Should sex offenders be imprisoned for life?

Justice Kavanaugh is accused of having briefly fondled or groped a teenager without her consent when he was a teenager. Numerous Democrats in Congress have declared him guilty, though the accuser refused to sign a sworn statement, refused to meet with any investigators and forgot every detail that might constitute evidence. There is no allegation of rape or attempted rape.

There is no allegation by anyone that as an adult he has conducted himself other than perfectly towards females - and females who dated him have stated he conducted himself fully properly.

That set aside and assuming he did it for the sake of discussion, it is now the Democratic Party's position that no male regardless of age who commits any form of a sexual offense can ever change, but will be always be a woman-hater and sexual predator. If they are correct, any man who commit ANY fashion of sexual offense no matter his age or seriousness can NEVER be reformed. Accordingly, any man who commits any assault of any sexual nature MUST be imprisoned for life - unless executed of course.

Do you agree?

joko104 said:

Justice Kavanaugh is accused of having briefly fondled or groped a teenager without her consent when he was a teenager. Numerous Democrats in Congress have declared him guilty, though the accuser refused to sign a sworn statement, refused to meet with any investigators and forgot every detail that might constitute evidence. There is no allegation of rape or attempted rape.

There is no allegation by anyone that as an adult he has conducted himself other than perfectly towards females - and females who dated him have stated he conducted himself fully properly.

That set aside and assuming he did it for the sake of discussion, it is now the Democratic Party's position that no male regardless of age who commits any form of a sexual offense can ever change, but will be always be a woman-hater and sexual predator. If they are correct, any man who commit ANY fashion of sexual offense no matter his age or seriousness can NEVER be reformed. Accordingly, any man who commits any assault of any sexual nature MUST be imprisoned for life - unless executed of course.

Do you agree?

Click to expand...

Note - Brett hasn't even been charged with a crime.... he never will be. The Democrats goal for him is to not get on the Supreme Court. Justice in regards to the "victims" is not really a concern for liberals or Democrats. If Brett withdraws his name, that's all they care about.

joko104 said:

Justice Kavanaugh is accused of having briefly fondled or groped a teenager without her consent when he was a teenager. Numerous Democrats in Congress have declared him guilty, though the accuser refused to sign a sworn statement, refused to meet with any investigators and forgot every detail that might constitute evidence. There is no allegation of rape or attempted rape.

Click to expand...

Actually, he's now accused of much more than groping a teenager. He was at first accused of pinning her down, covering her mouth, groping and fondling, grinding against her and trying to remove her clothes until she finally managed to escape. Another woman is claiming that he thrust his dick in her face while she was severely inebriated against her will. It's coming out now that there are accusations that he joined in activities involving giving girls alcohol and drugs so that multiple guys could line up and have sex with them while they are inebriated. You might not believe their claims, but you shouldn't lie and suggest that the accusations are simply that he grabbed a tit without asking and then walked away. When you have to lie so obviously to prove a point it speaks volumes about what you actually have to say on the matter. Also, she is calling for an FBI investigation. That's very different than "refused to meet with any investigators". She wants it investigated by non-partisan professionals. Not who ever Grassley has dug up when he is on a tear to get this guy nominated by any means necessary. Huge difference.

joko104 said:

There is no allegation by anyone that as an adult he has conducted himself other than perfectly towards females - and females who dated him have stated he conducted himself fully properly.

Click to expand...

Means absolutely nothing, but ok.

joko104 said:

That set aside and assuming he did it for the sake of discussion, it is now the Democratic Party's position that no male regardless of age who commits any form of a sexual offense can ever change, but will be always be a woman-hater and sexual predator. If they are correct, any man who commit ANY fashion of sexual offense no matter his age or seriousness can NEVER be reformed. Accordingly, any man who commits any assault of any sexual nature MUST be imprisoned for life - unless executed of course.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that someone can't change. Merely that when judging the truth and reality, that it's important to actually discuss the truth and reality. It's entirely possible that he did some bad things as a teenager and has since realized that's not how someone should act. I know I did stuff as a teen that I'd never do now and regret it (though I never tried to force myself on anyone). But even if he has changed completely, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen and it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be factored in when judging someone for an office in which you must meet only the highest of standards. Also, no one is saying that someone who did a stupid thing while a teen should be imprisoned for life. But being in prison is different than being appointed to a lifetime role to one of the most respected institutions in the country.

