- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 3,928
- Reaction score
- 1,559
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Double post. Oopsy.
Last edited:
sorry cochise, but i have no tolerance for those who would do this sick shyte to a child, or for those who would 'educate' someone on how to do it. call me crazy.
there is no defending this garbage, there just isnt.Neither do I man, trust me, I'm all for putting them away. But last time I checked, that's not what we're defending. We're defending someone's right to write a book.
there is no defending this garbage, there just isnt.
No. You are not right. He who has the money walks. Everyone else is pretty much f*cked. Have you ever been around the legal system? Suburbanites go home, they have lawyers. Urban and rural folks get screwed with Public Defenders.
And strippers. They really get a bad rap!
and i have the 'right' to want to see him swing by his balls until dead...certain things should not be tolerated by society, preying on young children or 'teaching' someone how to do it is one of those things.Well, you're right. As stated before, we're not defending the contents, simply his right under the 1st amendment to write this trash.
and i have the 'right' to want to see him swing by his balls until dead...certain things should not be tolerated by society, preying on young children or 'teaching' someone how to do it is one of those things.
only if you are caughtAssault is a crime.
only if you are caught
No problem, I get that you all are not defending child molestation. My demeanor may be very much like Kev's if that's what you were actually doing.First of all, I want to thank you for your very calm and respectful demenor. It's a nice change of scenery.
This is not strictly true. A person can "incite a riot" without participating in it. Charles Manson was convicted of murders committed despite not even being at the scene of the crime.That being said, "inspire an absolutely unjustifiable action" is legal. I can inspire someone to do anything, it's not illegal to do so.
Well, we're talking about this now but I'm sure I would be equally incensed by books on how to commit terrorist acts against innocent people. I gotta tell ya though, I don't consider anyone lower than a child molester.What about the books written about how to kill and such? How to make bombs? ETC? All of those are unjustifieable actions, so where is your outrage against those?
i'd rather you not be behind me...thanks...lolThat would apply to molestation too. Wanna write a book on how to assult someone and not get caught? I'd be behind you 100%!
Even the First Amendment has limits.Well, you're right. As stated before, we're not defending the contents, simply his right under the 1st amendment to write this trash.
No problem, I get that you all are not defending child molestation. My demeanor may be very much like Kev's if that's what you were actually doing.
This is not strictly true. A person can "incite a riot" without participating in it. Charles Manson was convicted of murders committed despite not even being at the scene of the crime.
Well, we're talking about this now but I'm sure I would be equally incensed by books on how to commit terrorist acts against innocent people. I gotta tell ya though, I don't consider anyone lower than a child molester.
You think "little Emily's" going to stand up under cross exam if it's made up? Given that molesters are the ones who are in control of the situation and aren't normally going to commit their crimes where there are witnesses, what do you propose we do? Ignore allegations of molestation because the only witness is the one the perv chose to victimize? F@@@ that. If you believe our criminal justice system is the best (albeit not perfect), little Emily should get to tell her story to a jury and let the jury decide her cred.Therein lies the problem. The sheer hate for someone who touches a child makes for laws that don't fit the crime. Not to mention, with such an exponential increase in sentence length, there should also be an exponential increase in the required amount of proof before someone can be convicted, or even charged. But there isn't. You can be convicted of a henius crime like child molestation by the simple act of a child accusing you to the police. She could be coerced by a pissed off ex-gf or ex-wife and you'll be labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life, as well as be in danger for your life. Yet, you did nothing. Who are they going to believe, you, or little Emily on the stand?
Sex offenses are the only offense that you are literally guilty until proven innocent. And even if you do have the balls to go to trial after the prosecutor tells you if you do he's going to bury you and you are found innocent, your name is damaged forever. Look at that teacher who was accused of 50 counts of child molestation. People were saying to shoot her, burn her, hang her. Yet she was found not guilty of all 50 counts. And people STILL WANTED to hang her. Still said she did it.
Accusations are damaging in and of themselves.
You think "little Emily's" going to stand up under cross exam if it's made up? Given that molesters are the ones who are in control of the situation and aren't normally going to commit their crimes where there are witnesses, what do you propose we do? Ignore allegations of molestation because the only witness is the one the perv chose to victimize? F@@@ that. If you believe our criminal justice system is the best (albeit not perfect), little Emily should get to tell her story to a jury and let the jury decide her cred.
Now you're the one appealing to emotion. You didn't answer my question. Are you saying that as long as a molester is good about making sure the only evidence of his crime is the victims saying it happened, he should get away with it without even potentially facing charges?You obviously have no clue of what you speak.
Here is a quick rundown of what happens:
1. A false accusation is made against the guy. Molestation, rape, whatever.
2. He is arrested and charged with said crime.
3. He is offered a plea deal to plea down to a lesser charge to do less time in prison. If he refuses, he will go to trial.
4. If he is in a trial, good luck finding 12 people who won't sympathize with little Emily when shes crying up on the stand.
5. If he is found guilty, he does 5-10 times more time in prison than if he had pled out.
6. If and when he is released from prison, he can't find a job, find a place to live, he loses his family, friends etc.
Think this doesn't happen? Think again.
Yes, a verbal allegation is absolutely enough if it convinces a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guy's guilt. I have zero problem with that. Now, you still haven't answered my question...After all, there is no physical evidence proving that a molestation happened. So you're willing to put someone away forever and ruin their lives from nothing more than a verbal accusation?
Moderator's Warning: |
OK. I have given several infractions. Instead of sending this flamefest of a thread to the Basement, I am closing it. I understand this is a highly charged issue, but if you can't discuss it without calling each other names, you can't discuss it. |