I found this on another messageboard and wanted to hear what you think...


Here are two cases...

1) A 16 year old boy (who was molested when he was a child) molests an 8 year old girl. The boy is charged as an adult and pleas to 25-life.

2) A woman is arguing with her husband (they are in the middle of getting a dicorce) about whether or not they should go home from the party or stay. Her husband gets out of the car and walks back towards his friend's house where the party is. His wife runs him over, breaking his femur, dislocating his hip, and damaging several vertebae in his back. Bystanders say the woman got out of her car and sarcastically said "sorry" before getting back in and driving away. She claims it was an accident. There was a barrier seperating her car from her husband. She says she didn't notice it. During the trial she cries almost constantly and lies several times. The deciding factors in the trial are 1) the jury is mostly women. 2) the defendant is a woman and 3) she claims he beat her.

The prosecution shows evidence of her violence, her husband having been to the emergency room because of her stabbing him before. She is found not-guilty on all counts. There is absolutely no evidence to back up her claim that he beat her.

----
These are real cases, there are dozens of similar cases where the sentences OBVIOUSLY don't fit the crime.

Repeat after me.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I have no doubt that such an effect exists (I've seen Chicago, I know how this goes ;) ), but simply posting a few handpicked cases does nothing.

Did I say it was data? I asked for your opinion on the anecdote. Do you dispute the title?

0) You did not say it was data, however, it is worthless to post such as a means of discussing the topic you posted. Single incidents are largely irrelevant and while they can point to a potential trend they often just lead to a lot of outrage over a snafu. Large bodies of statistics are much more interesting as far as forming an educated opinion goes.

1) I am not going to share a judgment until I've seen sufficient data to formulate an educated opinion.

2) I neither dispute the title nor do I agree with the title. I simply do not have enough data either way.

3) I have no issues with how the 16 year old was sentenced.

0) You did not say it was data, however, it is worthless to post such as a means of discussing the topic you posted. Single incidents are largely irrelevant and while they can point to a potential trend they often just lead to a lot of outrage over a snafu. Large bodies of statistics are much more interesting as far as forming an educated opinion goes.

Single incidents are largely irrelavant? What if that case was YOUR case?

3) I have no issues with how the 16 year old was sentenced.

The 16 year old was charged as an adult. He was molested when he was a child. Do you honestly believe that the case would have ended the same if a 16 year old girl was charged with molesting a young boy?

Fathers have rights, too. (Civil Liberties Watch)

Many people who are concerned about social justice for women and children seem to be morally blind when it comes to the rights--if not the humanity--of divorced and separated fathers.

In today's social and political climate, it is not considered appropriate to speak in defense of divorcing and divorced men, or even of divorced fathers. This prevailing anti-male, anti-father attitude, employed in tandem with a lot of misinformation, flawed data, and sexist stereotypes, has succeeded in convincing most divorcing fathers that they are less than human. In the era of the "deadbeat dad," most believe that they cannot continue to be a father to their children after divorce and that they certainly couldn't perform adequately as a single parent. When contemplating the possibility of a separation or divorce, most involved fathers assume that they would forfeit their active parental role and become an every-other-weekend "visitor" in their children' s lives. Beginning very early in the divorce process, fathers begin to receive consistent confirmation of this assumption. Certainly some fathers voluntarily abdicate their parental responsibilities even in the absence of the many extenuating circumstances discussed below. Here, I address the tragic crisis faced by fathers who want very much to continue to parent their children after divorce'

Under current conditions, there are several reasons (other than the welfare of the children) for a wife to battle strenuously to obtain sole custody. The more custody the mother has of the child, the more financial support the courts will award her. Often, however, the main reason is totally unrecognized by the courts: the bitterness and need for revenge which attends so many marital breakups. Instead of recognizing the devastating effects this can have on everyone and attempting to minimize them, the legal system encourages the use of the children as weapons in divorce court.

Attorney Ronald K. Henry summed it up in testimony before a U.S. House subcommittee on June 30, 1992:

We know that children are born
with two parents. We know that
children want, love, and need two
parents. Still, we take two loving
parents, we walk them into court
at their most emotionally distraught
and weak moment, and
we say to them, "Here are your
weapons. Fight it out and the last
one standing owns the child."

