PDA

View Full Version : Pedophiles Living the Good Life on Taxpayer Money (Video)




clb09
06-19-2010, 03:58 PM
YouTube - Louis Theroux: A Place For Paedophiles - Part 3/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W05BQEJ5xuw&feature=related)

(Fast Forward to 5:20 to see how the Pedo Club Med is a reward for their deeds) :mad:

BlackTerrel
06-19-2010, 04:53 PM
I've been criticized for it in the past but I believe you remove people like this from society. Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

Yes I realize our justice system is not perfect and we have to be 110% sure these people are actually guilty. But there are plenty of people who are clearly guilty and yet we pay for their food and housing and then half the time reintroduce them into society where they prey on the innocent again.

Certain acts no longer give you the right to live. This is one of them.

tangent4ronpaul
06-19-2010, 07:24 PM
This is a very good, but disturbing report. A good read.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers

Sex laws and fear mongering have allowed the federal government to get into our bedrooms as well as provided the foothold that gave the feds access to policing the Internet.

-t

Kotin
06-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Yup and taxpayer money pays to have pot smokers locked up.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-19-2010, 07:44 PM
nt

heavenlyboy34
06-19-2010, 07:51 PM
I've been criticized for it in the past but I believe you remove people like this from society. Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

Yes I realize our justice system is not perfect and we have to be 110% sure these people are actually guilty. But there are plenty of people who are clearly guilty and yet we pay for their food and housing and then half the time reintroduce them into society where they prey on the innocent again.

Certain acts no longer give you the right to live. This is one of them.

It seems to me (and I'm not an expert) that chemical castration is a viable alternative to the death penalty.

KCIndy
06-19-2010, 08:17 PM
It seems to me (and I'm not an expert) that chemical castration is a viable alternative to the death penalty.

Biggest problem with that is the fact that there are plenty of abusers who use... umm.... other objects in the course of the abuse exactly because they can't perform physically. I've seen studies that show the abuse is much more psychological for them than physically gratifying.

Ugh.

tangent4ronpaul
06-19-2010, 08:22 PM
Biggest problem with that is the fact that there are plenty of abusers who use... umm.... other objects in the course of the abuse exactly because they can't perform physically. I've seen studies that show the abuse is much more psychological for them than physically gratifying.

Ugh.

Refs?

Just curious...

-t

micahnelson
06-19-2010, 09:14 PM
The laws they put into place to track, control, monitor, etc pedophiles will be used against anyone the government dislikes.

Being forced to work for your keep shouldn't be considered cruel, and if they are a danger to society they should be locked up in such a way that they can self sustain separate from society.

heavenlyboy34
06-19-2010, 09:35 PM
Biggest problem with that is the fact that there are plenty of abusers who use... umm.... other objects in the course of the abuse exactly because they can't perform physically. I've seen studies that show the abuse is much more psychological for them than physically gratifying.

Ugh.

interesting. I thought domination complexes and past childhood trauma were more common causes of the psychological damage that makes people child abusers. Thanks for educating me.

NYgs23
06-19-2010, 09:45 PM
You call being forcibly confined to an insane asylum "living the good life" because they get to play tennis and paint pictures?

Like or not, these guys have already served the time to which they were sentenced by a judge and jury in a court of law. Therefore, they have the right under due process to be set free. This is a backhanded way for politicos and bureaucrats to keep prisoners confined beyond their sentences in defiance of the decision of the courts. It's a sneaky form of summary punishment.

And only a fool would blithely assume this sort of thing will be forever restricted to sex offenders and other elements he personally despises...

NYgs23
06-19-2010, 09:46 PM
I've seen studies that show the abuse is much more psychological for them than physically gratifying.

Isn't that true in general? Sexual desire is largely psychological.

BlackTerrel
06-20-2010, 03:26 AM
No need to break precedent then. I find your comment lacking basic disregards for justice.

1. This video is about people who have already served a criminal sentence.

Good for them. Molesting a child is a crime which no longer gives you a right to live.


2. Suggesting these people ought to be killed imposes your beliefs on the victim without even taking making the victim whole into consideration.

The victim can't be made whole. It's like cutting someone's arms off. That crime will always stay with them.

The entire prison complex is a huge waste of money and resources. I advocate being much harsher on real criminals, while eliminating bullshit laws that effect victimless crimes.

romeno182
06-20-2010, 03:30 AM
Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

dangerous thinking.. whats next, who esle deserves to die?

whats the real cause behind those crimes, thats what we have to analize

.Tom
06-20-2010, 05:40 AM
I'm so sick of all the "pedophile" hysteria that's going around.

You have consensual sex with a 15 year old and you're called a pedophile and put on the sex offender registry for life.

That's not even the definition of pedophilia and yet these people are marked for life and put in the same category as baby rapists.

Combine that with all the "stranger danger" nonsense and you have one fucked up paranoid sex repressing puritan witch burning shithole of a society.

clb09
06-20-2010, 07:01 AM
I'm so sick of all the "pedophile" hysteria that's going around.

You have consensual sex with a 15 year old and you're called a pedophile and put on the sex offender registry for life.

That's not even the definition of pedophilia and yet these people are marked for life and put in the same category as baby rapists.

Combine that with all the "stranger danger" nonsense and you have one fucked up paranoid sex repressing puritan witch burning shithole of a society.

Boy, you sure can tell which posters on this thread have small kids and those who are childless! :rolleyes:

ScoutsHonor
06-20-2010, 09:33 AM
I've been criticized for it in the past but I believe you remove people like this from society. Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

Yes I realize our justice system is not perfect and we have to be 110% sure these people are actually guilty. But there are plenty of people who are clearly guilty and yet we pay for their food and housing and then half the time reintroduce them into society where they prey on the innocent again.

Certain acts no longer give you the right to live. This is one of them.

I strongly sympathize with this point of view, although a scrupulous justice standard rejects this. But surely we can implement a better system than, as you say, 'releasing them back into society to prey again.' If we can go to the moon, surely we can do a better job identifying whether one has become well enough to be set free.

puppetmaster
06-20-2010, 10:01 AM
If someone molested my kids...they would "disappear" from society...

MelissaWV
06-20-2010, 10:28 AM
Boy, you sure can tell which posters on this thread have small kids and those who are childless! :rolleyes:

Absolutely unfair.

As to what the poster actually said, he's correct. Our system currently doesn't do much to differentiate between different "degrees" of molestation/rape of minors. The distinctions exist, legally, but they're all lumped together on a sex offender registry, and they all receive the same stigma as the least of their numbers. It doesn't matter if you "molested" someone who was only a few years younger than you and were caught up via statutory rape laws, or if you used to coach children's sports and touched children placed under your care. In the eyes of the law, those two crimes are technically different. In the eyes of people who might be plastering posters of you all over the neighborhood warning one another that a "pervert" has moved into town... the distinction goes away. You're on "the list."

The "having kids" thing is irrelevant. Some parents might not want to hear it, but many older teens in particular are old enough to make certain decisions. The idea that it would scandalize the parents, and that's what should factor into our outrage as individuals, is silly. You also don't want to see your of-age daughter and her of-age boyfriend/husband having sex, most likely. That has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal/illegal for them to do so. Even in situations of rape, there is a wholly different component to rapes which involve pre-pubescents.

To me there are a variety of categories that should dictate how we view "sex offenders," but the law currently disagrees. I'd say that people who molest/rape pre-pubescents are in their own category of sickness. I'm no expert, but I'd also be willing to say these are the least likely to be rehabilitated and allowed back into society. Something is absolutely off-kilter with someone like that. Slightly less disturbing are those who go after those who cannot consent at all. This would include people who molest/rape the comatose, or people who can't communicate. Beyond this is the category of people who rape/molest those who consent, but are deemed incompetent to have done so. This would be where most current "child molestation" would fall. A lot of young people could be convinced by a coach or a teacher or someone else they meet, usually far older, that they want to have sex. However, if they lack the competence to enter into contracts, the consent should be voided. If the "child" is able to demonstrate they are competent and the entire relationship is consensual, then it should be dismissed. There would be another category for those who consent under threat of violence or whose attackers simply don't take "no" for an answer.

Look at all the different categories, but they're all "sex offenders." Aside from any kind of Government-run "registry" being offensive, the categorization is disgusting and insulting, and it's a stigma that doesn't go away.

tangent4ronpaul
06-20-2010, 11:48 AM
i'm so sick of all the "pedophile" hysteria that's going around.

You have consensual sex with a 15 year old and you're called a pedophile and put on the sex offender registry for life.

That's not even the definition of pedophilia and yet these people are marked for life and put in the same category as baby rapists.

Combine that with all the "stranger danger" nonsense and you have one fucked up paranoid sex repressing puritan witch burning shithole of a society.

+1000

On the definition for pedophile - it means someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children. According to the American Psychological Association. It is considered a disease. There is another term for people that are attracted to post-pubescent, but underage kids - I'm not finding it right now. It is not considered a disease. In fact about 1/3rd of adults are said to have this condition. Some act on it.

Hell, my uncle dumped my aunt for a younger model - same BS, just not as extreme.

There was that couple of Utah teens - 14 and 15 bf/gf that got busted having sex. The jury had to wrap their minds around both the dependents as being both victim and perpetrator. They are both in jail now.

About 1/4th of teens have engaged in "sexting". There are 5 Million teens in the country between the ages of 15 and 19. Got an extra 1.5 Million prison cells handy?

The parents will be "VERY" happy.... :rolleyes:

-t

tmosley
06-20-2010, 12:09 PM
I've been criticized for it in the past but I believe you remove people like this from society. Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

Yes I realize our justice system is not perfect and we have to be 110% sure these people are actually guilty. But there are plenty of people who are clearly guilty and yet we pay for their food and housing and then half the time reintroduce them into society where they prey on the innocent again.

Certain acts no longer give you the right to live. This is one of them.

