• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely

megaprogman said:
I think this is the wrong way to go about this. If jail is not sufficient to rehabilitate these folks, than they probably need to be in a psychiatric facility instead.
Click to expand...
Eh? Why waste time trying to "rehabilitate" someone determined to sexually abuse young children?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Because it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more humane to rehabilitate someone than it would be to incarcerate them indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Cheaper? If so, then whatever. Humane? I could care less about treating someone well who abuses young children for sick jollies, but that's just me.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Eh? Why waste time trying to "rehabilitate" someone determined to sexually abuse young children?
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that the people being affected by this are "determined to sexually abuse young children" any more than the average robber/rapist is determined to rob or rape?

Cheaper? If so, then whatever. Humane? I could care less about treating someone well who abuses young children for sick jollies, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

I don't like murderers, muggers or drunk drivers either, but that doesn't mean we should just lock them all up forever and throw away the keys.
 
Last edited:
Toothpicvic said:
Cheaper? If so, then whatever. Humane? I could care less about treating someone well who abuses young children for sick jollies, but that's just me.
Click to expand...

There are quite a lot of ways to become a sex offender without abusing young children.

At any rate, the system sometimes makes mistakes. It is for this reason that we must ensure that even those who are the most despised for the nature of what they are accused of doing are treated humanely.
 
RightinNYC said:
What makes you assume that the people being affected by this are "determined to sexually abuse young children" any more than the average robber/rapist is determined to rob or rape?



I don't like murderers, muggers or drunk drivers either, but that doesn't mean we should just lock them all up forever and throw away the keys.
Click to expand...
I just believe that anyone would would molest a young child shouldn't be given the opportunity to be let out again. To me it doesn't matter if they can be rehabilited or not - it'd be too risky. Especially since child molestation is a "thrill crime" - people who do that get pleasue from the crime itself. Crimes like mugging and robbing usually have a normal motive (ex. the person needs money). "Thrill killers/rapists" are too risky to be given the chance to be let out IMO.
 
Toothpicvic said:
I just believe that anyone would would molest a young child shouldn't be given the opportunity to be let out again. To me it doesn't matter if they can be rehabilited or not - it'd be too risky. Especially since child molestation is a "thrill crime" - people who do that get pleasue from the crime itself. Crimes like mugging and robbing usually have a normal motive (ex. the person needs money). "Thrill killers/rapists" are too risky to be given the chance to be let out IMO.
Click to expand...

If they shouldn't be let out again, then that should be determined in the courtroom, not by the federal government. If convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced, then that is the time to determine their punishment. The Feds have no business deciding who should stay in jail beyond their term, without due process. This is a bunch of fascist non-sense, and you are eating it right up. You know why? Because you hate sex offenders. We all do. But don't let that blind you to what is really happening here.

And anyway, the term "sex offender" is abused these days. You can't even piss in an alley without being called a sex offender in some places.
 
Toothpicvic said:
I just believe that anyone would would molest a young child shouldn't be given the opportunity to be let out again.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think, the way to go about doing that is to get the legislature to enact harsher sentences for child molestation.

To me it doesn't matter if they can be rehabilited or not - it'd be too risky. Especially since child molestation is a "thrill crime" - people who do that get pleasue from the crime itself. Crimes like mugging and robbing usually have a normal motive (ex. the person needs money). "Thrill killers/rapists" are too risky to be given the chance to be let out IMO.
Click to expand...

If by "risky" you mean "likely to reoffend," that's actually completely untrue. Look at the recidivism statistics posted earlier - sex offenders are less "risky" than the average criminal.
 
megaprogman said:
I think this is the wrong way to go about this. If jail is not sufficient to rehabilitate these folks, than they probably need to be in a psychiatric facility instead.
Click to expand...
To some degree I would agree but, if the individual is caught and convicted with a smoking gun so to speak I rather see a hangman's noose around the neck of a child rapist or murderer I have no interest in keeping these monsters alive. That said, if these individuals have a lesser offense and convicted I would agree with you but, it is said that these individuals can not be cured for the most part the jury I believe is still out on this(scientific studies that is).
 
deltabtry said:
To some degree I would agree but, if the individual is caught and convicted with a smoking gun so to speak I rather see a hangman's noose around the neck of a child rapist or murderer I have no interest in keeping these monsters alive. That said, if these individuals have a lesser offense and convicted I would agree with you but, it is said that these individuals can not be cured for the most part the jury I believe is still out on this(scientific studies that is).
Click to expand...

