf, almost to extinction. Out of studying the wolf, he not only saved the wolf, but himself via the role the wolf plays in the ecosystem.

I am not saying rapists play a critical role to humanity. However, the role they play can not be viewed separate from the society within which they act.

Another scenario:
you do something society deems ill. At trial, you confess to your crime, and ask for lenieny. You tell the tale of how you are also the person that volunteered countless hours for many of society's worthty projects, how you lovingly raise your children, how you act as a positive role model in business, maybe you even play the faith card and say how you are a devout <insert faith here>. to this, you hope the court sees the "whole you" and not just the "criminal". Would you deny the same of those so quickly judged? If there is a price to pay for violating societys laws, should not the price come in restitution rather than retribution? A person in prison can be "put to work", using his/her "socially valuable" skills, or at a minimum being a subject for further understanding of either that which landed him/her there or for other studies.

If compassion is lacking for those you view in a most dispariging light, than you lack true compassion.

 

[Josephine]

agreed.

add to that, we learn from the guilty.

imagine past scenarios like the wolf and the town. out of fear, man killed the wolf, almost to extinction. Out of studying the wolf, he not only saved the wolf, but himself via the role the wolf plays in the ecosystem.

I am not saying rapists play a critical role to humanity. However, the role they play can not be viewed separate from the society within which they act.

Another scenario:
you do something society deems ill. At trial, you confess to your crime, and ask for lenieny. You tell the tale of how you are also the person that volunteered countless hours for many of society's worthty projects, how you lovingly raise your children, how you act as a positive role model in business, maybe you even play the faith card and say how you are a devout <insert faith here>. to this, you hope the court sees the "whole you" and not just the "criminal". Would you deny the same of those so quickly judged? If there is a price to pay for violating societys laws, should not the price come in restitution rather than retribution? A person in prison can be "put to work", using his/her "socially valuable" skills, or at a minimum being a subject for further understanding of either that which landed him/her there or for other studies.

If compassion is lacking for those you view in a most dispariging light, than you lack true compassion.

Sometimes not everyone deserves compassion...and sometimes there's just not enough to go around.

 

[Pangloss]

Sometimes not everyone deserves compassion...and sometimes there's just not enough to go around.

J - compassion does not mean blindness to another's faults or evil deeds: quite the opposite. You cannot have compassion for what you do not know. Compassion comes from the latin "compati" - "suffer with." This means that to have compassion you have to comprehend the circumstances of the other - to see past one's own selfish world view.

Before I condemn someone for their evil act (and yes Humanists can use a word like "evil" without all the spiritual stuff that normally comes with it) it behooves me to understand them. It might justify imposing an even more severe punishment.

And like love or thoughtfulness or anger, the more we practice compassion, the more we have.

Pangloss

 

[talloola]

We should love our children more than anything on this earth. I hear all kinds of rhetoric, but
nothing much about our children, only about our feelings about ourselves.
I don't agree with putting to death most criminals, who commit serious crimes, but
LEAVE OUR CHILDREN ALONE, and all of those 'creeps' should know that right up
front, announce it everywhere, that, as much as they hate and torture and rape and murder our
children, we feel a thousand times the opposite. Noone is doing that, only spouting all over the
place, how to protect the killer, not protect the victim. Once a child is dead, nothing much is
said about, EXACTLY WHAT THE MONSTER DID TO THE CHILD, just words, not
description, as we can't stand to even think about it, well, it should be described and driven
home, as it is the most horrendous crime on earth, aside from war.

 

[the caracal kid]

talloola,

where has anybody said "forget the children"?

this is about how the law proposed to deal with the perpetrator, not legislation to aid the victim.

I see a strange two-prong argument coming from the "hang-them" crowd:
there is a message on one hand of "they can not be helped, they will re-offend, we must stop them"
and there is a message of "a strong deterant will keep them in line"
these two approaches contradict each other!
if the the first camp is correct, and child rapists can not be helped (or help themselves), then it stands to reason that no deterant on the books is going to "scare" them into not acting on their desires.