Yes, that's what we want, more demonization of men. Nevermind that I just saw YET ANOTHER case where a man who stopped a child from getting themselves killed was accused of kidnapping and is now in prison. You would have him MURDERED!?

Fuck you.

tmosley
06-20-2010, 12:14 PM
Boy, you sure can tell which posters on this thread have small kids and those who are childless! :rolleyes:

Fuck your children. I want my freedom. If you want to sell their freedoms for a little temporary illusory safety, then they will lose both. Good job.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'S FUTURE FREEDOM!?

.Tom
06-20-2010, 12:23 PM
I swear, "for the children" is the ABSOLUTE MOST FUCKING USED EXCUSE TO TAKE AWAY LIBERTY EVER.

It's in the same camp as "stopping terrorists".

If anyone uses it, your statist alarm should go off, and you should recognize that you are dealing with an irrational, emotional, sensationalist fucktard.

Working Poor
06-20-2010, 01:27 PM
What bothers me is men who get caught peeing on a tree are also charged with a sex crime and get put on the list. I think all men should pee out side to save water just don't get caught by the po po.
I though about starting a "pee outside" campaign to save water and keep other people's psyco and other drugs out of the water supply then a friend told me that if one got caught peeing outside they would be put on a sex offeder list:eek:

Danke
06-20-2010, 01:29 PM
Pedophiles are people too. (http://www.kidsarepeopletoo.net/)

YouTube - Kids Are People, Too (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVprDJ9urO4)

clb09
06-20-2010, 05:40 PM
Fuck your children. I want my freedom.


For years people have asked me, "Why do you identify with those libertarian wackos?"

I would always have an explanation where I defended libertarianism and I also tried to educate doubters saying that liberty-lovers were simply misunderstood.

...I may have to re-think my answer to these questions after reading through this thread. ;)

MelissaWV
06-20-2010, 05:45 PM
For years people have asked me, "Why do you identify with those libertarian wackos?"

I would always have an explanation where I defended libertarianism and I also tried to educate doubters saying that liberty-lovers were simply misunderstood.

...I may have to re-think my answer to these questions after reading through this thread. ;)

Please read my response about "for the children."

The fact that children are involved certainly riles people up, but some of the people being discussed (late teens, etc.) are not "children" in the traditional sense of the word, and the law does not make enough of a distinction. All "sex offenders" go on these lists, and people take it upon themselves to notify one another of the "perv" in the neighborhood. You get the same stigma regardless of crime. That's not freedom.

brandon
06-20-2010, 05:54 PM
You can tell who's been molested in this thread and who hasn't.




lol jk

These people did their time and should now be set free. No sex registry or any of that BS.No indefinite detentions in a government mental health prison.

NYgs23
06-20-2010, 06:05 PM
For years people have asked me, "Why do you identify with those libertarian wackos?"

I would always have an explanation where I defended libertarianism and I also tried to educate doubters saying that liberty-lovers were simply misunderstood.

...I may have to re-think my answer to these questions after reading through this thread. ;)

clb, should people be expected leave their principles at the door whenever children are involved? It's true that are sub-rational individuals and need to be dealt with with that in mind (though when, how, and to what degree they develop rationality is far, far more complex than "magic sixteen" or "magic eighteen"), but that does not justify analyzing issues involving them on the basis of parents' personal emotional attachment to them and it certainly doesn't involve violating the rights of individuals in service to them.

Drunks are sub-rational individuals as well, yet you wouldn't champion laws cushioning bars "to protect the drunks" or suggest that people who defraud drunks should be locked up beyond their court-appointed sentences. Why not? There's no difference between drunks and children in terms of their being unable to fully exercise their rights due to mental incapacity. You just happen to emotionally sympathize with the latter more than the former.

Frankly, I dislike the notion that parents of underage children have greater moral authority on these issues than other people. It seems to me that, if anything, they have less authority, due to their conflict of interest. Parents of young children are found lobbying for all sorts of infringements on freedom in order to have the state do the job the parents are supposed to be doing. The results is a police state around Princess and Junior. And remember, Princess and Junior grow up. Why not talk to some parents of grown children who have had their rights violated by the oppressive state? Why not talk to the parent of a 19 year old who's trapped of the sex offenders' registry for having sex with a 16 year old at a drunken party? That could be your kid one day, after all.

clb09
06-20-2010, 06:07 PM
These people did their time and should now be set free. No sex registry or any of that BS.No indefinite detentions in a government mental health prison.

Lots of big talkers here but when they are in the emergency room with the cops and child psychologists as their child is getting treated for rape and the police say they have a suspect in custody I bet there won't be such vibrant defense of child molestation at that point.

Parents know...child rapists are not the political prisoners that some here wish they were.

NYgs23
06-20-2010, 06:13 PM
Lots of big talkers here but when they are in the emergency room with the cops and child psychologists as their child is getting treated for rape and the police say they have a suspect in custody I bet there won't be such vibrant defense of child molestation at that point.

Parents know...child rapists are not the political prisoners that some here wish they were.

Don't you realize your rhetoric is the same rhetoric to justify virtually every act of state violence in existence. "Lot of people here defending drug legalization...Just what until their kid's addicted to crack." "Lot of people defending the abolition of the welfare state...Just what until your poor."

Like I said, what until your children are grown up and on the other side of the police state.

clb09
06-20-2010, 06:18 PM
Don't you realize your rhetoric is the same rhetoric to justify virtually every act of state violence in existence. "Lot of people here defending drug legalization...Just what until their kid's addicted to crack." "Lot of people defending the abolition of the welfare state...Just what until your poor."

What rhetoric?

Child rapists deserve what's coming to them.

I believe that softball, tennis, arts and crafts, Halloween parties and choir are not exactly proper punishments for CONVICTED rapists and child molesters.

...all paid for by taxpaying Americans.

But, as I've learned, on RPF child molestation is no different than smoking a joint or jaywalking.

Well...live and learn! :)

MelissaWV
06-20-2010, 06:23 PM
Lots of big talkers here but when they are in the emergency room with the cops and child psychologists as their child is getting treated for rape and the police say they have a suspect in custody I bet there won't be such vibrant defense of child molestation at that point.

Parents know...child rapists are not the political prisoners that some here wish they were.

Child rapists aren't, no, and no one's argued that. What's being discussed is that someone who decides to have intercourse with a seven-year-old goes on the same list as someone who had sex with a seventeen-year-old in some states. In other states, that seventeen-year-old is able to consent. The morality, I suppose, depends entirely on location? That same "list" and category applies to someone who exposed themselves while drunk, some high school teen who was "sexting," yet also applies to someone who forces their ten-year-old to perform oral sex on them night after night.

You don't see that there's a huge problem with all of those things being treated the same?

When the media says "convicted sex offender," they really could mean anything on that broad spectrum.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-20-2010, 06:29 PM
nt

clb09
06-20-2010, 06:37 PM
They already served a criminal sentence in prison imposed by a jury based on statues decided by elected officials. They are being held in this shit hole paid by tax payers after they have successfully completed those prison sentences.

Gosh...I'm sorry.

I thought that after successfully completing prison sentences the convicted were set free.

So much for "liberty".

NYgs23
06-20-2010, 06:44 PM
Child rapists deserve what's coming to them.

No one deserves to have his due process rights violated. Not Hitler, not Mao, not Bin Laden, not Manson or Dahmer or Gacy. Not even someone who's kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered a thousand children (or adults; why should one be worse than the other?) deserves to lose his due process protection against double jeopardy and indefinite detention, which is exactly what this is: they've completed their court-appointed sentence only to be indefinitely and arbitrarily imprisoned again.

Roper: So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

-Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

Working Poor
06-20-2010, 09:59 PM
I think with all this science there should be a wayto treat and find out the cause and maybe learn how to identify a person early on so they can be helped if possible

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-20-2010, 10:05 PM
nt

BlackTerrel
06-20-2010, 10:43 PM
Yes, that's what we want, more demonization of men. Nevermind that I just saw YET ANOTHER case where a man who stopped a child from getting themselves killed was accused of kidnapping and is now in prison. You would have him MURDERED!?

Fuck you.

Ok chill out. Clearly that is a different problem than I am referring to. If indeed an innocent person who simply saved a child was accused of kidnapping is in prison.

What I am talking about is the punishment for actual perpetrators. No - those people do not have a right to life. Same goes for murderers.

Depressed Liberator
06-20-2010, 10:52 PM
I've been criticized for it in the past but I believe you remove people like this from society. Pedophiles, murderers, rapists - just end it. They don't deserve to live.

Yes I realize our justice system is not perfect and we have to be 110% sure these people are actually guilty. But there are plenty of people who are clearly guilty and yet we pay for their food and housing and then half the time reintroduce them into society where they prey on the innocent again.

Certain acts no longer give you the right to live. This is one of them.

This is just fucking stupid. I know guys who were sentenced to years for having a girlfriend who was like four years younger but under 18, and they are now considered pedophiles by our justice system and whatnot. Your statements just lack the basic understanding of anything.

BlackTerrel
06-21-2010, 12:22 AM
This is just fucking stupid. I know guys who were sentenced to years for having a girlfriend who was like four years younger but under 18, and they are now considered pedophiles by our justice system and whatnot. Your statements just lack the basic understanding of anything.

If you want to redefine what a pedophile is that's something else. There should be some sort of concensus and eliminate the stupidity that charges an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old.

But how about the 35 year old who molests an 11 year old. Can we agree that dude needs to be removed from society forever?

Promontorium
06-21-2010, 03:11 AM
The old pedophile thread. The only topic where advocating decades in prison will get you called " pro child rape". For most irrational people and the law, decades in prison for even the most minute criminal act (like flashing, or asking someone out on a date) is met with disgust. Killing the criminal after years of rape and beatings is considered a light sentence.

And for the love of god don't bring in actual statistics or decades of research! No! We simply "know" it is "impossible" for any sexual criminal to be rehabilitated.

To anyone interested in an intellectual discussion, I suggest you search beyond your feelings. To get you started I while post 1 simple fact...

Sex offenders are LESS likely to repeat offend compared to the average of all other criminal offenders. That is, far from "impossible" sex offenders are statistically less likely to commit a sex offense again, then thieves, who are next door to you, but not in a registry. Murderers, who live next door to you, but aren't on a registry.

A lovely world we live in, where the majority believes that having consensual sex with a 17 year old is a worse crime than literally ripping that 17 year old's heart out and jamming down their throat. Rape and kill the guy who had sex! Put that murderer behind bars for a few decades!

Worthless discussion for the most part in my opinion. We all know the emotionally honest side. This is just two or three people attempting a rational discussion against the darkest pits of everyone else's souls.

... Sure it's a cop out to primarily focus on the 17 year old argument, but it's an attempt to highlight the borderless emotionally driven stupidity in most sex crime laws. For god's sake, in many jurisdictions, if a man and a woman get drunk and have sex, then the man has raped the woman.

I feel terrible that most women don't report. I believe everything possible should be done to protect and help victims. However, think about this, do you think America has done too little to punish men who have been convicted? This is to include killing rapists. Do you think that our culture doesn't look down enough on these crimes? Does the hellfire and venomous condemnation help women to step forward? Is it possible women hold some fear of naming their rapist knowing society will torture and murder him?

specialkornflake
06-21-2010, 05:32 AM
Since we are in the 'Liberty' forest I should add that it violates the Philosophy of Liberty to kill another except in the immediacy of self-defense or self-defense on the behalf of another and even then exacting death must be a last resort.

tmosley
06-21-2010, 06:46 AM
Lots of big talkers here but when they are in the emergency room with the cops and child psychologists as their child is getting treated for rape and the police say they have a suspect in custody I bet there won't be such vibrant defense of child molestation at that point.

Parents know...child rapists are not the political prisoners that some here wish they were.

I was "raped" as a child, several times, by several different people. My freedom is more valuable to me than persecution of the young men and women who did it. Zero "psychological damage" was had, because no-one ever found out, and I was never initiated in the cult of victimhood, which is the REAL traumatic event (outside of VIOLENT rape, of course). It was also consensual, even though you fools think children can't consent (yet you seem to think that a child can consent to do anything that threatens their life in a real way, like sailing around the world solo).

Again, fuck your children. I want my freedom. Sex isn't a sin. Redefinition of the terms of crime leads to utter tyranny, with "statutory rape" being the first step down the slippery slope ("terrorism" being the next).

When you scream about men raping children in this hysterical environment, don't EVER expect a man to move even an inch to save your children from any dangerous situation. I, and many others, will let your children die rather than getting close and taking the risk of being labeled with the life-ending label of "pedophile". You have chosen to treat rape worse than murder, and as a result, you will get what you want, only there won't be a decrease in the rate of children being diddled by adults, but rather what you will get is adults ignoring children until they die, and pedophiles kidnapping children, raping them, then killing them because with the child dead, they are no worse off--they are dead either way. Well done. You are a child murderer.

tmosley
06-21-2010, 06:54 AM
Ok chill out. Clearly that is a different problem than I am referring to. If indeed an innocent person who simply saved a child was accused of kidnapping is in prison.

What I am talking about is the punishment for actual perpetrators. No - those people do not have a right to life. Same goes for murderers.

Too bad that isn't the way it goes down. Not everyone is guilty of what they are accused of. Yet in this arena, the most stable libertarian is liable to scream for an abolition of due process and on the spot murder or castration.

Where do you draw the line of who gets to live and who deserves to die? Does someone who touches a child's vagina deserve death? Penetrates it with a finger? If so, you just killed a bunch of doctors, congratulations. What is a child? Is it someone who is five years old? Or is it a 14 year old? Or a 17 year old? Or a 20 year old? If a young girl sneaks into a bar, and is drinking alcohol, who tells you that she is 22, and you take her to a hotel room for sex, do you deserve to die? DOES SHE?

You non-libertarians are a bunch of nut-jobs.

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 07:20 AM
Hard to follow that, but I will rein it back slightly and expand upon an idea. As it is, teachers who deal with very small children are often not allowed to be alone with that child. Even a decade or two ago my mom used to have to either leave the door open, or actually have another teacher inside a bathroom with her if a child had soiled themselves. Apparently the State thinks that a preschool teacher will see a child covered stem to stern with fecal matter and seize the opportunity to touch their private parts. Why would a teacher put up with this? Because to NOT do so is to suffer the dreaded piping up of a child who doesn't understand the consequence of "Teacher took my pants off in the bathroom."

BlackTerrel, you're right "in a way." In cases where we are absolutely utterly 100% sure that someone has been raping young children, we know for a fact that they have changed that child's life forever, and almost certainly not for the better. That is a fate, society has determined, worse than death.

Let's examine that on two different points.

What constitutes being "absolutely sure"? Video evidence? It's incredibly unlikely, even if what you're seeing LOOKS like hardcore pornography with a pre-pubescent child, that video evidence will be conclusive. You have no idea whether or not you are viewing a simulated act which, while utterly repulsive in its own right, doesn't seem like something that should merit death. Or does it? People are going to vary in their assessment of that. To some, touching a "child" at all merits death. Okay, so now we get to the nitty gritty: define "child." I've talked about pre-pubescent, but some girls see the onset of menarche at nine or ten. The average age for it is almost twelve. Puberty is a little more difficult to pinpoint for boys and, since most molestors are male, the "act" is considered more disgusting when it involves little boys. At what age is a boy no longer pre-pubescent? Should there be a static age? Surely it shouldn't be so young! So what, then, is the barrier? At what age do these "children" stop being children for the purposes of this type of legislation?

Testimony from the child itself is not, to me, solid enough grounds to take someone's life. You might have forensic evidence that suggests something untoward took place. While that's really close to being "100% sure," I wouldn't put it at 100%. I'd put it at 99.99%. Why? There are ways of "faking" most forensic evidence. There is mishandling of some evidence that renders results less-than-accurate. There is that one in a million case where evidence is manipulated by the police.

What is "100%" evidence, then? Not forensics, not testimony, not even a video. Is it the sum of these parts? Then you run into a big problem. You have no line to cross. It becomes up to the jury, via some charge called "Capital Child Rape" or something similar, to decide whether or not someone lives or dies. You run into the same problems now, only of a different sort. Just as there seems to be statistical evidence that the death penalty is currently applied more to some groups than to other, you would see more men up on this charge, and certainly more men accused of raping boys. I doubt female predators would often get the death penalty at all. You would have some people who met the level of evidence getting a lesser sentence. You would have uneven justice, only you are pushing the punishment scale higher in severity.

Death isn't reversible. If one of those victims grows up to recant, or want an explanation or an apology, you can't give it to them. Unlike murder, the victim is still alive. This brings me to my next point.

The implication is that victims of this kind of crime are as bad off as those who're dead, or even worse off. What the hell kind of twisted message is that? To a murder victim's family, you are saying that if they were still alive, but had been raped, it'd be the same. That spending hard times together is the same as spending no time at all. That growing up dealing with the aftermath of being raped is the same as never growing up. That the glimmer of hope of leading a mostly-normal life is the same as ceasing to exist. To the rape victim, you are saying all of these same things, and adding an additional weight to the stigma that already exists. You should have died. You should die. You'd be no worse off. What utter, ridiculous nonsense.

What of the person who grows up and wants to ask their rapist (especially if it was a family member, for instance) for answers? Someone who wants an apology, or to show the inmate that they are alive and well and they weren't defeated by the disgusting things that happened so many years ago? It's hard to do that when the rapist is dead. Aren't you deciding on behalf of the victim what will and won't be available to them as they grow up? A murder victim obviously has no need for this process.

So, first you have to draw lines. You have to stop giving examples that would obviously fall towards the most heinous end of the poll, and start thinking about the other end of the spectrum. When is it no longer deathworthy?

50 year old and 10 year old?
40 year old and 12 year old?
30 year old and 14 year old?
20 year old and 15 year old?

It gets harder, doesn't it.

tangent4ronpaul
06-21-2010, 09:21 AM
I was never initiated in the cult of victimhood, which is the REAL traumatic event (outside of VIOLENT rape, of course).

You really nailed it! Imagine being ripped from your SO, brainwashed to believe you are a victim and forced to betray and testify against them - resulting in their incarceration. That's enough to seriously F up someones head for life. Sounds like something the SS would do. Who is the real perpetrator here? The real criminal?

The FORCED, VIOLENT assault is the rare exception, but portrayed as the norm by the puritans that want to control other peoples private lives.

I read somewhere that children are routinely "molested" by their parents in parts of Africa. No one has a complex about it as it's considered normal and a routine part of parental duties to provide "sex education". Then again, a lot of African woman run around topless - something that would get them locked up for indecent exposure in this country. Likewise parts of Europe, and I'm specifically thinking beaches are "clothing optional". Here we have swim suit Nazi's paroling the beaches and busting people for not completely covering certain body parts and having less than so many square inches of cloth in their bikini, while other puritanical Nazi's will go after teen girls covering significantly more for snapping a pic of themselves in their underwear and sending it to their BF... It's totally F'd up!

But the fear mongering is very effective at stealing civil rights and privacy. All it takes is the rare anomaly of a psychotic individual kidnapping, raping and killing a young child every once in a blue moon for Whorealdo and Gretta to juice every night for months on end to brainwash the sheeple into believing this kind of BS happens every day. THANK YOU CORPORATE MEDIA! - WE COULDN'T CONTROL THE SHEEPLE WITHOUT YOU!

-t

clb09
06-21-2010, 11:12 AM
Again, fuck your children. I want my freedom.

I wonder if the guys in this documentary are libertarians:

YouTube - chicken hawk men who love boys 1 6.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBWrfMdN1A)

I would love to see a Congress full of libertarians but this issue will permanently keep that dream from coming true. :(

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 11:18 AM
I wonder if the guys in this documentary are libertarians:

...

I would love to see a Congress full of libertarians but this issue will permanently keep that dream from coming true. :(

No, people who fail to draw distinctions will keep that dream from coming true. If you'd like to believe people who argue a 20-year-old and 15-year-old having sex isn't necessarily a crime, or (heaven forbid!) who argue that it isn't as bad a crime as a 40-year-old "having sex" with a 10-year-old... if you'd like to believe the people making those distinctions are somehow the ones that are warped, go to it. The only thing that I've seen is a lot of extreme examples from you and BlackTerrel, but no addressing of the actual issues involved.

Incidentally, I did skip around through that video you posted. Know what's weird? I landed on an interview where the man was saying one thing, but his mouth movements didn't match what he was saying at all. All around the 3:30 mark, the movements aren't just out of synch, but they match totally different sounds than the men are allegedly making. It was, of course, very difficult to tell because a logo was suspiciously placed right near the men's mouths, so that it became very hard to tell how their mouths were actually moving in relation to the words on the audio. Strange.

dannno
06-21-2010, 11:23 AM
Sexual desire is largely psychological.

:confused:

No.

Could be true for pedos, not sure.. definitely not true for most straight males.

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 11:40 AM
No, people who fail to draw distinctions will keep that dream from coming true. If you'd like to believe people who argue a 20-year-old and 15-year-old having sex isn't necessarily a crime, or (heaven forbid!) who argue that it isn't as bad a crime as a 40-year-old "having sex" with a 10-year-old... if you'd like to believe the people making those distinctions are somehow the ones that are warped, go to it. The only thing that I've seen is a lot of extreme examples from you and BlackTerrel, but no addressing of the actual issues involved.

Incidentally, I did skip around through that video you posted. Know what's weird? I landed on an interview where the man was saying one thing, but his mouth movements didn't match what he was saying at all. All around the 3:30 mark, the movements aren't just out of synch, but they match totally different sounds than the men are allegedly making. It was, of course, very difficult to tell because a logo was suspiciously placed right near the men's mouths, so that it became very hard to tell how their mouths were actually moving in relation to the words on the audio. Strange.

The problem here is that the child is partially incapacitated, and cannot rationally consent to "voluntary" actions. 18 month old babies cannot "consent" to being used by some 45 year old man. Incapacity is more than a legal fiction, it is the reality. Such incapacitation is the reason any contract made by a minor is null and void, unless that minor is emancipated or judged to be sufficiently mature as to make a rational and relatively mature decision. Those of you who claim that children can consent to such things are disconnected from reality. It is the antithesis of individual liberty to allow a rationally calculating, adult individual to "enter" into a physicial relationship with a child who lacks capacity. We allow for a less severe penalty for cases of statutory rape, and graduate the transformation to capacity at the generally accurate age of 18. There is a reason for this... the brain's development, the body's development, the emotional development of children... all of this indicate that the 15-18 year old range is that in which most children maturate.

dannno
06-21-2010, 11:48 AM
But how about the 35 year old who molests an 11 year old. Can we agree that dude needs to be removed from society forever?

Depends, what is the evidence?

If they can prove the guy penetrated them in some form (fingers or worse), then ya, I wouldn't have a problem putting them in prison for the rest of their life.

If they touched them in an uncomfortable way, then it could have been an accident and maybe the child took it the wrong way..even if the adult (could be family, close friend, etc) was well intentioned the child could take it the wrong way either at the time, or years later, and go and testify against them. For that kind of stuff I have a hard time giving them more than a few years of jail if it is only based on testimony.. and I'd have a hard time justifying any sort of list for these individuals, but it really depends on the details of the situation.

I also don't have a problem putting rapists away forever who use violence (more than just holding them down, but like actually choking, hitting, using a knife, etc..). If they use drugs, then it makes it really difficult to prove what happened, but it is pretty much on the same level as using physical violence so if this can be proven I can see tagging on a life sentence for them, but might have a hard time justifying putting them away forever due to the uncertain nature that most of these incidents occur... Of course if you can take away the uncertainty then I begin having less of a problem with putting them away indefinitely. Then there is a situation where SHE took some drugs and drank, or somebody else gave them to her and then the perpetrator was just drunk horny and took advantage of her state of being (she could be perhaps semi-conscious and if she was all into him before the drugs or alcohol kicked in then I could see a drunk guy not really taking everything into account.. though still technically rape, that isn't nearly the same to me as actually actively giving them drugs pre-meditatively for the specific purpose of rape.)

All this stuff is so complicated and based on individual situations, how much can actually be proven, etc.. it's really difficult to say that all rapists should get X amount of years in jail when some situations are uncertain for everyone and even the perpetrator at the time of the incident.

In fact, at college they teach you that in order for a sexual act to be considered consensual, the male is required to ask the question "Can I have sex with you?".. That's ridiculous, because most guys don't need to ask the question because it is more than clear that the woman is consenting...


But another thing is that if you put them away rather than executing them, then it gives the woman (or boy or whatever) who testified a chance to grow, mature, and perhaps later in life admit to themself that they helped put an innocent man in prison and this gives them the ability to get them out of jail. There certainly have been incidents where woman have accused men of raping them when it just wasn't so.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-21-2010, 11:52 AM
nt

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 11:59 AM
And it's a good thing too otherwise there might be a bunch of 18 year old individuals submitting themselves to indentured servitude risking their lives fighting wars that have absolutely no benefit to them. Oh wait... there are a bunch of 18 year old individuals who do that.... I thought you said these people were competent at 18?

SIR, the draft ended ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO. Moreover, merely because the government saw fit to coercively indenture youths while they were still young and immature does not mean that all of them in fact had capacity. In any event, trying to turn this into a debate on the draft is moot, because we are discussing the ability of young children to consent to sexual acts. Young children. a 3 year old for instance.... I believe lacks the capacity to enter into a contract or voluntary agreement, like a sexual one. In fact, I thankfully have over 1300 years of common law backing me up on this (not that you would respect the old common law, but it is what it is, and there is a reason children were not deemed to have capacity).

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 12:00 PM
The problem here is that the child is partially incapacitated, and cannot rationally consent to "voluntary" actions. 18 month old babies cannot "consent" to being used by some 45 year old man. Incapacity is more than a legal fiction, it is the reality. Such incapacitation is the reason any contract made by a minor is null and void, unless that minor is emancipated or judged to be sufficiently mature as to make a rational and relatively mature decision. Those of you who claim that children can consent to such things are disconnected from reality. It is the antithesis of individual liberty to allow a rationally calculating, adult individual to "enter" into a physicial relationship with a child who lacks capacity. We allow for a less severe penalty for cases of statutory rape, and graduate the transformation to capacity at the generally accurate age of 18. There is a reason for this... the brain's development, the body's development, the emotional development of children... all of this indicate that the 15-18 year old range is that in which most children maturate.

I'm with you until you get to the "generally accurate age of 18." It's a moronic and arbitrary line. The distinction should be capacity itself, and not an assumption of it. There are certainly people over 18 who are judged incapable of providing consent. There are a lot of people under 18 who would be perfectly capable of providing consent if their cases were examined individually.

No one here is advocating someone they think of as a child be considered to have given consent. The problem is in defining "child." Some believe "child" ends at the stroke of midnight when someone turns 18. This always makes me laugh. What is it about that anniversary? If accuracy is so important, why is it not rape up until the time of birth? The person in question isn't usually 18 at 12:01am on their birthday. It might not even be until 7pm! That means the person is really 17 and 364 days up until 7:00pm. Aren't we interested in accuracy here? "Child" is defined differently depending upon each state. If eighteen is accurate, then woe to those states who think differently, right? Some have "Romeo & Juliet" laws which relate to what we're discussing here.

The larger matter, though, that has presented itself is the call by BlackTerrel for the Death Penalty for some child predators. That is the point at which I made the distinction including pre-pubescence as a precursor. It seems that the examples brought up have that in common. I think most of us (except the self-admitted "for the children" types) can argue that there are cases after puberty where a child could have sex where someone doesn't necessarily need to go to jail. It could, for instance, be a warped case of both participants being of the same age but being very young. It gets a bit more difficult to draw a line in the sand at that point.

I personally wish we lived in a society where competence was more important than age, but where age bias was just as prevelant. What's that mean? Well you might enter into a contract (speaking in general, not sexually!) with a 14-year-old who seems exceptionally mature and talented. Maybe he's a computer genius and he's going to design your website. Unfortunately, he gets distracted and never finishes. Can you hold him to the contract? In court, he's probably not going to be found competent, and it becomes your fault for having entered into a contract with someone so young. Lesson learned. Caveat emptor.

Of course, that's an ideal world. The one we live in has age limits on most anything, and then wonders why the hell children grow up so warped.

* * *
I notice the hyperbole being brought up over and over. Three-year-olds can't consent. Eighteen-month-olds can't consent. What about old men raping eleven-year-old girls? No one has said that's okay. Not even close. I have no idea why it even keeps coming up. What's being talked about is the grayer area towards the middle. What's being talked about is the lack of distinction between that revolting act of raping an elementary school kid, and someone who's 20 having sex with someone who's 16 in a state where it's illegal. Hell, you can now be a "sex offender" for "sexting." That's right. Distributing vulgar pictures now places you on the same list with whoever was molesting a toddler.

And some of you are arguing "good riddance."

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-21-2010, 12:03 PM
nt

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 12:04 PM
I'm with you until you get to the "generally accurate age of 18." It's a moronic and arbitrary line. The distinction should be capacity itself, and not an assumption of it. There are certainly people over 18 who are judged incapable of providing consent. There are a lot of people under 18 who would be perfectly capable of providing consent if their cases were examined individually.

No one here is advocating someone they think of as a child be considered to have given consent. The problem is in defining "child." Some believe "child" ends at the stroke of midnight when someone turns 18. This always makes me laugh. What is it about that anniversary? If accuracy is so important, why is it not rape up until the time of birth? The person in question isn't usually 18 at 12:01am on their birthday. It might not even be until 7pm! That means the person is really 17 and 364 days up until 7:00pm. Aren't we interested in accuracy here? "Child" is defined differently depending upon each state. If eighteen is accurate, then woe to those states who think differently, right? Some have "Romeo & Juliet" laws which relate to what we're discussing here.

The larger matter, though, that has presented itself is the call by BlackTerrel for the Death Penalty for some child predators. That is the point at which I made the distinction including pre-pubescence as a precursor. It seems that the examples brought up have that in common. I think most of us (except the self-admitted "for the children" types) can argue that there are cases after puberty where a child could have sex where someone doesn't necessarily need to go to jail. It could, for instance, be a warped case of both participants being of the same age but being very young. It gets a bit more difficult to draw a line in the sand at that point.

I personally wish we lived in a society where competence was more important than age, but where age bias was just as prevelant. What's that mean? Well you might enter into a contract (speaking in general, not sexually!) with a 14-year-old who seems exceptionally mature and talented. Maybe he's a computer genius and he's going to design your website. Unfortunately, he gets distracted and never finishes. Can you hold him to the contract? In court, he's probably not going to be found competent, and it becomes your fault for having entered into a contract with someone so young. Lesson learned. Caveat emptor.

Of course, that's an ideal world. The one we live in has age limits on most anything, and then wonders why the hell children grow up so warped.

The only thing that happens at age 18 is that the assumption becomes that the person HAS capacity, whereas prior to age 18 the assumption is that the individual lacks capacity.

Both assumptions can be defeated with a showing of cause.

When minors are examined, they can and routinely are found to have capacity, and are "emancipated" from guardianship. Conversely, conservatorship hearings routinely determine that people of adult and often senior age lack capacity, and need a legal guardian or conservator.

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 12:22 PM
BlackTerrel:

Also, at what point is one's bloodlust satisfied? I mean, what's the appropriate method of killing someone with which you are so disgusted? Where is that line drawn?

We could always turn into this, if you'd like:


Saudi Arabia executed two murderers including a Yemeni whose body was nailed to a cross after he was convicted of killing a fellow countryman and his daughter, the interior ministry said on Monday.

Shaaban al-Nasheri was beheaded for shooting dead Dhayeh al-Manbahi after barging into his family home in the southwestern town of Jazan, the ministry said in a statement cited by the official SPA agency.

Nasheri was also found guilty of raping and killing Manbahi's daughter before shooting and wounding her sister.

Following his execution, the murderer's body was nailed to a cross in Jazan.


I'm not really sure why you'd go through the trouble of crucifying a headless corpse... but I guess they like to be REALLY sure in Saudi Arabia.

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 12:35 PM
BlackTerrel:

Also, at what point is one's bloodlust satisfied? I mean, what's the appropriate method of killing someone with which you are so disgusted? Where is that line drawn?

We could always turn into this, if you'd like:




I'm not really sure why you'd go through the trouble of crucifying a headless corpse... but I guess they like to be REALLY sure in Saudi Arabia.

Bloodlust? This punishment isn't too extreme by any measure. He was executed prior to being crucified.

You need to learn the basics of why we have criminal laws, and criminal punishments. I found my old law school text on sale. You should pick it up. (http://cgi.ebay.com/Criminal-Law-Kate-E-Bloch-Kevin-C-McMunigal-Hardcover-2005-/341592700813)

If not, at least google:

1) Deterence. (http://law.jrank.org/pages/955/Deterrence-concept.html)

2) Retribution. (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/114/5/421)

3) Rehabilitation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_(penology))

4) Incapacitation (http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/ReasoningCriminal/13_cook.pdf)

There are many, many reasons why a punishment like a public whipping, or a public hanging, or even in some cultures where violence and physicial punishment are more prevalent, crucifiction...may have to be utilized to ensure the rule of law and the prevention and supression of crime.

brandon
06-21-2010, 12:36 PM
Interesting discussion. I'll share a personal story that might offer some anecdotal support for some arguments.

Growing up I became friends with a girl when we both were in 8th grade. We "dated" each other shortly...for a couple of weeks (we were just kids obviously, although she did have size D boobs at the time, anyway....). We stayed pretty close friends for many years and still talk to this day. Anyway, a year or two after we met, she was about 15 years old and started dating a 33 year old alcoholic that lived down the street from her.

Myself and our mutual friends were all very weirded out by this relationship. As time went by we started occasionally hanging out at this 33 year olds house, because he would give us alcohol and was generally a friendly fellow. A few years later, around the time my friend turned 18, she separated from this guy and went on to date a guy a couple years older than him.

In retrospect, most people would think the guy she dated is the scum of the earth, and should be locked up forever. While I do think we was very much morally lacking, I do know that he was just a nice guy who had some issues. He never did anything wrong. Everyone was consenting, even though we were just in our early to mid teens. The man surely deserves no punishment.

I still occasionally run into the guy around town. It's a sad sight. He is in his early 40s now and pretty much just a hopeless alcoholic with a cocain problem and no money. Interestingly I turned out to be a pretty productive upstanding citizen despite his "bad influence" (and despite what most people at this forum probably think of me ;) )

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 12:45 PM
I am criticizing your test of competence not the draft. I am criticizing your use of a collective label... ie children to confer a group benefit. I am asserting age is not a good test of competence and ones ability to reason because everyone develops their ability to reason differently because we all experience life differently. In asserting age is a poor test I am asserting an individual can be competent in some areas or subject matter at one age and incompetent in other areas at a different age.

I don't disagree that some people have capacity at different ages, I am just explaining that we must HAVE a standard by which to apply a generally applicable rule, in order to have maintain a civil society. You may think that it is an arbitrary and capricious rule to forbid 55 year old men from having sex with 3 month old babies... I do not, and I am perfectly fine with a collective prohibition of such actions. Because each human being is a self-owning individual, even if they lack mental capacity, their rights must be protected. Government, though serving poorly in this capacity, exists to protect these rights, and so its interference to prevent some 55 year old from sleeping with a 3 year old is perfectly acceptable within this system of natural law.

The rules determining capacity are not bound iron-clad to the issue of age, as some adults have been found to lack capacity, and some minors have been emancipated. It is a general rule, through which contract, civil and criminal law function.

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 12:46 PM
Bloodlust? This punishment isn't too extreme by any measure. He was executed prior to being crucified.
...

You should learn context. BlackTerrel has talked about execution for pedophiles. I am asking what method of killing quiets his anger and makes him whole on the issue. Should they be killed by lethal injection? Should the be shot? Beheaded? What punishment is harsh enough, that it'll make the victim whole and society happy? For that matter, what manner of execution can he live with a wrongly-convicted person undergoing?

You talk about law all the time. You know that one of the hazy areas of the legal system has to do with "he said/she said" situations. You know that there are an awful lot of "pedophile" cases that rely on that, and very minimal or questionable forensics. Which of those cases, if they land on the side of a conviction, is solid enough to warrant the death of the convicted?

* * *

There go the hyperboles about three-year-olds again, too. You haven't stated at which point you would draw the line. When is someone adult enough that having sex with them does not land you on a sex offender registry for life?

While on the subject of the registry, at what point does it become incredibly counterproductive to have every "pervert" on the list, rather than those who are actually dangerous? Go to http://www.familywatchdog.us/ and type in your location. See all the dots? What's that "mean" to you? Hell, type in Washington, DC, if your area doesn't light up like a Christmas tree. Wouldn't it be much better to weed out the sexters and almost-legal unions?

I had to sift past several mundane or unknown charges to finally find someone dangerous in my neighborhood:

SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL)
**Conviction Date:*4/9/2002**Age at conviction:*55

That guy was right above this woman:

SEX BAT/INJ NOT LIKELY; F.S. 794.011(5) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
**Conviction Date:*5/4/1993**Age at conviction:*32

There are sixteen "offenders" within five miles of my home. Only the one indicated appears to have a dangerous conviction on record. Wouldn't have been nice to have seen that right off the bat?

dannno
06-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Interesting discussion. I'll share a personal story that might offer some anecdotal support for some arguments.

Growing up I became friends with a girl when we both were in 8th grade. We "dated" each other shortly...for a couple of weeks (we were just kids obviously, although she did have size D boobs at the time, anyway....). We stayed pretty close friends for many years and still talk to this day. Anyway, a year or two after we met, she was about 15 years old and started dating a 33 year old alcoholic that lived down the street from her.

Myself and our mutual friends were all very weirded out by this relationship. As time went by we started occasionally hanging out at this 33 year olds house, because he would give us alcohol and was generally a friendly fellow. A few years later, around the time my friend turned 18, she separated from this guy and went on to date a guy a couple years older than him.

In retrospect, most people would think the guy she dated is the scum of the earth, and should be locked up forever. While I do think we was very much morally lacking, I do know that he was just a nice guy who had some issues. He never did anything wrong. Everyone was consenting, even though we were just in our early to mid teens. The man surely deserves no punishment.

I still occasionally run into the guy around town. It's a sad site. He is in his early 40s now and pretty much just a hopeless alcoholic with a cocain problem and no money. Interestingly I turned out to be a pretty productive upstanding citizen despite his "bad influence" (and despite what most people at this forum probably think of me ;) )


Ya there were so many girls I knew that were dating older guys in high school..like WAY older.. it's like they had an ENTIRE HIGH SCHOOL full of slightly older guys, and they could have had just about any one of them, but no.. they were 15 and they decided to go with the 25+ yr old guy.. or even 13 or 14 and going with the college guy.. I don't know why that is, as I myself am not a young female, but they would be boastful about it. I can't imagine those guys should be in prison for doing some so beyond consensual..

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 12:55 PM
You should learn context. BlackTerrel has talked about execution for pedophiles. I am asking what method of killing quiets his anger and makes him whole on the issue. Should they be killed by lethal injection? Should the be shot? Beheaded? What punishment is harsh enough, that it'll make the victim whole and society happy? For that matter, what manner of execution can he live with a wrongly-convicted person undergoing?

You talk about law all the time. You know that one of the hazy areas of the legal system has to do with "he said/she said" situations. You know that there are an awful lot of "pedophile" cases that rely on that, and very minimal or questionable forensics. Which of those cases, if they land on the side of a conviction, is solid enough to warrant the death of the convicted?

* * *

There go the hyperboles about three-year-olds again, too. You haven't stated at which point you would draw the line. When is someone adult enough that having sex with them does not land you on a sex offender registry for life?

I followed the conversation, and I don't think it is necessarily inapropriate or unjust to execute someone for pedophilia. It depends on the severity and debauchery of the act.

Read Kennedy v. Louisiana. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-343.pdf) Sometimes there is no question of the guilt of the accused. Surely when the evidence is paltry, juries are less likely to impose the death penalty, as they should be. In fact, the death penalty is reserved for acts beyond normal crimes... in order to qualify, agravating factors must be met.

Hyperboles about three year olds? Really? Have you ever worked in a criminal court and seen the men who rape 3 year olds? 4 year olds? 5 year olds? 6 year olds? It isn't hyperbole, it's facts. What we're talking about here isn't the "oh crap man, hey roomie, check her purse quick while she's in the shower and make sure she's 18, I forgot last night" problem, we're talking about young children.

Your comparison of these sadist scumbags to "sexters" is morally reprehensible.

MelissaWV
06-21-2010, 12:59 PM
I followed the conversation, and I don't think it is necessarily inapropriate or unjust to execute someone for pedophilia. It depends on the severity and debauchery of the act.

Read Kennedy v. Louisiana. (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-343.pdf) Sometimes there is no question of the guilt of the accused. Surely when the evidence is paltry, juries are less likely to impose the death penalty, as they should be. In fact, the death penalty is reserved for acts beyond normal crimes... in order to qualify, agravating factors must be met.

Hyperboles about three year olds? Really? Have you ever worked in a criminal court and seen the men who rape 3 year olds? 4 year olds? 5 year olds? 6 year olds? It isn't hyperbole, it's facts. What we're talking about here isn't the "oh crap man, hey roomie, check her purse quick while she's in the shower and make sure she's 18, I forgot last night" problem, we're talking about young children.

Your comparison of these sadist scumbags to "sexters" is morally reprehensible.

They're all on the same list. That is the problem. All of those people you mentioned are in the same category to most people. No one on here has said "Hey, raping three year olds is a-okay!" No one. Not even close.

Unlawful Sexual Activity with Certain Minors 16/17 yr old; F.S. 794.05(1) (PRINCIPAL)
**Conviction Date:*7/30/2004**Age at conviction:*29

Another "convict" from nearby, from the same list that warns me about the man who was 55 and having sex with someone under 12. Yeah. That deserves to be on the same list.

NYgs23
06-21-2010, 01:11 PM
Could be true for pedos, not sure.. definitely not true for most straight males.

Sure it's true for straight males. Maybe you don't understand what I meant by "psychological." I mean the psychological attraction straight men feel towards women as opposed to the physical pleasure of actually having sex with them. If it was largely a matter of the physical sexual sensation, most straight men would have no problem having anal sex with other men, since it feels physically similar to vaginal sex with women. The reason they prefer penetrative sex with women is because they are psychologically attracted to women. Similarly, pedophiles are psychologically attracted to children.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-21-2010, 01:13 PM
nt

NYgs23
06-21-2010, 01:34 PM
Ideally, there wouldn't be one-size-fits-all statutory age restrictions for anything, be it sex, driving, drinking, entering contracts, or whatever. Rather, competency for these things would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in courts. This is already how its done regarding legal adults who are claimed to be mentally incompetent.

For example, if Grandma Ethel takes out a big bank loan, and her son sues the bank, claiming the Ethel has Alzheimer's and is not competent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_%28law%29) to agree to such a loan, judgment won't be passed on the basis of whether Ethel is over 90 or over 95. Rather, the court will evaluate Ethel as an individual to decide whether or not she had the capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_%28law%29) to enter such an agreement.

It's equally absurd to claim that people automatically acquire mental competence at 16, 18, 21, or whatever. Cases should instead be handled individually to determine whether or not the person was mentally competent. Everyone knows age isn't the deciding factor, the people mature at different rates, etc. They only think you need to draw these lines in the sand for convenience. But if you don't need to have an age-based line in the sand for Grandma Ethel, why do you need it for Junior?

silentshout
06-21-2010, 01:43 PM
good post. I agree and i have small children. I do not think that teens who have sex with their 15 year old girlfriends or men that pee behind a tree should be on the same lists as pedophiles and rapists. Small children grow up to be teens, and all of these parents who want a police state to protect their little kids scare me. Have we lost all sanity, putting public urinators and older teens who have sex with their 15- year-old girlfriends on the same lists as sick people who rape young children?!


clb, should people be expected leave their principles at the door whenever children are involved? It's true that are sub-rational individuals and need to be dealt with with that in mind (though when, how, and to what degree they develop rationality is far, far more complex than "magic sixteen" or "magic eighteen"), but that does not justify analyzing issues involving them on the basis of parents' personal emotional attachment to them and it certainly doesn't involve violating the rights of individuals in service to them.

Drunks are sub-rational individuals as well, yet you wouldn't champion laws cushioning bars "to protect the drunks" or suggest that people who defraud drunks should be locked up beyond their court-appointed sentences. Why not? There's no difference between drunks and children in terms of their being unable to fully exercise their rights due to mental incapacity. You just happen to emotionally sympathize with the latter more than the former.

Frankly, I dislike the notion that parents of underage children have greater moral authority on these issues than other people. It seems to me that, if anything, they have less authority, due to their conflict of interest. Parents of young children are found lobbying for all sorts of infringements on freedom in order to have the state do the job the parents are supposed to be doing. The results is a police state around Princess and Junior. And remember, Princess and Junior grow up. Why not talk to some parents of grown children who have had their rights violated by the oppressive state? Why not talk to the parent of a 19 year old who's trapped of the sex offenders' registry for having sex with a 16 year old at a drunken party? That could be your kid one day, after all.

dannno
06-21-2010, 01:50 PM
Sure it's true for straight males. Maybe you don't understand what I meant by "psychological." I mean the psychological attraction straight men feel towards women as opposed to the physical pleasure of actually having sex with them. If it was largely a matter of the physical sexual sensation, most straight men would have no problem having anal sex with other men, since it feels physically similar to vaginal sex with women. The reason they prefer penetrative sex with women is because they are psychologically attracted to women. Similarly, pedophiles are psychologically attracted to children.

I agree that it is not a matter of pure sexual stimulation, but you're right that psychology does play a big part in what we are attracted to.. but ultimately why we are attracted (speaking for straight men, dunno about pedos) is biological and is more in the physical realm... and it isn't for the pure sexual stimulation, when I have sex with a female the positive side effects last for weeks.. so having sex is not just for temporary pleasure, it has long lasting effects that are beneficial because: Lacking intimate contact with females for long periods of time can cause biologically and psychologically caused discomfort, mentally and physically.

John Taylor
06-21-2010, 01:51 PM
That is why I am criticizing your age test. I do not support initiating aggression at any age.

For you it is ok for individuals to initiate aggression under the age of 18 because they are legally incompetent.

False. I do not subscribe to this position.


But then as soon as someone gets murdered by an illegal alien under 18 you are going to do the same bullshit Republicans do and say.. well I am not sure if they are incompetent. There are certain circumstances they should be held accountable even if they are under 18.

Who said anything about illegal immigrants? Merely because someone is a minor does not mean that they are necessarily incompentent, it just means that they are presumed to be incompetent until proven otherwise. It is a burden of proof issue, which serves to protect minors in a legal, and in this, a sexual context.


Then I am going to point out you are a hypocrite because you don't think people can fuck until they are 18 or drink before 21 and your so called "standard" that you are waving around as moral superiority is no standard based upon rule of law at all. It is complete and utter bullshit.

I have never said that someone under 18 should not legally be permitted to drink, or to engage in sexual acts, I have just made an argument that there is a reason the law has treated minors as being incompetent for 1300 years under the common law. It is because they by-and-large are incompetent, and incapable of giving informed consent. I'll keep it simple for you, just stay away from the kiddies.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-21-2010, 02:06 PM
nt

jmdrake
06-21-2010, 11:03 PM
If you want to redefine what a pedophile is that's something else. There should be some sort of concensus and eliminate the stupidity that charges an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old.

But how about the 35 year old who molests an 11 year old. Can we agree that dude needs to be removed from society forever?

The only crime that should have the death penalty is murder. That's because I don't want someone who is a rapist / child molester / fill in the blank to think "I'll get the deadly drip for doing this anyway. I might as well kill the only witness".

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 12:19 AM
The only crime that should have the death penalty is murder. That's because I don't want someone who is a rapist / child molester / fill in the blank to think "I'll get the deadly drip for doing this anyway. I might as well kill the only witness".

That's actually the best argument I've heard against my position. Something I hadn't though of. And I may have to reconsider.

Regardless I think the punishment should be very very severe. I'm not hard and fast on this. My general position is that we need to be much harder on "true criminals" and repeal all the bullshit victimless crimes.

As far as all the details - that's another discussion.

tangent4ronpaul
06-22-2010, 04:13 AM
That's actually the best argument I've heard against my position. Something I hadn't though of. And I may have to reconsider.

Regardless I think the punishment should be very very severe. I'm not hard and fast on this. My general position is that we need to be much harder on "true criminals" and repeal all the bullshit victimless crimes.

As far as all the details - that's another discussion.

All sex crimes are "bullshit victimless crimes" unless they were un-consensual.

-t

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 03:29 PM
All sex crimes are "bullshit victimless crimes" unless they were un-consensual.