The court system begins with the presumption that women are better suited to care for younger children than are men. Lawyers routinely tell divorcing fathers that they have very little chance of getting custody and that making the attempt will require thousands of dollars and a bitter court battle that will be very hard on all concerned, including the children.

Just as many men have resisted giving up the economic advantages they have enjoyed, many women cling to their traditional domain of power. Various attempts are made to rationalize this behavior, such as the pervasive belief that men don't really want custody or continued involvement with their children. This is reminiscent of the arguments given for denying women full participation in economic life--and just as sexist.

When a marriage breaks up, regard, less of the couple's financial and child, care arrangements, the courts presume that the wife has an equal right to the money and property her husband's and/ or her labor has produced. Why isn't it also presumed that the father has equal rights to the children they have produced? If a father has participated in parenting--that is, child care and decisions regarding the children- -why doesn't the father still have at least an equal right to continue parenting his children?

Instead, the system turns fathers into visitors with the every-other- week, end "privilege"--when mother sees fit to cooperate--to see his children. (In more than 20 states, visitation is legally defined as a "privilege" rather than a "right") The mother makes all decisions about the children's education, health, religion, appearance, rules of behavior, and discipline. Only the mother is expected--or permitted- -to participate in the daily development of the children.

Yet this system still demands his money. He becomes an economic object rather than a father. Like mothers, fathers accept the burdens of parenting so they can share in its rewards. But the system takes the rewards of parenthood from a divorcing father and leaves him with nothing but the burdens.

We know that there are three principal predictors of child-support compliance: the fairness of the original court order, access to the children, and employment stability. Regardless, the divorced father is expected to maintain his children's standard of living and support a separate life for himself. Some, times this is genuinely impossible, because support payments are set with no provisions for economic realities such as unemployment, underemployment, or serious accident or illness. And second families are not taken into account.

Child-support enforcement is the most punitive form of debt connection in America. A billion-dollar collection bureaucracy has been created that exists for no other form of private debt collection. Tax refunds are intercepted, liens are imposed, credit is ruined, professional licenses and drivers' licenses are revoked, and people are thrown in jail. (Debtors' prisons live.) These gross violations of civil liberties, which would not be tolerated in any other situation, are also self-defeating methods of collection. Nevertheless, "enforcement" continues.

We hear much about the Bureau of Census statistics, which allegedly reveal that only 50 percent of support is paid in full and that 25 percent is paid only in part. Despite the fact that these numbers have been questioned by several independent researchers over the years, they are still accepted as accurate. One researcher and analyst, Professor Sanford Braver, has exposed incredible methodological errors in the gathering of this data.

There is no verification of amounts (women were asked simply how much they receive; noncustodial parents were not asked for corroboration, nor were court records checked); nothing is done to correct obvious sources of false data (for example, the known tendency of welfare recipients to underreport outside income); no data is gathered on how many nonpaying or underpaying noncustodial parents are unemployed, underemployed, disabled, supporting second families, or withholding payment because they are not permitted to see their children.

Incredibly, no distinction is made between child support ordered after divorce and support for children whose fathers are unknown to their mothers. In other words, in many cases these "deadbeat dads" don't even know they are fathers, and many more are under 18 years of age. These statistics even fail to exclude obligors who are dead!

Professor Braver points out:

Buried in the data is a very interesting
fact which received no publicity
from special interest groups
or from the federal enforcement
program. Sixty-six percent of non,
compliance was reported by the
custodial mothers themselves as
"father unable to pay."

And even with all its methodological flaws, the Census Bureau data show that access to the children makes the biggest difference. Over 90 percent of support was paid in joint-custody situations where both parents were permitted to continue to be parents.

If we are really concerned about the welfare of children, we must start working on a system that encourages the continued involvement of both parents after divorce. We must abandon distorted stereotypes and the band-aid policies which treat only the symptoms of theproblem.

A friend whose work I much ad, mire, Professor Ferrel Christensen, founder of the Canadian Movement to Establish Real Gender Equality, writes with simple eloquence:

Justice is not an intellectual exercise.
It is still being denied all
around us, causing vast amounts
of human misery. Sexism in parenting
must be brought to an end.

Barbara Dority is the permit of Humanists of Washington, the executive director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship, and cochair, , of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce.