So you believe in murder for a crime of rape? Wow, I think that's a bit extreme. Life in prison without parole, but kill someone when no one else was killed? I will never support that. Why? Because a woman could LOVE brutal sex. There are women who like that. So you're having brutal sex with her, she wants to be beaten and such, you do your deed inside of her, and two hours later she cries rape. Well guess what? The smoking gun is there. Your DNA will be found inside her. The physical evidence is that what happened was brutal. Lots of tissue damage. You think you deserve to be killed for that? What if you're 17 and your girlfriend is 15, and you've been dating for several years. She decides you pissed her off and she cries rape. At that point, you would be a CHILD RAPIST. Think about it, and get back to me. Who you think is gonna believe you when you say she wanted it? Its her word against yours. And it doesn't even have to be brutal, she could have consensual sex and then cry rape. Again, who would a jury believe, you, or this poor girl crying up on the stand saying how she is scared to even be in the same room with you? You need to really get educated on this stuff man.

It's not about "curing" someone. You can't "therapy" a straight person gay just like you can't "therapy" a pedophile not to be. But just like just about every gay male out there, they aren't out ass screwing in public, they learn to control themselves and that's what pedophiles must learn to do. Now a pedophile and a child molester are not the same thing. It's been proven time and time again that a lot of "child molesters" actually test zero sexual attraction to kids, so that isn't a pedophile. That's a freak, but not a pedo. So many molestations occur and aren't sexual at all. That's why castration rarely helps. The attraction, if it's there, is in the mind, not the penis. It's an act of power, not sex. Therapy involves teaching a sex offender (I will not say pedophile or rapist because by no means do all sex offenders fall under those categories) how to avoid the situation that got them into trouble in the first place. If they find trouble when they drink, then they are taught to stay away from the bottle. If they were abused as children and are lashing out at kids in anger, they are encouraged to get counseling regarding those issues. If a spouse cheated on them and they lash out by raping women, they are taught how to deal with that anger.

Stats definitely show that offenders who've been through SOTP are less like to reoffend than those who haven't. The jury isn't still out, its definitely in.

Nobody can be cured if indeed they are a true to god pedophile. But it's not about curing, because there are pedophiles out there you will never know about because most never act out on their desires. So if most can hold back, we can teach the rest to as well.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
So you believe in murder for a crime of rape? Wow, I think that's a bit extreme. Life in prison without parole, but kill someone when no one else was killed? I will never support that. Why? Because a woman could LOVE brutal sex. There are women who like that. So you're having brutal sex with her, she wants to be beaten and such, you do your deed inside of her, and two hours later she cries rape. Well guess what? The smoking gun is there. Your DNA will be found inside her. The physical evidence is that what happened was brutal. Lots of tissue damage. You think you deserve to be killed for that? Think about it, and get back to me. Who you think is gonna believe you when you say she wanted it? Its her word against yours. And it doesn't even have to be brutal, she could have consensual sex and then cry rape. Again, who would a jury believe, you, or this poor lady crying up on the stand saying how she is scared to even be in the same room with you? You need to really get educated on this stuff man.

It's not about "curing" someone. You can't "therapy" a straight person gay just like you can't "therapy" a pedophile not to be. But just like just about every gay male out there, they aren't out ass screwing in public, they learn to control themselves and that's what pedophiles must learn to do. Now a pedophile and a child molester are not the same thing. It's been proven time and time again that a lot of "child molesters" actually test zero sexual attraction to kids, so that isn't a pedophile. That's a freak, but not a pedo. So many molestations occur and aren't sexual at all. That's why castration rarely helps. The attraction, if it's there, is in the mind, not the penis. It's an act of power, not sex. Therapy involves teaching a sex offender (I will not say pedophile or rapist because by no means do all sex offenders fall under those categories) how to avoid the situation that got them into trouble in the first place. If they find trouble when they drink, then they are taught to stay away from the bottle. If they were abused as children and are lashing out at kids in anger, they are encouraged to get counseling regarding those issues. If a spouse cheated on them and they lash out by raping women, they are taught how to deal with that anger.