-t

Well I don't think an 11 year old can give consent.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-22-2010, 04:01 PM
nt

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 04:12 PM
If you can sail around the world by yourself are you old enough to have sex?

Are we seriously having this discussion? That a 30 year old having sex with an 11 year old is ok? And that the 11 year old can give consent?

Because if so you are a sick fuck. There is nothing to debate here.

Please tell me I misinterpreted.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-22-2010, 04:20 PM
nt

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 04:23 PM
Are we seriously having this discussion? That a 30 year old having sex with an 11 year old is ok? And that the 11 year old can give consent?

Because if so you are a sick fuck. There is nothing to debate here.

Please tell me I misinterpreted.

Someone is either qualified to give consent, or they're not. I have a hard time coming up with any circumstance that would lead to an eleven-year-old having the life experience and general understanding of what they're undertaking in order to give informed consent on this issue. Why go so low, though? Why not discuss a fifteen-year-old, for instance? Some are virtually adults, and could easily be emancipated. If the young lady (or gentleman) in question believes that the act was consensual, that should certainly factor into it. Some nineteen-year-olds don't have the mental capacity to give consent. Some thirty-year-olds don't.

People are deviously hung up on age, and again are racing to the poles rather than discussing the much more difficult issues in the middle. What magical line designates that above which you're assumed competent to give consent? Temporal lines like that are ridiculous. They're shortcuts.

John Taylor
06-22-2010, 04:32 PM
How come persons accused of sex crimes involving minors are not extended this courtesy? Because it is a hypocrisy of the one way proportion..

I did not say the common law was perfect, but I said there is a reasonable aproximation, a legal fiction if you will, which is necessary to determine liability if the mental status of a minor cannot be determined prior to the act.



How do you reconcile that. "I have never said that.... but I agree with the 1300 years of common law"?

You obviously agree with the age test. You support the age statues and the common law behind it.

I agree with a general definition of maturation and the age of consent at 18, even though I personally think it should be at least 30 for voting, and perhaps 21 for entering contracts. The common law simply establishes a presumption. That presumption is rebuttable. Ok?



Define kiddies.

Anyone under 45 in your case.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-22-2010, 05:13 PM
I did not say the common law was perfect, but I said there is a reasonable aproximation, a legal fiction if you will, which is necessary to determine liability if the mental status of a minor cannot be determined prior to the act.

I agree with a general definition of maturation and the age of consent at 18, even though I personally think it should be at least 30 for voting, and perhaps 21 for entering contracts. The common law simply establishes a presumption. That presumption is rebuttable. Ok?

Which begs the question. What is an acceptable rebuttal?

Depending on the what is acceptable evidence for a rebuttal I can semi-respect the position of a presumption if was consistently applied but still consider it a weak argument.

I would argue proof of personal responsibility is evidence of consent. Proof of personal responsibility is something I can easily envision in the an/cap model of PDA's/personal insurance but in the statist model personal responsibility is assumed.

I somewhat indifferent on where the chips fall on evidence of consent but I am very opposed to taking everything off of the discussion table but age.


Anyone under 45 in your case.

Geezus... have you no decency? Let me at least rob the cradle and knock 10-15 years off of that.

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 05:27 PM
I just want to know when a person can have consensual sex according to you.

Obviously you feel 11 is out of the question. So I will ask again.

If you can sail around the world by yourself are you old enough to have sex?

There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I'm happy with where it is now at 18. With the caveat that if you are close enough in age there is an exception. If they moved it to 16 I'd probably be ok with that too. But there needs to be a rule in place.

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 05:34 PM
There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I'm happy with where it is now at 18. With the caveat that if you are close enough in age there is an exception. If they moved it to 16 I'd probably be ok with that too. But there needs to be a rule in place.

Are you happy with the fact that sixteen is fine in one place, and could get you jail time just down the street in another state, though?

tangent4ronpaul
06-22-2010, 05:43 PM
If you can sail around the world by yourself are you old enough to have sex?

YES!

-t

tangent4ronpaul
06-22-2010, 05:50 PM
There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I'm happy with where it is now at 18. With the caveat that if you are close enough in age there is an exception. If they moved it to 16 I'd probably be ok with that too. But there needs to be a rule in place.

16 is the age of consent in most states. Sometimes it's 16 if you are within so many years, sometimes it 16 period. Some states go 14 if you are within so many years.

Used to be a spread of 13 - 21, now it's basically 16 - 18 with 16 being more common.

Here is a chart:

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

-t

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-22-2010, 05:57 PM
nt

tmosley
06-22-2010, 06:13 PM
Well I don't think an 11 year old can give consent.

Well, I don't think a 44 year old can give consent. If anyone under 44 has sex, they go to prison, and are labeled a baby-raper for the rest of their life.


I wonder if the guys in this documentary are libertarians:

YouTube - chicken hawk men who love boys 1 6.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQBWrfMdN1A)

I would love to see a Congress full of libertarians but this issue will permanently keep that dream from coming true. :(

Your children will be raped by their foster parents after they are stripped from you following the death of your significant other at the hands of police during no-knock terrorism raids, the death will be blamed on YOU. You really feel that your children are safe in this safety obsessed, statist society?

If you want to keep your children safe, lock them up in a concrete box. It'll get them used to the life that you and your ilk have damned them to. If they complain, tase them. BTW, your police force is now using tasers on children as young as 9 years old. Feel safe?

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN'S FREEDOM?

NYgs23
06-22-2010, 07:23 PM
As I keep saying, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis the same as is done will the mentally handicapped. No law says, "Everyone under a __ IQ is incapable of legally doing _______" No, the legal competency of individuals is judged on a case-by-case basis in a court of law. Why should it be different in this case? I don't mean just for sexual consent either, but all age restrictions, including the legal ability to enter contracts and so forth. No one says that Grandma is inherently incompetent to do this or that because she's over 90; why should it be any different for young people. One-size-fits-all anything is absurd.

Here's a question, just to throw out there: For those who have seen the movie Forrest Gump, Forrest had the intelligence of a young child. When he and Jenny had sex, was it rape on her part?

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 08:23 PM
Are you happy with the fact that sixteen is fine in one place, and could get you jail time just down the street in another state, though?

Well do we want more rights for the states or for the federal government?

There does need to be a law and the consequences for violating it should be severe. A lot more severe than what is given to some poor schmuck who grows weed in his back yard.

The exact letter of the law and where you draw the line can be debated.

MelissaWV
06-22-2010, 08:26 PM
Well do we want more rights for the states or for the federal government?

There does need to be a law and the consequences for violating it should be severe. A lot more severe than what is given to some poor schmuck who grows weed in his back yard.

The exact letter of the law and where you draw the line can be debated.

You keep saying "a" law, though, as if it's one-size-fits all. You and others keep citing pre-pubescent examples, always with a much older grownup. You keep being incredibly vague.

What is so frightening about testing for competence if the victim says it was consensual, to see whether or not that victim could, in fact, give consent? And have you reviewed what others and I have said about what having a capital rape distinction would mean for the victims?

BlackTerrel
06-22-2010, 11:01 PM
You keep saying "a" law, though, as if it's one-size-fits all. You and others keep citing pre-pubescent examples, always with a much older grownup. You keep being incredibly vague.

What is so frightening about testing for competence if the victim says it was consensual, to see whether or not that victim could, in fact, give consent? And have you reviewed what others and I have said about what having a capital rape distinction would mean for the victims?

Because I don't like to give the powers that be more power.

Who should decide if both sides are able to give consent? Who should get that power?

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-22-2010, 11:24 PM
nt

dannno
06-22-2010, 11:49 PM
The individual by voluntarily accepting personal responsibility and receiving recognition in society for demonstrating a desire to consent.

So, you mean, if it's acceptable within society to marry younger or have sex at a younger age then it should be ok, but if it is not ok then the parents and society should shun or discourage the relationship in order to help the younger individual understand that maybe what they are doing isn't the best idea and maybe they can then better determine what the consequences or outcome of their actions may be :confused:

What a novel concept.

Brian4Liberty
06-22-2010, 11:49 PM
Also, at what point is one's bloodlust satisfied? I mean, what's the appropriate method of killing someone with which you are so disgusted?

For some criminals, there is nothing "bad enough" for them. But as a rational society, we must have rational justice. Life in prison, solitary. The problem with the death penalty is that the State gets the wrong person so often. Maybe when they confess it might be appropriate.

Speaking of unrepentant, for the case of this guy below, medieval torture might be appropriate, but that would be an emotional response...


Richard Allen Davis (born June 2, 1954) is a convicted murderer, whose criminal record fueled support for passage of California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. He is currently on death row in the Adjustment Center at San Quentin State Prison, California. He was convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and four special circumstances (robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and a lewd act on a child) of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Klaas was abducted October 1, 1993, from her Petaluma, California, home.

A San Jose, California, Superior Court jury recommended the death sentence for Davis on August 5, 1996. After the verdict was read, Davis stood and flipped the bird at the courtroom with both hands. Later, at his formal sentencing, Davis read a statement claiming that Klaas had said to Davis, "Just don’t do me like my dad," just before Davis killed her, implying that Klaas' father was a child molester. Klaas' father reacted angrily and left the courtroom to avoid causing further commotion. Judge Thomas C. Hastings proceeded with the formality of the death sentence, saying "Mr. Davis, this is always a traumatic and emotional decision for a judge. You made it very easy today by your conduct."

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-23-2010, 08:01 AM
nt

tangent4ronpaul
06-23-2010, 08:25 AM
As I keep saying, it should be judged on a case-by-case basis the same as is done will the mentally handicapped. No law says, "Everyone under a __ IQ is incapable of legally doing _______" No, the legal competency of individuals is judged on a case-by-case basis in a court of law. Why should it be different in this case? I don't mean just for sexual consent either, but all age restrictions, including the legal ability to enter contracts and so forth. No one says that Grandma is inherently incompetent to do this or that because she's over 90; why should it be any different for young people. One-size-fits-all anything is absurd.