Indeed, care for your children,
Indeed, care about your society.
Demonstrate how you care in how you treat those you most dispise.
That is a measure of how evolved a society (and thus its citizens) is.

 

[thomaska]

Bill Also Boosts Minimum Sentences


AUSTIN, Texas -- Backers of a Texas state Senate bill to toughen punishment for child-sex offenders said they've reached a deal that would permit the death penalty for offenders who repeatedly prey on children.

The compromise bill, which was distributed to Senate members on Tuesday, would allow the death penalty only for those twice convicted of raping a child 13 or younger. It also boosts mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of sex crimes against children.

"The goals here were pretty simple: protect children, send a message to child predators. Texas is not going to tolerate these kinds of heinous crimes," said Rich Parsons, a spokesman for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a leader of the charge for tougher penalties for child molesters.

The House passed its version of the bill, dubbed Jessica's Law, last month. It carries a minimum of 25 years to life in prison on a first conviction and possibly the death penalty for a second offense.

The law is named after Jessica Lunsford, a Florida girl who was abducted and killed. More than a dozen states have passed versions of Jessica's Law to crack down on sex offenders and Gov. Rick Perry has deemed passage of a child sex offender bill a legislative emergency.

Staffers of Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, the bill's sponsor, said the Senate could take up the compromise bill as soon as Thursday.

"The only thing we impose the death penalty for is two (penetration) aggravated sexual assaults of a child," Deuell said.

"There's a trigger in there that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the death penalty for nonmurder is unconstitutional, then everything will revert back to life without parole."

The compromise tones down sex-offender penalties initially supported by Dewhurst and Deuell. The original bill called for mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for a wide variety of sex crimes against children. A second offense for any of those could have resulted in the death penalty.

The compromise bill requires 25-year mandatory sentences only for first convictions of rape of a young child. It also requires many convicted predators to serve 75 percent of their sentences.

The proposal increases sexual assault of a child from a second- to first-degree felony, pushing minimum sentencing from two to 10 years. A second conviction could bring life without parole.

The bill also increases punishment indecency with a child and for possession of large amounts of child pornography.

Defense lawyers weren't part of most of the compromise negotiations, said David Gonzalez, of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.

He criticized the mandatory minimum sentencing and said it's unconstitutional to sentence the death penalty for nonmurder offenses.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

Good.

 

[TenPenny]

Ten Penny:

Stop and think for a moment. Is raping a child really the worst crime imaginable? It is truly horrible, but I bet you can think of worse.

If by "worst" you mean "most damaging," which might be a good place to start, then murder is worse. Here's why: it is conceivable for someone to come to terms with being raped, and go on to lead a good life, to enjoy love, eat good food, be a friend - well you get the idea.

Someone who is murdered is just dead. No coming to terms, no possibility of any future pleasures or pains, well, no future at all.

Rape is horrible - the repercussions of the attack and violation stay with the victim for a very long time, maybe all their life. But they have a life. And being alive is better than being dead. At least most of the time.

So perhaps child rape isn't the worst crime imaginable.

Pangloss

Murder is easier on the victim.

 

[Pangloss]

Talloola:

I fear yours is a reflexive, unthought reaction.

"We should love our children more than anything on this earth." Hmmm - even unto the destruction of innocents? What if I love my child more than I love justice? Then I could justify killing an innocent person just because they have something my kid wants. So, no thought went into that one, T-dog.

Hearing nothing about children, only our feelings about ourselves...sorry buddy wrong on that one too - the talk here has been pretty much reasoned, measured and thoughtful. Even the folks I disagree with are being pretty cool here.

Noone is doing that, only spouting all over the
place, how to protect the killer, not protect the victim.

Ok, well, obviously you haven't read the posts from: Josephine, Caracal, Tamarin, Normbc9, Libragirl, unclepercy, temperence and others.