COPYRIGHT 1994 American Humanist Association

Dority, Barbara, Fathers have rights, too. (Civil Liberties Watch)., Vol. 54, The Humanist, 03-01-1994, pp 35(2).

Single incidents are largely irrelavant? What if that case was YOUR case?


From the point of determining overall bias in the system it is completely irrelevant.


The 16 year old was charged as an adult.


He was old enough.


He was molested when he was a child.


And this excuses him why?


Do you honestly believe that the case would have ended the same if a 16 year old girl was charged with molesting a young boy?

I said his sentence seems fair. Whether it would have happened at the same degree of severity were "he" a "she"? I don't know and have no evidence on which to form an opinion.

Your article on custody is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that has nothing to do with this: different departments.

He was old enough.

Who determines that? You say he is old enough to be treated as an adult when he does something deserving of punishment? Why? Because he is mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for his actions? If so, then why doesn't this waver work for alcohol? If someone is old and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions in court, then they should be treated as an adult in all respects.

And this excuses him why?

It doesn't excuse it, but it definitely explains it. If you know anything about molestion, then you know that those who are molested as children are MUCH more likely to molest children than the average person.

I said his sentence seems fair. Whether it would have happened at the same degree of severity were "he" a "she"? I don't know and have no evidence on which to form an opinion.

That's my entire point. Fairness is all relative. Is it fair that this kid is being punished so much more harshly than others who have committed the same or similar crimes?

Your article on custody is a whole 'nother kettle of fish that has nothing to do with this: different departments.

How so? "Inconsistant and sexist courts" that article seems entirely within the realm of my post.

Who determines that? You say he is old enough to be treated as an adult when he does something deserving of punishment? Why? Because he is mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for his actions? If so, then why doesn't this waver work for alcohol? If someone is old and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions in court, then they should be treated as an adult in all respects. It does not matter if he is held accountable for his own actions in other things, he was for this and I completely agree with it.

It doesn't excuse it, but it definitely explains it. If you know anything about molestion, then you know that those who are molested as children are MUCH more likely to molest children than the average person. I was molested for 3 years when I was little. I am not a molestor. I've never had an "urge" to harm a child, or anyone else for that matter. If I became messed up enough to do that, I'd hope I was locked away for good. Actually, I'd hope someone would just shoot me instead.

Yeah, I'm a girl. Whether or not they'd treat a girl molesting a boy the same way or not is irrelevant to this case. If you say that a molested boy will grow up and react differently (as far as molesting another) than a girl will, then you're being sexist.

It is not excuse, but he probably tried to use it as one.

That's my entire point. Fairness is all relative. Is it fair that this kid is being punished so much more harshly than others who have committed the same or similar crimes?
No, it's unfair that others commiting the same crime are not punished justly enough.

It is also not only a matter of punishment, but a matter of locking away someone who is a danger to children and others.

Personally, I think there are too many variables to the woman-running-over-the-man case. The jury of all female. What if 3 male and 4 female? (i dunno how many people make up a jury). Or 6 male and 6 female? Too many variables on that part. Thats enough variables for me. I cant make any guesses on this case. Well, we just dont know till we see? But we wont see- and thats why it may SEEM biased. You never know- it could be a half-female half-male jury, and could be the same result.

Who determines that? You say he is old enough to be treated as an adult when he does something deserving of punishment? Why? Because he is mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for his actions? If so, then why doesn't this waver work for alcohol? If someone is old and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions in court, then they should be treated as an adult in all respects.


Years ago I was in England and they were prosecuting an 8 year old for murder. Think about it.

The courts determine it, because a 16 year old is old enough to be cognizant of his actions, for the same reason you can vote at 18 but can't drink until you are 21, and regardless of whether he should be treated as an adult in all respects, he should be counted as an adult in a court of law for the purposes of child molestation.

Or do you think 2 years of juvie is sufficient for the crime of child molestation?


It doesn't excuse it, but it definitely explains it. If you know anything about molestion, then you know that those who are molested as children are MUCH more likely to molest children than the average person.

You obviously don't think of child molestation in the same terms that I do. I consider it a heinous crime that is on par with physical child abuse (if not worse), you obviously consider it somewhere around misdemeanor status.


