Posted on 08/24/2002 5:47:01 AM PDT by GailA
There's a problem, though. According to this government study a bit over half of these people had prior convictions. This means that even if all offenders simply vanished upon conviction, you've only cut the offense rate, the number of victims, in half. "Bogus proposals"? I don't think so.
Now if we could just throw the constitution away and lock up those who are a threat to society before they offend, well, then, yes, our kids might be safe from these predators. I'm sure President Hillary would just love to have the power to lock up those deemed a threat to society...
Agreed, in general. But the level of the safeguards unfortunately means that some who probably ought to be locked away aren't, in order to avoid locking up those who don't. I don't think psychiatry is that discerning.
If Hillary becomes president, er, dictator, we'll have a lot more to be concerned about than just this issue.
Amen.
Only cutting the offense rate in half? Even preventing one instance of child molestation would be wonderful! Once someone has committed this crime, they should never see the light of day again. And what on earth are you talking about "locking up people before they commit a crime"? That's an absurd statement and has nothing to do with what I said.
And, yes, Prez Bush's proposals are bogus. We don't need the national nanny telling us to watch our children carefully. Duh.
Um. How soon after conviction?
I keep thinking of an acquaintance I met some years ago: Pastor Roby Roberson of Wenatchee, WA. He was one of some dozens of people accused and convicted of child rape -- only to be freed, one by one, as their cases were overturned. It was quite a stink in the press here a few years ago.
I think they are all out now. Alive.
I understand.
I am a doctor, and neither I nor any of my colleagues have any particular professional qualifications to bring to bear on this problem.
It is wrong, in an attempt to be "compassionate", to call something a disease which isn't-because it implies that the tools we use to deal with disease may work-and they won't.
Kill 'em, or segregate them for life-but don't call on medicine to do the impossible.
You missed the point.
Let us say there are, and you are informed of this, 100 threats to your children out there, threats your children cannot see. You can see 61 of them, and let us say you have removed all 61 that you see, so that you don't see any threats any more.
Do you think your children are safe now?
Really?
I don't, because there are 39 threats remaining, threats that you can't see. Not only are you are a fool if you think they are safe, but your children will pay the price for your folly.
It shouldn't be too hard to understand that as long as you have X%, where X is any number greater than zero, of those convicted every year who were previously unknown to the authorities, that your children are not safe. If you have 100,000 convicted every year, and only 1% are first-timers, you've 1000 sex offenders who had not been previously detected.
And what on earth are you talking about "locking up people before they commit a crime"? That's an absurd statement and has nothing to do with what I said.
Sure it does. You want your children to be absolutely safe, right? That means you have to seek out the 39 remaining threats and remove them. Every year you have to seek out those 1000 about-to-be first-timer sex offenders, about to commit a crime on your children, and put them away.
Of course, you might put away some that aren't a threat in the process, but aren't your children worth it...? You do want them to be absolutely safe, right?
Or do you prefer that your children live amongst threats to their very lives?
And, yes, Prez Bush's proposals are bogus. We don't need the national nanny telling us to watch our children carefully. Duh.
It seems we have people who need to be told, because when they don't see a threat they think that none exists.
Like DUI laws, Sex offense laws against children are NOT strong enough.
To often the most heinous sex acts committed against children are called CHILD MOLESTATION which brings to mind fondling or other types of touching. When the actual termonology should be CHILD RAPE.
Then if the perps behave for a year (don't get caught again) they can ask for their records to be expunged. Now the new trick is to get a name change..your old name is on the sex offender registry BUT your new name isn't...good way to beat the back ground checks.
What a sad story to have! I am sorry for you, as well as him. But he sounds like the kind of man who through it all was praying for those same neighbors too.
We just had a disgusting case of this here. The guy got 8 months(12?) for a premeditated rape of a 19-year-old (with the mental capacity of 5).
GailA, have you checked up on the laws lately? A year or two ago there was a federal bill that mandated permanent records (or lose federal funding). And in this state at least there are now provisions regarding name changes.
That is for the courts to decide, not me.
FWIW, my opinion on implementing the death penalty is that while we can convict based on "beyond a reasonable doubt", we should not impose death unless it is certain beyond all doubt. That would involve either a confession (not coerced), or incontrovertible physical evidence. There should be sufficient time to allow for legitimate appeals, but death row should not be home for those convicted and sentenced for decades on end.
BTW, according to the articles you linked, Pastor Robertson was acquitted of the charges in his trial, so he never faced the threat of the death penalty.
What I am suggesting is very much like your proposal to segregate them for life, only in an institution similar to what used to be called insane asylums. I am not asking the medical profession to offer some kind of cure, because I agree with you that this is not a disease. It would be simply a place to hold them safely away from the rest of us.
Duration of Requirement: 10 years minimum; may then petition for relief from registration unless it is a lifetime offense: aggravated rape, rape, aggravated sexual battery, rape of a child, or criminal attempt to commit any of the above offenses. ...
I was pretty sure of this because I review new legislation filed every winter in this state, and our "permanent registration bill" mentioned the federal monies that would be withdrawn from the state if the provision for lifetime registration were not enacted. (IMHO the mechanism by which the states were pressured here is worrisome, however good the goal.)
I have to say, very well reasoned. Thank you. (But the wife tells me that not even confessions are reliable, that there is a certain disorder that leads people to confess to crimes they did not commit.)
I did some readings on the topic some years ago. it was interesting -- the biggest threat to the death penalty is... the death penalty. It seems that at least many of the revocations of the death penalty came from the subsequent discovery that an innocent man was executed.
This is so silly. Of course there is nothing as absolute safety. However, if convicted sex offenders were kept in jail for life, it would certainly decrease the number of offenses, and that is, as Martha says, a good thing. What I said has nothing to do with absolute safety or with locking up everyone just to make sure. Your arguments are sophomoric. And if you want Prez Bush or any other government official telling you how to manage your life and family, be my guest. Personally, I expect government to do what it's supposed to do, protect citizens' lives and property as much as possible, and I'll do the rest myself.
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.