The most horrendous crime on Earth, aside from war? Dealt with much, much earlier.

Your feelings come through loud and clear, perhaps you might want to find a more thoughtful way to express them.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Murder is easier on the victim.

Ok, Ten Penny -

I understand the continuation of suffering is impossible when you are dead. . .but the idea that the total cessation of life is somehow preferable than any kind of insult to the person is stretching things way too far.

Ten Penny, are you saying that child murderers should have less of a penalty than the rapists?

Or perhaps you are saying that once raped, the child should be euthanised to prevent any further suffering? Perhaps we should just give suicide kits to the children so they can decide to end it all. Maybe the best thing to do to the Holocaust survivors would have been to finish them off. Silly Ten Penny.

Tell you what - ask someone who was raped - someone who was abused over a period of years when they were a child - if they'd like you to shoot them in the head. Ask them ten years after they escaped the horror, when they've put their lives back together, after herculean effort, if they'd now like to die.

Heck, why ask, if you're so sure? Go shoot 'em now - find a support group and open fire.

I should like to point out just what you wrote:

Murder is easier on the victim.

Foolish generalization void of thought or compassion or understanding.

Pangloss

 

[talloola]

I suppose I could return the suggestion. I have expressed my concern in a way that gains
attention, as in the past, I have noticed too much passiveness. I am normally a very calm and
collected person, think very carefully before I speak. I am glad that I got some attention, and
I'm sure there are many who agree with me. So, I will leave it that.
In the case of child rapists/murderers, I can feel quite comfortable with the feeling that there would
not be any innocent persons convicted of such crimes, as they are a 'little' different that the
mainstream crime. I hold my position, and I feel comfortable doing that.
To make the focal point of my post, that I should be more thoughtful when I write , is
again, evading the point, and that is PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN, and lets put them
'before' the child rapist/murderer, and his protection.

 

[Pangloss]

I suppose I could return the suggestion. I have expressed my concern in a way that gains
attention, as in the past, I have noticed too much passiveness. I am normally a very calm and
collected person, think very carefully before I speak. I am glad that I got some attention, and
I'm sure there are many who agree with me. So, I will leave it that.
In the case of child rapists/murderers, I can feel quite comfortable with the feeling that there would
not be any innocent persons convicted of such crimes, as they are a 'little' different that the
mainstream crime. I hold my position, and I feel comfortable doing that.
To make the focal point of my post, that I should be more thoughtful when I write , is
again, evading the point, and that is PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN, and lets put them
'before' the child rapist/murderer, and his protection.

Talloola: this is getting tedious. Read priority # 1 from my post of 10:31 today. What part of "stop the person from doing more harm" is ambiguous to you?

Passiveness? Passiveness? Where? Please point it out to all of us. If you are right, I will be the first to apologize. I see no passiveness here.

Expressing your concern in a way that gains attention. So being wrong is your way of gaining attention?

Nobody innocent ever gets convicted of child abuse, including child sexual abuse? You are indeed talkin' outta your butt now.

In Nova Scotia 179 youth workers in the Shelburne Youth Centre, Truro School For Girls and other institutions were awarded a total of about $8 million dollars in compensation for being wrongly accused of sexual abuse of children.

Marie Klassen, Richard Klassen and 14 others had their convictions for ritual abuse in Martinsville, Saskatchewan overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada after the children, now adults, to a person recanted their testimony. Many said they were told what to say by Crown Prosecutors. The Martinsville 16 won about $10 million. Too bad Marie Klassen committed suicide in prison before she was exonerated. But hey, talloola, if it's to protect the kids, nothing is too sacred, right?

If you want, talloola, I can give you paragraph after paragraph, story after story of the wrongly accused and convicted.

Pangloss

BTW - could you write more stuff ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS? It makes your argument way more convincing. - p

 

[talloola]

Talloola:

I fear yours is a reflexive, unthought reaction.