That's my entire point. Fairness is all relative. Is it fair that this kid is being punished so much more harshly than others who have committed the same or similar crimes?

Would you care to bring in actual evidence to support yourself, or are you going to remain vague?


How so? "Inconsistant and sexist courts" that article seems entirely within the realm of my post.

First, because Civil/Family cases are handled in a different court than child molestation. Second, because there are specific laws and organizations surrounding the situation in your article (such as Child Protective Services) that have no bearing on the rest of the courts. Finally, because those laws date back to a time when such division was a natural consequence of the order of society during previous eras. We have always, however, had female criminals.

If you say that a molested boy will grow up and react differently (as far as molesting another) than a girl will, then you're being sexist.

I have no idea where you got that. I'm saying that a girl who molests a boy is less likely to get such a harsh sentence.

It is also not only a matter of punishment, but a matter of locking away someone who is a danger to children and others.

By this reasoning insanity shouldn't be allowed as a defense.

The courts determine it, because a 16 year old is old enough to be cognizant of his actions, for the same reason you can vote at 18 but can't drink until you are 21

You never gave a reason as to why you can vote at 18 but can't drink until your 21. As far as I can tell, there is no logical reason.

Or do you think 2 years of juvie is sufficient for the crime of child molestation?

It depends on the case. If the molester is a 16 year old who was abused and is obviously messed up because of this experience, the last place I would send him is prison, where he would be raped or killed. Get him help. Molestion often turns into a vicious cycle, sending young kids to prison for decades certainly isn't the solution. Does ANYBODY actually think the 16 year old will be better off once he is out of prison in 25 years? Or do you think the decades of violent, disturbing behavior will have conditioned him negatively so he's even more of a threat once he's out?

You obviously don't think of child molestation in the same terms that I do. I consider it a heinous crime that is on par with physical child abuse (if not worse), you obviously consider it somewhere around misdemeanor status.

No. I think crimes should be decided on a case by case basis rather than having everything set in stone. Many murderers get off spending less time in prison than this kid. Rather than attack the quickest, most blatant source of this, why not attack the roots? Get the kid help rather than destroying decades of his life and just reinforcing his disturbed ways, because that's all sending him to prison will do, reinforce them. How would you rule if this girl who was molested ended up molesting a kid another kid a decade from now?


That's my entire point. Fairness is all relative. Is it fair that this kid is being punished so much more harshly than others who have committed the same or similar crimes?

Would you care to bring in actual evidence to support yourself, or are you going to remain vague?

Murderers often get deals if they give cops information, allowing them to get out in less time than this kid will be spending in prison. The woman who ran over her husband will be spending NO time in prison for what very well could have killed the man. Vague? Sorry if I don't waste hours looking for individual cases to use as evidence, I'm sure you have heard of plenty of cases where the ruling was absurd. O.J., all those Enron executives, the cases I brought up to begin with.

First, because Civil/Family cases are handled in a different court than child molestation.

Did I specify a specific court? I don't believe I did.

Second, because there are specific laws and organizations surrounding the situation in your article (such as Child Protective Services) that have no bearing on the rest of the courts.

What's your point? The court still decides the matter.

Finally, because those laws date back to a time when such division was a natural consequence of the order of society during previous eras. We have always, however, had female criminals.

These laws? What laws? There are no laws that say the woman always gets the child in a divorce. It's just precedent.

I have no idea where you got that. I'm saying that a girl who molests a boy is less likely to get such a harsh sentence.
Notice I said IF you say. If. The keyword there is if.

By this reasoning insanity shouldn't be allowed as a defense.
Yes, I agree. For one, many completely sane people can use that as an excuse/defense. For another, being insane IS no excuse.

It depends on the case. If the molester is a 16 year old who was abused and is obviously messed up because of this experience, the last place I would send him is prison, where he would be raped or killed. Get him help. Molestion often turns into a vicious cycle, sending young kids to prison for decades certainly isn't the solution. Does ANYBODY actually think the 16 year old will be better off once he is out of prison in 25 years? Or do you think the decades of violent, disturbing behavior will have conditioned him negatively so he's even more of a threat once he's out?
He won't spend that long in prison.

But he should get life.

Harsh? I'm sorry, but the victim is going through a whole lot of "harshness" right now, and probably for years to come (I've been there, and again, it didn't turn me into a molestor).

Believe me, I feel for anyone who has to go through that. I felt for my abusive father because he had gone through the same thing as a child. But still, that does not excuse his behavior. Sometimes we can't choose the bad experiences in life. But we CAN choose who we become.

How do we know this "boy" is insane, anyway? Perhaps he just knew what he was doing and was like "Oh, well, I was molested when I was little, I didn't know any better." Even if he is insane, I'll say again, that's no excuse.

I feel sorry for the little girl and her parents most of all, who need to feel safe and have justice more than anybody. What if this 16-year-old does not get locked away and is instead given intense therapy? Would you EVER trust him around your child? Prison is not just for punishment, but for safety.

No. I think crimes should be decided on a case by case basis rather than having everything set in stone. Many murderers get off spending less time in prison than this kid. Rather than attack the quickest, most blatant source of this, why not attack the roots? Get the kid help rather than destroying decades of his life and just reinforcing his disturbed ways, because that's all sending him to prison will do, reinforce them. How would you rule if this girl who was molested ended up molesting a kid another kid a decade from now?
Most convicted rapists/molestors don't spend more than 6 months-2 years in jail.

If this girl grows up and molests another, she needs the same treatment - to be locked away. Once again? It's no excuse. If that's what being raped/molested caused, then EVERY person raped/molested would be a rapist/molestor.

Those few that end up this messed up by it, then I'm sorry, but they shouldn't get any special treatment. How do we know all rapists/molestors aren't all insane? Maybe we should just let them all go, too.

Oh wait, usually they do go free.

*sorry if I sound a bit biased*

So, can we clarify the point of the debate...

Is the contention that the courts are less likely to sentence women to jail time than men for no good reason, or are we discussing fair and unfair sentencing guidelines in general?

So, can we clarify the point of the debate...

Is the contention that the courts are less likely to sentence women to jail time than men for no good reason, or are we discussing fair and unfair sentencing guidelines in general?

We're debating both issues; the courts' inconsistency and the courts' sexism.

Notice I said IF you say. If. The keyword there is if.

Alright, but I said nothing to suggest I thought that. *IF* you say everyone is insane to some degree and therefore the insanity defense could be used in all cases, then I must say, your stupid. You said nothing of the sort, just like I said nothing even close to what you implied I was saying.

Yes, I agree. For one, many completely sane people can use that as an excuse/defense. For another, being insane IS no excuse.

Personally, I agree, but insanity will always be a defense.

He won't spend that long in prison.

umm...25 to life...25 years is along time. Worse though is the fact that he'll get out when he's 41 or so having spent most of his life in prison. Obviously his disgusting behavior will continue to be conditioned into him while in prison. Rape happens all the time in prison, most likely it won't seem like a big deal. Rather than lock him away as punishment, why not rehabilitate him?

But he should get life.

So molesting a kid is worse than killing that kid? Murderers often get off with much more lenient sentences.

Harsh? I'm sorry, but the victim is going through a whole lot of "harshness" right now, and probably for years to come (I've been there, and again, it didn't turn me into a molestor).

You can't discount the fact that children who were molested as kids are MUCH more likely to molest kids themselves. Obviously having been molested messes people up. Why not give the person treatment?

How do we know this "boy" is insane, anyway? Perhaps he just knew what he was doing and was like "Oh, well, I was molested when I was little, I didn't know any better." Even if he is insane, I'll say again, that's no excuse.

I'm not saying he's INSANE. I'm saying he was obviously messed up because of his having been molested as a child. (and never got any help with it.)

The 16 year old was charged as an adult. He was molested when he was a child. Do you honestly believe that the case would have ended the same if a 16 year old girl was charged with molesting a young boy?That is a very scary argument to be treading on..

You cannot justify one offence by another, it just doesn't work like that. What is done onto someone else, does not give them any justification to do to another.

Who determines that? You say he is old enough to be treated as an adult when he does something deserving of punishment? Why? Because he is mature and responsible enough to be held accountable for his actions? If so, then why doesn't this waver work for alcohol? If someone is old and responsible enough to be held accountable for their actions in court, then they should be treated as an adult in all respects.First, he should be considered an adult given the nature of the crime. Second, there is no reason to believe that a 16 year old boy should not be held accountable for his crimes just as much as a 21 year old man.