Stats definitely show that offenders who've been through SOTP are less like to reoffend than those who haven't. The jury isn't still out, its definitely in.

Nobody can be cured if indeed they are a true to god pedophile. But it's about curing, because there are pedophiles out there you will never know about because most never act out on their desires. So if most can hold back, we can teach the rest to as well.
Click to expand...
Strictly talking about child rape or murder in the brutal sense or by strangers, oh BTW this would also include kidnapping of children..by strangers.
 
deltabtry said:
Strictly talking about child rape or murder in the brutal sense or by strangers, oh BTW this would also include kidnapping of children..by strangers.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, so you're talking about something that almost never happens as most child disappearances turn out to be runaways, family abductions, lost children, etc.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Oh ok, so you're talking about something that almost never happens as most child disappearances turn out to be runaways, family abductions, lost children, etc.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but on the rare occasions when heinous acts such as i stated do occur then i would assume you agree?
 
Do I agree with what? Murder when murder wasn't committed? Absolutely not. Because there is no way to be absolutely certain of what happened without it being caught on camera. Since there is no guarentee of accuracy of the court system and death is final, I will NEVER support the death penalty in a case where a death didn't result from the crime. Life in prison, yes, but death, no.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Do I agree with what? Murder when murder wasn't committed? Absolutely not. Because there is no way to be absolutely certain of what happened without it being caught on camera. Since there is no guarentee of accuracy of the court system and death is final, I will NEVER support the death penalty in a case where a death didn't result from the crime. Life in prison, yes, but death, no.
Click to expand...
and that would be your right not to support it, which BTW is fine with me and on the other hand I do support the death penalty for such acts as I stated, whether I am supported or not. Oh BTW I would defend your right and your beliefs till the end, yet I don't expect anything in return for what I believe. I understand my beliefs are loathsome so some, non the less my resolve and beliefs are set.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
What makes you assume that the people being affected by this are "determined to sexually abuse young children" any more than the average robber/rapist is determined to rob or rape?



I don't like murderers, muggers or drunk drivers either, but that doesn't mean we should just lock them all up forever and throw away the keys.
Click to expand...

I agree.
I mean, maybe we should, but if so, we should make it an across the board policy, not make it applicable to only one type of crime; not even the worst type, either.
One can hardly argue that sex offenders are more dangerous than murderers.
This whole thing reeks of pandering.
 
RightinNYC said:
If that's what you think, the way to go about doing that is to get the legislature to enact harsher sentences for child molestation.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

I think child molesters and rapists (of any kind) should be automatically sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole (depending on the nature of the crime) after a minimum of fifteen years. I also think a necessary condition of their parole should be voluntarily submitting to chemical castration.
 
1069 said:
I agree.
I mean, maybe we should, but if so, we should make it an across the board policy, not make it applicable to only one type of crime; not even the worst type, either.
One can hardly argue that sex offenders are more dangerous than murderers.
This whole thing reeks of pandering.
Click to expand...
Pandering... absolutely because our government seeks power by promising to eliminate our fears of crime and the promise of crime control will also be a ace in the hole for politicians. Sad really, a simple and practical approach would be a lot more beneficial, IMO politicians that pander to the voter in this regard have as much blood on their hands as does a perp who commits a heinous act.
 
1069, how can you say "Maybe we should?" WTF is the reasoning behind the courts and sentencing process? Why not just do away with it if we're only going to use it as a "suggestion" instead of actual law?

Delta, what about Foley, the number one presser of new sex offender laws, and he himself was caught sending sexual texts to underage boys? And Jessica's dad, I forgot his name, whose daughter was molested and killed, they found child porn on his computer but never prosecuted it? He was the push behind "Jessicas law." That's a bunch of bull**** if you ask me. Talk about the bastards making these laws are as crooked as anyone affected by them.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
1069, how can you say "Maybe we should?" WTF is the reasoning behind the courts and sentencing process? Why not just do away with it if we're only going to use it as a "suggestion" instead of actual law?