Holy **** dude nobody is talking about sending Brett Kavanaugh to jail.

joko104 said:

Justice Kavanaugh is accused of having briefly fondled or groped a teenager without her consent when he was a teenager. Numerous Democrats in Congress have declared him guilty, though the accuser refused to sign a sworn statement, refused to meet with any investigators and forgot every detail that might constitute evidence. There is no allegation of rape or attempted rape.

There is no allegation by anyone that as an adult he has conducted himself other than perfectly towards females - and females who dated him have stated he conducted himself fully properly.

That set aside and assuming he did it for the sake of discussion, it is now the Democratic Party's position that no male regardless of age who commits any form of a sexual offense can ever change, but will be always be a woman-hater and sexual predator. If they are correct, any man who commit ANY fashion of sexual offense no matter his age or seriousness can NEVER be reformed. Accordingly, any man who commits any assault of any sexual nature MUST be imprisoned for life - unless executed of course.

Do you agree?

Click to expand...

I agree you've constructed a giant, really huge, massive straw man and are beating the ever loving crap out of this thing of your own creation.

I think a person who is going to be put on the supreme court is held to a bit higher of a standard. It also sounds like in the OP that you have accepted that the incident did happen and you are now just arguing that it shouldn't matter. Progress. Baby steps. But you will get there.

joko104 said:

Justice Kavanaugh is accused of having briefly fondled or groped a teenager without her consent when he was a teenager. Numerous Democrats in Congress have declared him guilty, though the accuser refused to sign a sworn statement, refused to meet with any investigators and forgot every detail that might constitute evidence. There is no allegation of rape or attempted rape.

There is no allegation by anyone that as an adult he has conducted himself other than perfectly towards females - and females who dated him have stated he conducted himself fully properly.

That set aside and assuming he did it for the sake of discussion, it is now the Democratic Party's position that no male regardless of age who commits any form of a sexual offense can ever change, but will be always be a woman-hater and sexual predator. If they are correct, any man who commit ANY fashion of sexual offense no matter his age or seriousness can NEVER be reformed. Accordingly, any man who commits any assault of any sexual nature MUST be imprisoned for life - unless executed of course.

Do you agree?

Click to expand...

Ermagherd, you lay it on thick, don't ya bud....whew!

roughdraft274 said:

It's coming out now that there are accusations that he joined in activities involving giving girls alcohol and drugs so that multiple guys could line up and have sex with them while they are inebriated.

Click to expand...

Link to that claim.

Kreton said:

I think a person who is going to be put on the supreme court is held to a bit higher of a standard. It also sounds like in the OP that you have accepted that the incident did happen and you are now just arguing that it shouldn't matter. Progress. Baby steps. But you will get there.

Click to expand...

It sounds like two options are one more than you can consider on topics.

I do not believe Dr. Ford and think it is trivial and irrelevant to the question of a SCOTUS appointment.

roughdraft274 said:

Also, no one is saying that someone who did a stupid thing while a teen should be imprisoned for life. But being in prison is different than being appointed to a lifetime role to one of the most respected institutions in the country.

Click to expand...

What is the difference? If he is forever a sexual predator, why should he be allowed to be on the street? Its ok to have known perpetual sexual predators among us provided they are not on the Supreme Court? How bizarre a viewpoint is that?

joko104 said:

Link to that claim.

Click to expand...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2018/09/24/avenatti-tweets-n2521963
Want to reply to the rest of my post?

joko104 said:

Link to that claim.

Click to expand...

Never mind. I found it. It is Avenati the attention whore trying to get into this claiming that he has information that someone saw Kavanaugh seeing other young men engaged in train sex and asserting those other men must have drugged those women.

Basically, Avenati is claiming that he has someone who claims to know that Kavanaugh has watched his clients in abuse porn movies. :lamo

StillBallin75 said:

Holy **** dude nobody is talking about sending Brett Kavanaugh to jail.

Click to expand...

Then what’s the point of accusing him of a crime? I can’t really see being assaulted, making a public complaint, and the saying I did not want my attacker arrested or convicted. Please explain how that’s rational?

1. Nobody is talking about sending Kavanaugh to prison for life.

2. I do not think that all sexual abuse is created evil.

3. Yes, I would send a rapist or child molester to prison indefinitely. I do not care if they can change.

4. I don't consider a teen groping another teen to be 'child molestation'.

5. I do think that groping someone without consent is a form of sexual assault.

6. I do hold SCOTUS appointees to a higher standard. I'm alarmed by a potential justice that may be accustomed to getting away with bad behavior, and doubly alarmed that this one seems to have been picked based on his willingness to excuse the president misconduct.