You don't know me, or anything about me, so, you have no history of me to decide what
my reaction contained, and I don't know you, or anything about you, therefore I don't
accept your judgement of me. :-|

 

[Pangloss]

Talloola:

I fear yours is a reflexive, unthought reaction.

You don't know me, or anything about me, so, you have no history of me to decide what
my reaction contained, and I don't know you, or anything about you, therefore I don't
accept your judgement of me. :-|

I don't have to know you to judge the quality of thought in your responses; just as you don't have to know me. I am going by what you write - here - and not how you live the rest of your life.

The last thing I am interested in is what you do outside of this forum. Please notice that I wrote that yours is a reflexive, unthought reaction. Not that you are reflexive and unthinking - but that this one reaction of yours appears to be.

Mind you, this is a really good tactic if you want to talk about this issue emotionally and irrationally and personally, instead of rationally. I cannot help but notice that you didn't make a peep about the substance of what I wrote.

If your intent is to lash out and make a big noise - job well done. Make sense - not so much.

Pangloss

 

[talloola]

I don't have to know you to judge the quality of thought in your responses; just as you don't have to know me. I am going by what you write - here - and not how you live the rest of your life.

The last thing I am interested in is what you do outside of this forum. Please notice that I wrote that yours is a reflexive, unthought reaction. Not that you are reflexive and unthinking - but that this one reaction of yours appears to be.

Mind you, this is a really good tactic if you want to talk about this issue emotionally and irrationally and personally, instead of rationally. I cannot help but notice that you didn't make a peep about the substance of what I wrote.

If your intent is to lash out and make a big noise - job well done. Make sense - not so much.

Pangloss

Your opinion, be my guest. :lol:

 

[Pangloss]

Your opinion, be my guest. :lol:

An opinion based on only what you write. But I must ask - is that as deep as your thinking gets?

Pangloss

 

[talloola]

An opinion based on only what you write. But I must ask - is that as deep as your thinking gets?

Pangloss

You've made the point more than once, of how you are more intelligent than I, I got it
the first time.

 

[talloola]

Just continuing :
I will hold up white flag here, as you are now the victor, as you have succeeded in making me
feel inferior.
I do understand where I sit on the totem pole of intellect, no university, no highschool graduation,
stayed home with my kids, no experience of any length in the workplace, so I realize where I
stand when trying to stay above water on some subjects, so I bow out in defeat.
Maybe I'll stick to hockey chat.

 

[Pangloss]

Did you want some cheese with that w(h)ine?

You've made the point more than once, of how you are more intelligent than I, I got it
the first time.

Where, oh where, have I said that? Truthfully, I have no way of knowing how smart anyone is here - we could all be holding back, or giving it our all - nobody has any way of knowing.

Pangloss

 

[Pangloss]

Just continuing :
I will hold up white flag here, as you are now the victor, as you have succeeded in making me
feel inferior.
I do understand where I sit on the totem pole of intellect, no university, no highschool graduation,
stayed home with my kids, no experience of any length in the workplace, so I realize where I
stand when trying to stay above water on some subjects, so I bow out in defeat.
Maybe I'll stick to hockey chat.

Talloola:

June Callwood was a high school dropout. She wrote books, opened the first hospice for AIDS sufferers in the world - right here in Canada - won the order of Canada, and was a hell of a feminist and writer.

So, while your circumstances are your circumstances, whattareya going to do about it?

What the heck is wrong with being mistaken, anyway? Ok, try it this way:

Two people debate a topic. Person A is has the weaker argument, and Person B is able to prove to A that they are wrong. Who profited from that exchange?

Person B gained nothing, even though they have the stronger argument.

Person A went from having a weaker (less true) idea, to having a stronger (more true) idea.

Person A profits precisely because they lost the argument.

Notice I didn't say anyone was right or wrong. Person B's argument could be wrong - it is simply the more accurate, or stronger, or truer one.

All ideas are imperfect mirrors of the truth - the best we can hope for is that we get a little closer to the truth every day.

Pangloss