How Tough on CHild Sex Crimes

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:26 am

I got this from the Atlanta Online Paper. Thought it might be something good to talk about here at FG.

How tough on child sex crimes?

By Carlos Campos | Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 08:00 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

It sounds like a no-brainer to get tough on those who committ sex crimes against children - especially in an election year. House Majority Leader Jerry Keen has introduced legislation that would set 25-year minimum sentences for those who rape, kidnap or molest children 14 and under. But critics of the proposed law are troubled by so-called mandatory minimums. They worry it will take away discretion from judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers to negotiate appropriate punishments on a case-by-case basis. They also say it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t address treatment or rehabilitation for sex offenders. And eventually, the costs of imprisoning more people in Georgia - already with the fifth-highest prison population in the nation - will be borne by taxpayers. Are these legitimate concerns - or is Keen on the right path?

What do you FG members think?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:32 am

I will go ahead and write what I think since I started the thread and all...I think the death penalty is legitimate in this case. I know you guys might think I have gone bonkers, but those two guys (one in US, one in UK) that raped those 4 month old babies? THats just disgusting. Child Sex Offenders rarley if ever are rehabilitated. They are master manipulators. THey will go to the counseling sessions ordered by the court and tell you anything you want to hear so long as you think they are getting better. Then they go home and start looking at kiddie porn on the internet. They are NEVER better! And why would anyone want to take the chance? I dont have children yet, but I just found that a molester lives in the neighborhood across from mine. I WILL be moving!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:39 am

In general, I'm for letting the judges judge the best judgment for the judge. Legislators are politicians; their job is not to be level-headed and even, it's to get what they can for their constituents. That's why we have separation of powers and checks & balances.

Having said that, Vermont judge Edmond Cashman sentenced a man who repeatedly raped a girl for four years (age 6 - 10) to only 60 days. (story)

Even in this case, I think that if a judge is an idiot, a higher court should be able to increase or otherwise change the punishment.

When a mandatory sentence for child molestation bumps up against a mandatory sentence for drug possession - and all the violent criminals have been released to make room for the mandatory sentences - who gets priority?

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:40 am

We are currently going thru a similar situation here. A judge decided that reahabilitaion and counciling are better than long sentences. Subsequently he sentenced a man that had been molesting a youngster for an extended period of time to 60 days in jail, life probation and counseling.. needless to say the public outcry has been outrage. There have been calls for his impeachment and resignation. We too are facing a shortage of jail space.

Personally, I think that there should be a minimum sentence for sex offenders, no matter what age the victim is. This crime is second only to murder in its violence and impact on the victim. In some respects the impact on the victim is worse.. they have to live with what happened to them for the rest of thier lives. There is no rehabiliting these criminals.. and the recidivism rate is one of the highest of all crimes. We had a convicted offender that served their time, refused any treatment while incarcerated, and was released.. there was no way to hold him any longer. People were scared and angry when they heard this.. again.. no way to force someone to attend counseling. This release led to the start of a movement for civil commitment, which led to the ACLU threatening to sue over the infringement of his rights.. course lost in the whole mess was the rights of the victims that have lived with a brutal crime for years..

okay..

to end the rant..

mandatory sentences for violent crimes ... I vote yes..

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:45 am

Why would the judge do that? Does he have kids? Its just so crazy!

Someone who sells "weed", or cocaine, or lets say, gets too many DUI's (without killing anyone for the sake of argument) can all be rehabilitated in my opinion. THey can learn other "trades" to take their place that are legal and prideful. I'm not necessarily for the death penalty other than child rape crimes. I know it sounds weird but they are so innocent. And once you've manipulated a child, you've taken that innocence away. It affects them for the rest of their life! Maybe thats why all the other criminals in jail beat, rape and sometimes kill them. Even those guys have standards.

And I just have a feeling, in our society, someone would probably kill that guy when he got out. SOme vigilante type group.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:48 am

greydeadhead wrote: We are currently going thru a similar situation here. A judge decided that reahabilitaion and counciling are better than long sentences. Subsequently he sentenced a man that had been molesting a youngster for an extended period of time to 60 days in jail, life probation and counseling.. needless to say the public outcry has been outrage. There have been calls for his impeachment and resignation. We too are facing a shortage of jail space.