Delta, what about Foley, the number one presser of new sex offender laws, and he himself was caught sending sexual texts to underage boys? And Jessica's dad, I forgot his name, whose daughter was molested and killed, they found child porn on his computer but never prosecuted it? He was the push behind "Jessicas law." That's a bunch of bull**** if you ask me. Talk about the bastards making these laws are as crooked as anyone affected by them.
Click to expand...
Far as Foley, press charges against him, and have him tried but his crime doesn't warrant the punishment I have stated previously. Jessica father if guilty of murdering his own daughter hang him, if not he would fall into the same category as Foley. Child porn and the subsidizing of it directly or indirectly should be a crime and I believe it is. Some could argue that child pornography is the first step to child molestation. As far as politicians are concerned ..they are not above the law.
 
No, he didn't kill his own daughter, but was caught with child porn. They didn't prosecute.

The issue I have with CP is what constitutes it? People taking photos of their kids playing in the bathtub have been busted for child porn. People that erroneously clicked on a spam link sent by a known friend who got a virus, bam. You can happen upon CP and not know it or want it and still go down for years for it. Is that right?

People think something hideous when they think CP, but ironically enough, most photos out there are just nudist photos. Yes there are a few hard core type pics, but they are few and far between.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
No, he didn't kill his own daughter, but was caught with child porn. They didn't prosecute.

The issue I have with CP is what constitutes it? People taking photos of their kids playing in the bathtub have been busted for child porn. People that erroneously clicked on a spam link sent by a known friend who got a virus, bam. You can happen upon CP and not know it or want it and still go down for years for it. Is that right?

People think something hideous when they think CP, but ironically enough, most photos out there are just nudist photos. Yes there are a few hard core type pics, but they are few and far between.
Click to expand...
I think common sense should play a role in this, anyone can tell whether a pic of a kid naked in a bathtub is far different than a kid conducting sexual acts on a adult. I will admit there are gray area's and those who are molesters will figure a way out to just stay above that line between child pornography and nudist pics. Although to post it on a PC for paid or unpaid public viewing is porn in my book and should be a crime but again wouldn't meet the penalties I would endorse for stronger offenses. The solicitation partially nude child photo's should be carefully regulated and adhere to very strict guidelines, now photo's of children running around the yard naked or in the tub and taken as family photo;s, this is where common sense comes in. That said, I see your point and I do understand that when governments make law it tends to go overboard.

BTW, something like the Gerber baby naked on a baby food jar isn't porn or abusive, something like this is OK, if you can get what I am trying to say.
 
BtW dontworrybehappy, any e-mail, pic or whatever that is sent to you over the net can be back traced and it can be determined who initiated the action. Jessica father should have been prosecuted and the one who caught the virus on his PC shouldn't have be prosecuted if the trace was linked to the source and he didn't initiate it. This would be simple was the e-mail outgoing or incoming, a simple detailed investigations could solve this in short order.
 
Redress said:
I agree with you, but the problem I have is that we can make the penalty under the law to be life in prison without parole. I think that is a more sensible way to handle it. Change it at the sentencing level, not just say that if the government finds they may be a threat after they have served their sentence, we can hold them. That concept scares me.
Click to expand...

That concept should scare the living daylights out of everyone.
If it were brought into being it would be fraught with difficulties and abuse.
Certainly if a Sex criminal is a repeat offender or is judged to be a possible re-offender then society must be protected somehow, but not with a life sentence in Prison.
 
jujuman13 said:
That concept should scare the living daylights out of everyone.
If it were brought into being it would be fraught with difficulties and abuse.
Certainly if a Sex criminal is a repeat offender or is judged to be a possible re-offender then society must be protected somehow, but not with a life sentence in Prison.
Click to expand...

Certainty of a sex offender reoffending can never be established. You cannot hold someone, in any fashion, nor punish them in any fashion, for something they MIGHT do.

Delta, the problem you have is that you think prosecutors have common sense. They don't. Read this.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533

Delta, absolutely not can it always be traced back to who sent an email. I can fire up an anon yahoo email address, go to a public wifi network, send pics to someone I don't like, and then call the FBI on them. But they said they were found on Jessica's dads computer, not in his email inbox. But either way, I PROMISE I could send an email anonymously if I wanted to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom