Posted on 03/17/2007 10:17:00 AM PDT by MissEdie
Just how many more children have to die before Liberals realise that the death penalty is the only answer to this problem? This week we learn of the kidnap, murder and probable sexual assault of little Christopher Barrios by a convicted sex offender. Another animal out on the streets free to rape and kill again and again thanks to Liberal policies. Almost every time we hear of a child or young man or woman going missing it turns out to be a convicted sex offender that is responsible. How much longer should we tolerate people of this kind within our society? The truth is we should not permit it for a moment longer, nor should we put them in prison populations. The simple answer is that we should kill them; all of them.
There is absolutely no reason on this earth that anyone can give for keeping them alive; not one. But the one group of people fighting to keep them on the streets, fighting to allow them to live amongst our children, fighting to keep them alive, is Liberals. Think how many lives could have been saved if we executed child molesters at the first offense? How can anyone argue that their right to be released into society after a prison term trumps our children's right to live and be free of perverted sex attacks? Liberals may like to answer that question.
Even a 25 year fixed prison term is not enough. Why should tax payers pay to feed them, give them a roof over their heads, pay for them to work out in a gym, to read books, watch cable TV, have a law library? Liberals want them to have "treatment" which we all know doesn't work, but why should tax payers pay for that also? Why should we pay for expensive monitoring systems? The simple answer is: we shouldn't. They should be executed. Dead people don't re-offend. It shoud be a quick process. If the conviction is based upon DNA or a confession and it is lock tight, then execution should come within a week of conviction. If there are appeals then a new streamlined appeals system should be created so that if it fails they are dead within a year of conviction. They should not be allowed to languish on Death Row for 20 years consuming tax payer dollars.
There really is no reasonable argument against this. Other than Liberals, who would want to argue for child molesters and against the safety of our children? Liberals are prepared to let our children die in order to let child molesters live. Liberals are for protecting sex offenders but not their victims. Isn't this always the way with Liberals? They are on the side of George Edenfield and John Couey and against Jessica Lunsford and Christopher Barrios. What a shameful position to take, but take it they do.
If things don't change soon then the regular citizens will have to protect their children from these animals and then Liberals will be wanting to put the parents in jail for protecting their children. Once again, Liberals will always jump to the defense of the criminal and leave the victim vulnerable. If you go to the sex offender website for your county and see how many of these scum there are on your streets you will be horrified. Put there by Liberals.
RIP Christopher Barrios, another child killed by Liberals.
Are Abortionists .... Child molesters?...
The Death Penalty is for murderers. As detestable as child molestation is, it should not receive the death penalty. However, molesters should receive a greater penalty than mere imprisonment, perhaps hard labor, solitary confinement, or being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" over and over.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that headline is the product of a sick mind.
I might agree with that headline if it were removed from the mindless emotionalism that renders it worthless. Perhaps the use of the word "some" might redeem it.
The expected next statement is that I am defending "child molesters". So be it.
Wrongful deaths are caused by a great number of factors. Injuries to innocent people can be the result of an unlimited number of causes, from accident to deliberate planned mass murder.
To state that "the only answer to anyone who causes the death of another should be the death penalty" would also be characterized as the product of a sick mind.
It would cover all forms of murder, as well as the killing while defending one's home and family.
Non-sensical in the extreme.
The present state of civilized criminal justice has a large component of proportionality, rightfully so.
Yes, this is true also of crimes presently categorized as "child molestation", crimes which may be real or merely suggested.
You need professional help.
To liberals it is only a different sexual orientation.
The hell these people have to go through from the prison guards and their fellow inmates is retribution enough for me."
The sheer cost of keeping a prisoner is more than enough for me to say a firing squad is only about $4 worth of bullets. Firing squad works for me.
I absolutely think these scum should never be on the streets again, and I don't want to spend any more money feeding and housing them
I agree with you 100%!! Doesn't sound harsh at all to me. Worse than harsh is what these inhuman b@%tards are continually doing to our children.
Second offense: death penalty.
No. But how to make the law? You have to draw a line somewhere. If you like it better, maybe all "sex/fondling with a minor more than two years younger than yourself" should receive the death penalty. I would definitely want there to be a deterrent to the 24-year-old guys who prey on 14-year-olds today. Or vice versa with the sexes.
Agreed about sex offenders who target children.
However, I am annoyed that all sorts of individuals who *aren't* "sex offenders who target children" are being lumped together with them. We need CLARITY of our terms.
Among others who have been classified as "sex offenders", along with "sex offenders who target children", are:
Indecent exposure
Public urination
Sexual harassment
Spousal abuse
While those are crimes, THEY ARE NOT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. So it is very wrong to put them in the same category as child molesters, child pornographers, and scum like that.
Again, when we talk about the death penalty for child molesters, be very careful that you don't "buy in" to all criminals being put in the same pot with them.
Because it would be pretty stupid to give some drunk frat boy the death penalty for peeing on the sidewalk. As it is pretty stupid to call him a "sex offender" in the first place.
The counter argument is that "what if we happen to execute an innocent man".
The answer to that is that there will be more innocent people murdered by by repeat offenders then will be executed by mistake.
Where is this true?
The disgusting reality of it is to get a monster to the firing squad - or gurney or chair or chamber - means a decade of appeals and legal gamesmnship that ultimately cost two to five times as much taxpayer money as just leaving them to rot in prison forever.
All child molesters need to be executed. Giving them long prison sentences isn't going to "cure" them, they'll just leave prison wanting to hurt kids even more. Don't give them that chance.
That is, IF they get sent to prison and held there for any period of time.
When that 14 year old dresses and acts indistinguishably from an 18 year old slut - or a 24 year old slut for that matter - and fools a drunken college boy at a party, you want the state to kill him?
In what state is that statutory rape?
"No. But how to make the law? You have to draw a line somewhere. If you like it better, maybe all "sex/fondling with a minor more than two years younger than yourself" should receive the death penalty. I would definitely want there to be a deterrent to the 24-year-old guys who prey on 14-year-olds today. Or vice versa with the sexes."
Agreed. I'm just saying the law needs to be thought out. Things that are done knee jerk, (as liberals do), tend to have unintended consequences.
Justice isn't quick or easy, which is why executions cost more than keeping offenders in prison for life.
You work with the nine year boy who has been raped by his grandfather like I have, then tell him the bastard who did that to him should live. I think not. The only ones with sick minds are the ones who want to protect scum like that.
"In what state is that statutory rape?"
Isn't the definition of statutory rape sex between an adult and a minor?
18 - Adult
17 - Minor
I don't know the law intimately, as it's something I've never contimplated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.