7. We really have too many threads on this ****.

roughdraft274 said:

Actually, he's now accused of much more than groping a teenager. He was at first accused of pinning her down, covering her mouth, groping and fondling, grinding against her and trying to remove her clothes until she finally managed to escape. Another woman is claiming that he thrust his dick in her face while she was severely inebriated against her will. It's coming out now that there are accusations that he joined in activities involving giving girls alcohol and drugs so that multiple guys could line up and have sex with them while they are inebriated. You might not believe their claims, but you shouldn't lie and suggest that the accusations are simply that he grabbed a tit without asking and then walked away. When you have to lie so obviously to prove a point it speaks volumes about what you actually have to say on the matter. Also, she is calling for an FBI investigation. That's very different than "refused to meet with any investigators". She wants it investigated by non-partisan professionals. Not who ever Grassley has dug up when he is on a tear to get this guy nominated by any means necessary. Huge difference.

Means absolutely nothing, but ok.



No one is saying that someone can't change. Merely that when judging the truth and reality, that it's important to actually discuss the truth and reality. It's entirely possible that he did some bad things as a teenager and has since realized that's not how someone should act. I know I did stuff as a teen that I'd never do now and regret it (though I never tried to force myself on anyone). But even if he has changed completely, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen and it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be factored in when judging someone for an office in which you must meet only the highest of standards. Also, no one is saying that someone who did a stupid thing while a teen should be imprisoned for life. But being in prison is different than being appointed to a lifetime role to one of the most respected institutions in the country.

Click to expand...

Since you asked that I reply to the rest of your post, women he dated and women he was often around claiming that he treated them just fine is 100% relevant as exs often are not kind. It tells of his standard of conduct - which is a fact admissible in ANY court, civil or criminal, and criminal courts have THE strictest standards as to what is allowed into evidence.

joko104 said:

What is the difference? If he is forever a sexual predator, why should he be allowed to be on the street? Its ok to have known perpetual sexual predators among us provided they are not on the Supreme Court? How bizarre a viewpoint is that?

Click to expand...

You're twisting the entire argument. Again.

Like I said, no one is suggesting that if you do something stupid as a teen you must stay in prison for life. But even if you get out of prison, what you did may still be considered when making judgements about you. In this case, what's being suggested is that someone who is guilty of those types of things might not reflect the type of judgement you want from a supreme court justice. But once again, this has nothing to do with staying in jail your entire life. You are acting as though that's what people are arguing for. It's not. Quit being so dishonest.

DH Kirkwood said:

6. I do hold SCOTUS appointees to a higher standard. I'm alarmed by a potential justice that may be accustomed to getting away with bad behavior, and doubly alarmed that this one seems to have been picked based on his willingness to excuse the president misconduct.

Click to expand...

Maybe humans should not be allowed to serve on the SCOTUS.

To the contrary, anyone who lived the perfect life, which in youth means a very reclusive life, is NOT someone I would want to sit as judge on any bench. I would not want a judge whose view of life is that anyone who is less than of perfect behavior should be treated as an evil, immoral person likely guilty of anything she or he is accused of.

The standard to judge Kavanaugh is whether he has the experience, education and skill to be on the SCOTUS, not whether he was the perfect behavior child.

One time the school sent home a questionaire for all 1st graders for one of my children. It asked questions like:
1. At what age did you child stop wetting the bed?
2. When did you child stop wearing a diaper?
3. Has your child ever stolen anything like coins or candy?
4. Has your child ever hit another child?
5. Has your child ever thrown a tantrum?
6. Has your child ever acted defiant?

A total of 50 questions.

We refused to answer and NOW everyone can see why. The school assured us it was fully confidential. In the appropriately polite language we told them to go to hell, we'll never fill it out. Decades from now that could be used against our child.

Fortunately, we were extreme helicopter parents grinding in to our child whatever they do and don't do, whatever the learn or do not learn, whatever resume' and experience they do and don't obtain in their youth will affect their entire adult lives. One shoplifting conviction, one bad report card, one police report, anything negative could have devastating effect on the rest of their lives, while positives will benefit them lifelong.

This matter concerning Kavanaugh is exactly why we did and do so. "Have fun in your youth because you are only young once" had ruined many people's lives as adults.

joko104 said:

Maybe humans should not be allowed to serve on the SCOTUS.

To the contrary, anyone who lived the perfect life, which in youth means a very reclusive life, is NOT someone I would want to sit as judge on any bench. I would not want a judge whose view of life is that anyone who is less than of perfect behavior should be treated as an evil, immoral person likely guilty of anything she or he is accused of.