Personally, I think that there should be a minimum sentence for sex offenders, no matter what age the victim is. This crime is second only to murder in its violence and impact on the victim. In some respects the impact on the victim is worse.. they have to live with what happened to them for the rest of thier lives. There is no rehabiliting these criminals.. and the recidivism rate is one of the highest of all crimes. We had a convicted offender that served their time, refused any treatment while incarcerated, and was released.. there was no way to hold him any longer. People were scared and angry when they heard this.. again.. no way to force someone to attend counseling. This release led to the start of a movement for civil commitment, which led to the ACLU threatening to sue over the infringement of his rights.. course lost in the whole mess was the rights of the victims that have lived with a brutal crime for years..

okay..

to end the rant..

mandatory sentences for violent crimes ... I vote yes..

Maybe the community can do what the parents did in the first Nightmare on Elm STreet. Torch the guy for molesting kids in the neighborhood. I'm telling you, if violent child molesters get out, someone WILL kill them.

greydeadhead · Post by **greydeadhead** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:12 am

Hey ACC.. I live in Vermont.. that is where Judge (and it pains me to call him a judge) Cashman sentenced the serial offender to 60 days, then life probation and counseling. FYI, a non-scientific poll conducted by thelocal paper has nearly 70% of of the respondents calling for his resignation. His logic behind the sentence was for the criminal to get counseling in order to be rehabilitated.. Since my knowledge of the sentencing guidelines here is not all that deep, I don't know if he would have recieved counseling while jailed or not. But still, the sentence doesn't fit the crime in this instance.

What needs to happen is the mandatory sentencing for drug possession without the intent to sell.. i.e. .. a personal stash has to be done away with. I mean if you are gonna punish someone for having a couple of joints or a little blow for their own use by putting them in jail for 5 years.. hell yah the jails are gonna be over crowded... why not put them on house arrest or probation and free up some cells for people like this sick puppy...

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:18 am

greydeadhead wrote:

What needs to happen is the mandatory sentencing for drug possession without the intent to sell.. i.e. .. a personal stash has to be done away with. I mean if you are gonna punish someone for having a couple of joints or a little blow for their own use by putting them in jail for 5 years.. hell yah the jails are gonna be over crowded... why not put them on house arrest or probation and free up some cells for people like this sick puppy...

If you have a personal stash and you are an adult with a job who pays their bills and doesnt go out and sell it and get in trouble under the influence, there is NO problem. So it shouldnt have a sentence. Slap them with a fine. Its like wearing a seatbelt. It shouldnt be mandatory under law for those over 21yrs. If you are dumb enough to drive around without a seatbelt (my opinion, only) then you desrve the consequences you suffer in an auto accident. Furthermore, if you decide not to wear a motorcycle helmet, same thing. We shouldnt have laws governing all this stupid $hit. That is why prisons are overcrowded as I think GRey was saying.... Murderers and Molestors. THe others she "repay" their debt not by eating and sleeping by our tax dollars, but get huge fines they have to repay throughout their life.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:54 am

Life imprisonment negates the need for rehab.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:11 pm

I think cases of child sex crimes should be on a case by case basis. Trust me it does sicken me when young are truely molested by these monsters. However there are times when children are coached to say someone molested them cause their parents have a personal vendetta against someone.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:20 pm

although that does happen, there are child psychology experts who can usually ascertain the veracity of claims made.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:24 pm

lady cop wrote: although that does happen, there are child psychology experts who can usually ascertain the veracity of claims made.

I know that LC, but in some areas of the country truely good child psychology experts are not there.

OpenMind · Post by **OpenMind** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:40 pm

The only answer in my eyes is to sentence these people to death. Any type of crime against children should carry heavy penalties. Children are not fair game for the immoral.

On the other hand, Sheryl does raise a good point. It is vital that we are absolutely certain that a crime has been committed. Further, the trial must still be just and fair. If the wrong person is convicted, then the molester is still preying on children.

In case an innocent person is tried, these cases should be held in private and no information should be given out until a person is tried and found guilty. An innocent person's life can be ruined by the stigma of association with the trial.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:35 am

Why cant they be tagged for life - once they serve their paltry sentance i feel the very least that should be done in conjunction with the sex offenders register, a pedophile should be tagged its painless discreet and could be a life safer.In this day and age with satellite tracking and what not i dont see why not, our children are the future we have to protect them its their right .

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:05 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: Why cant they be tagged for life - once they serve their paltry sentance i feel the very least that should be done in conjunction with the sex offenders register, a pedophile should be tagged its painless discreet and could be a life safer.In this day and age with satellite tracking and what not i dont see why not, our children are the future we have to protect them its their right .
Why discreet? If the judicial system is going to do something so reprehensible as to let someone out who is likely to molest again, the least they could do is tag 'em so parents will know.

I like Daffy's idea of dying them some bright glowing color like the pigs they are.