Here's a question, just to throw out there: For those who have seen the movie Forrest Gump, Forrest had the intelligence of a young child. When he and Jenny had sex, was it rape on her part?

I've seen reference to laws that say if a person is retarded, they can't consent and it's rape. Still, there is minor and major retardation - some are high functioning. ditto, if a person is intoxicated. The bar on that one is so low, that if you pick someone up in a bar and have sex it's probably rape. 2 drinks our here. DC is 1.5 drinks. In just about every case, it's likely that both parties have drunk more than that so both would be rapist and victim. Bit hard to enforce though - until they install bedroom camera's and bedside breathalyzers...

On the FG question, technically yes. Not like the state has any business in the matter.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
06-23-2010, 08:48 AM
Well do we want more rights for the states or for the federal government?


You just pointed out the 800 lb guerrilla in the middle of the room.

The expected answer is more states rights. What's wrong with that picture? If you ask people at random who there Reps / Senators are in Washington and what legislation they are working on many will know. The media reports on this.

If you ask them who their state level reps or city / county council members are and what laws they are working on, it's a very rare person that won't give you a blank stare. It's generally not reported on. At best, they may give you a last name they saw on a yard sign.

In theory, the federal government is supposed to be severely limited and state rights very broad. Yet, the latter is virtually invisible to the public and often more draconian than what the feds do.

In countering the fed gov overstepping it's bounds, getting people elected to federal office is the obvious answer. Getting people elected to local office can be equilly effective as they can say no to the feds. Both are a lot easier said than done.

Educating voters as to what's going on at both levels seems the most effective method, but without a media infrastructure, very expensive and dificult to pull off.

I'm going to split this off so it doesn't derail the thread. Go here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2762388#post2762388

-t

Brooklyn Red Leg
06-23-2010, 09:01 AM
The problem with this whole discussion (as has been pointed out by people like MelissaWV) is the definition of pedophile. Its someone who has sex with a PRE-PUBESCENT 'child'. Puberty is THE demarcation line between childhood and adulthood, period. As there is no way (that I know of) to actually test competence in any meaningful way that doesn't deprive some of their Liberty, puberty should be the line. Yes, that means some will be able to have sex, legally, much earlier. However, I would point out that there currently already ARE small adults having sex and getting pregnant. Its the same retarded Prohibition problem for something that is entirely, 100%, natural to **** sapiens sapiens.

How fucking retarded is it that a woman at the age of 13 can consent to get an abortion (an invasive and medically dangerous procedure) but CANNOT consent to have sex with another consenting person (no matter how old)? Post-pubescents are NOT children and its high time people were made to understand this fact. Statutory rape is fucking dumb and is ex post facto to boot (which means all the laws surrounding it are unConstitutional) and every statutory rape law in the country NEEDS to struck down. Its either rape or its not.

As others have stated, dishing out the death penalty for pedophiles is harsh beyond measure because there is rarely 100% proof of a crime. I don't want that blood on my hands.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 09:19 AM
Because I don't like to give the powers that be more power.

Who should decide if both sides are able to give consent? Who should get that power?

Then why are you talking about eleven-year-olds and such? If no one decides, they are perfectly able to give consent.

I have, and I'm sure most people have, assumed you were talking about a world in which courts still exist. Obviously this is so, since you're talking about people getting "the death penalty" and so on. Therefore, a court of law (or arbitration) would determine whether the person in question has the mental capacity to give consent.

Of course, the person being raped/molested has a certain amount of "power" in the moment to decide they are NOT giving consent, but we have been discussing people who are either too young to possibly defend themselves, or somehow being "tricked" into consenting (think someone who's mentally challenged and an authority figure), or perhaps who lacks the physical ability to defend themselves (the elderly, the comatose, etc.).

As long as there is a court involved, there is someone to decide whether or not the capacity exists for consent.

This would only apply in a tiny fraction of cases, anyhow, where the victim insists they gave consent, even though it seems unlikely to outsiders that they were able to. Parents tend to think of their teens as children, and the teens tend to think of themselves as adults. Sometimes the latter is correct.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 09:22 AM
For some criminals, there is nothing "bad enough" for them. But as a rational society, we must have rational justice. Life in prison, solitary. The problem with the death penalty is that the State gets the wrong person so often. Maybe when they confess it might be appropriate.

Speaking of unrepentant, for the case of this guy below, medieval torture might be appropriate, but that would be an emotional response...

I pointed out earlier in this thread, though, that the lines are all blurred, and this is part of our massive problem as a society. The guy who was 55 and convicted of acts with a child under 12 is out and about, in my general area, something like eight years later? That boggles my mind. Why is he not in jail?

That's the part of BT's original post that I do agree with, and I guess I haven't expressed that. If we dumped the bullshit "criminals" out of prison, we'd have more room for charming individuals like that one. I am quite sure there are pot "dealers" in the area who served longer sentences than this sicko.

tangent4ronpaul
06-23-2010, 10:33 AM
Who are the offenders and who are the "victims"?

I'm under the impression that pre-pubescent molestation / rape is relatively rare. When it happens it's usually a family member, relative or family friend. If caught, the recidivism rate is almost non-existent. Cases of stranger + pre-pubescent is very rare.

The absolute most common category is tween/teen + tween/teen. Roughly 1/4th of teens engage in "sexting" - a sex crime. That's ~1.5 Million teens.

The next most likely category would be a relationship between a teen and someone close but a bit too old - like a 15yo and a 20 yo.

A runaway basically has 3 job options and an alternative. Thief, drug dealer and prostitute. The alternative is find someone to take you in. 2 of these probably involve sex. Should a 15 or 16yo be able to rent out their body or enter into a consensual relationship / business deal where they get food and shelter in exchange? We can thank child labor laws for limiting options.

With the epidemic of single parent families and those where both parents work, some may seek out a parental figure and get into it that way. Who knows how common this is.

there are the really stupid sex crimes: skinny dipping, streaking, urinating behind a bush, etc. Pretty common - especially the last.

Adults that rape adults isn't that common, but as opposed to those that have relations with those under 18, their recidivism rate is actually pretty high.

I posted this link a while back - well documented and balanced analysis:

No Easy Answers
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0907webwcover.pdf


The US Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that just 14 percent of all sexual
assault cases reported to law enforcement agencies involved offenders who were
strangers to their victims.31 Sexual assault victims under the age of 18 at the time of
the crime knew their abusers in nine out of 10 cases: the abusers were family
members in 34 percent of cases, and acquaintances in another 59 percent of cases.32
When the sexual assault victim was under six years old, almost half (49 percent) of
the offenders were family members.33
Sex abuse crimes against children that have received the most media attention and
have consequently generated great public concern typically involve a child who has
been kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and killed by a stranger. Although such crimes
are seared into the public consciousness, they represent a tiny fraction of crimes
against children. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) estimates that around 115
children are abducted per year by non-family strangers—of which 46 result in the
death of the victim.34 The number of those cases that included sexual abuse is
unknown. According to a 1997 analysis of 1,214 juvenile kidnappings, 49 percent of
juvenile kidnappings are perpetrated by family members, 27 percent by an
acquaintance, and 24 percent by a stranger.35

I recently went off on one Rep for his claims on the floor: "there are 704,000 registered sex offenders in the united states!" I told him that I simply didn't believe him and that that would meand that approximately 1 out of every 426 people in the country was a registered sex offender. I asked him for some reality with his fear mongering, as that rate did not conform to local conditions by several orders of magnitude. He also claimed that recidivism rates were well documented to be be "astronomical".... This was to sell an amendment barring sex offenders from being able to get federal housing loans. OK, that means they are pretty much stuck renting. What does an apartment complex offer that a house doesn't? MUCH HIGHER DENSITIES OF CHILDREN AND OTHER POTENTIAL VICTIMS! - Good job, shit for brains!


High Rates of Recidivism?
Sex offender laws also reflect the assumption that previously convicted sex
offenders are responsible for most sex crimes. Yet according to a 1997 US
Department of Justice study, 87 percent of the people arrested for sex crimes were
individuals who had not previously been convicted of a sex offense.36
The focus of sex offender laws on people who have previously been convicted of sex
offenses may originate in the misperception that most if not all of those who have
committed sex crimes in the past will do so again. Legislators, public officials, and
members of the public routinely claim that people who have committed sex offenses
pose a great risk to the public because they have “astronomically high” recidivism
rates.37 For example, federal legislators justified the need for federal sex offender
laws by asserting sex offender recidivism rates of 40 percent, 74 percent, and even
90 percent.38 Legislators rarely cite, nor are they asked for, the source and credibility
of such figures. In addition, most of those who make public assertions about the
recidivism rates of sex offenders take a “one-size-fits-all” approach; they do not
acknowledge the marked variation in recidivism rates among offenders who have
committed different kinds of sex offenses, nor the influence of other factors on
recidivism.

What really makes the legislators claims so ridiculous, is a bill that was introduced into the 110th session, but not passed (expect it's re-introduction this year) that had a section ordering the Justice Dept / FBI to look into the matter for a year and finding out how common sex crimes really were. In short, they admitted that they didn't have a fucking clue!

Worse, they asked the agency with the most to gain from coming back and saying it's really, really bad... Talk about letting the fox guard the hen house!

That legislation is the one where McCain has a section calling for the censorship and monitoring of the Internet. A US black list of sites you can't go to. In every other country where that has happened, because the list is secret, it was immediately abused and used for political censorship, with in general - 50+ % of sites having nothing to do with sex. Again, it should be re-introduced again this year.

-t

Brian4Liberty
06-23-2010, 11:00 AM
I pointed out earlier in this thread, though, that the lines are all blurred, and this is part of our massive problem as a society.

Of course, and I blurred them even further by bringing up a murderer, kidnapper, rapist and pedophile all rolled into one, that openly taunted everyone about his crime. That would have to be a boundary case: as bad as it gets.

tangent4ronpaul
06-23-2010, 01:32 PM
Blimp...