The standard to judge Kavanaugh is whether he has the experience, education and skill to be on the SCOTUS, not whether he was the perfect behavior child.

Click to expand...

I'm not a perfect human being, Joko, and I've acted out in anger back when I was in high-school, but I never tried to rape anyone. Your 'not a perfect human being' argument would resonate with me more if we were talking about a DUI, or something along those lines. It does not work for me when it comes to rape.

There are plenty of people with the education and judicial experience to be appointed to SCOTUS. If, however, Kavanaugh did, indeed, do what he is being accused of, has gone all of these years without having answered for it, and his nomination was partially influenced by what he may legally do for our president, then I would consider that to be a red flag.

This forum must have the largest collection of sinless perfect people on earth. A total of maybe 5 people have admitted to being less than perfect - and they hide what that imperfection was with maybe 2 exceptions. Maybe most white people are perfect behavior at all times from birth and virtually all misconduct therefore must be by non-whites.

pinqy said:

Then what’s the point of accusing him of a crime? I can’t really see being assaulted, making a public complaint, and the saying I did not want my attacker arrested or convicted. Please explain how that’s rational?

Click to expand...

Because there are two questions here.

1) Should this guy get a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the U.S.? Really, the question is whether this alleged act, which he's now lying about under oath, is relevant to deciding about this lifetime appointment? He has no right to this job - it's a privilege, reserved to a tiny few, the hopefully best of the best, both their legal ability and their character. It's what we should expect from someone in this position - that their character and honesty are impeccable so that their decisions, binding on ALL OF US, are accepted at least as faithfully arrived at.

2) Should this guy get charged and imprisoned for a crime he's alleged to have committed 35 years ago?

I'm not aware of Jones saying she does NOT want him charged if authorities believe they have the evidence for a conviction, but surely you can see those are two really different standards. My goodness, someone's social media postings can and do disqualify individuals from many jobs, or get them summarily fired from many jobs, a lot less prestigious and powerful than the U.S. Supreme Court, often when there is not even a HINT that those postings are illegal in any way.

joko104 said:

This forum must have the largest collection of sinless perfect people on earth.

Click to expand...

Nope, we just don't have that many rapists.

DH Kirkwood said:

I'm not a perfect human being, Joko, and I've acted out in anger back when I was in high-school, but I never tried to rape anyone. Your 'not a perfect human being' argument would resonate with me more if we were talking about a DUI, or something along those lines. It does not work for me when it comes to rape.

There are plenty of people with the education and judicial experience to be appointed to SCOTUS. If, however, Kavanaugh did, indeed, do what he is being accused of, has gone all of these years without having answered for it, and his nomination was partially influenced by what he may legally do for our president, then I would consider that to be a red flag.

Click to expand...

If your "acting out in anger" means violently physically assaulting someone in an injurious way, that was more serious than what Kavanaugh is accused of as she was not hit, kicked or physically harmed.

Where do you get rape out of this? There is not ONE detail she stated that says it was "rape." Are you saying you never touched a girl's breast but you did not have sex with her? Any teenager who touched a girl's breast without first asking "may I..." was trying to rape her?

Otherwise, yes I do understand the opposition to Kavanaugh and seizing on this is really about Trump and a tactical personal attack against Kavanaugh for that reason. I've often noted those who opposed Kavanaugh otherwise now call him a rapist, and those who support Kavanaugh's appointment call her a liar.

joko104 said:

Maybe humans should not be allowed to serve on the SCOTUS.

To the contrary, anyone who lived the perfect life, which in youth means a very reclusive life, is NOT someone I would want to sit as judge on any bench. I would not want a judge whose view of life is that anyone who is less than of perfect behavior should be treated as an evil, immoral person likely guilty of anything she or he is accused of.

The standard to judge Kavanaugh is whether he has the experience, education and skill to be on the SCOTUS, not whether he was the perfect behavior child.

Click to expand...

Exactly! In fact, I think you should shoot for the biggest bastards you can find (you're doing a fantastic job with Trump, but why stop there, there's so much more you can accomplish). I mean, how is anyone fit to judge someone for a crime, unless they've at least experienced that crime themselves? I want murderers judging murderers, I want thieves judging thieves, I want bestiality enthusiasts judging folks charged with bestiality, and I want rapists judging rapists. That makes the most sense.

So...go to your jails, find the folks that really understand the law from the criminal's side, so they get a fair shake. I'm sure society will be much better. You're totally on to something, here, bud, count me in! :lol:

DH Kirkwood said:

Nope, we just don't have that many rapists.

Click to expand...

How do you know that? But what does "rapist" have to do with anything of this thread?