Whether he was molested as a child or not, is irrelavant to me. Whether it happens to be a 16 year old male or a 16 year old female, what they did to the victim is still the same. There are really no variations of this case that could possibly make me reconsider my stance. Molestion is extremely defestating, and as pointed out so eloquently by you, can cause a lot of mental damage and most definetly insecuties with both people and your own self worth.

How would you rule if this girl who was molested ended up molesting a kid another kid a decade from now?The exact same way.

That is a very scary argument to be treading on..

You cannot justify one offence by another, it just doesn't work like that. What is done onto someone else, does not give them any justification to do to another.

Molestion is extremely defestating, and as pointed out so eloquently by you, can cause a lot of mental damage and most definetly insecuties with both people and your own self worth.

Exactly, the kid was messed up and needs HELP, not a lengthy prison term that will just reinforce his conditioning. He was molested as a child, what do you think will happen to him in prison? Most likely he'll be raped. Imagine how screwed up he'll be when he gets out!

First, he should be considered an adult given the nature of the crime. Second, there is no reason to believe that a 16 year old boy should not be held accountable for his crimes just as much as a 21 year old man.

The law says a 16 year old isn't mature enough to be responsible while drinking alcohol. A 16 year old isn't considered responsible enough to consent to sex. A 16 year old isn't considered responsible enough to vote in elections. Why is the age that you inherit adult responsibilities only up for discussion when punishment is involved? If you are mature enough to be charged as an adult, than why can't that "adult" be considered an adult in all circumstances?

Exactly, the kid was messed up and needs HELP, not a lengthy prison term that will just reinforce his conditioning. He was molested as a child, what do you think will happen to him in prison? Most likely he'll be raped. Imagine how screwed up he'll be when he gets out!First off and most importantly, being gang raped in a prison, does not lead to molesting or raping another; it also does not give the predator condonation. Going by that logic, how many people do you believe would be actively commiting these offenses? Secondly, have you ever heard of counselling in prison?

The law says a 16 year old isn't mature enough to be responsible while drinking alcohol. A 16 year old isn't considered responsible enough to consent to sex. A 16 year old isn't considered responsible enough to vote in elections. Why is the age that you inherit adult responsibilities only up for discussion when punishment is involved? If you are mature enough to be charged as an adult, than why can't that "adult" be considered an adult in all circumstances?Drinking and sexually abusing another person are two very different things. The ramifications behind the drinking age are more or less to do with how they handle social situations, schooling, are may be more suseptable to developing potentially dire drinking habbit, if they are given there own free will with this at a younger age.

A 16 year old boy can conceive his own actions, knows what is right from wrong, and can understand the burden they are putting unto another in abusing them. I have watched numerous documentaries on young males that have been sexual abused, and the running pattern amongst them was not to run out and do abuse another, rather that they were disgusted by the entire ordeal and are now seeking professional help.

The perpetrator's past does not nullify the victoms reality.

hmmmm has anyone brought up the supposed "crimes of passion" bias in courts yet? i know in texas that was a big thing

crimes of passion--ie. if a woman caught her husband in bed with another woman and shot them in the heat of the moment, she could be convicted to death but if it was the other way around, the husband would usually receive a lesser sentence than a women who committed the same offense

First off and most importantly, being gang raped in a prison, does not lead to molesting or raping another; it also does not give the predator condonation. Going by that logic, how many people do you believe would be actively commiting these offenses? Secondly, have you ever heard of counselling in prison?

It certainly screws the person up. Counselling in prison is a pathetic joke. Do you honestly think it would help someone who is gangraped inbetween each session?

Drinking and sexually abusing another person are two very different things.

Ya think?

The ramifications behind the drinking age are more or less to do with how they handle social situations, schooling, are may be more suseptable to developing potentially dire drinking habbit, if they are given there own free will with this at a younger age.

The point is that if they aren't considered responsible enough to decide whether or not they want a drink or not, whether or not they want to have sex, or whether or not they want to vote, and if they do who they want to vote for, then they shouldn't be considered an adult ONLY when punishment is involved. It's absurd.

A 16 year old boy can conceive his own actions, knows what is right from wrong, and can understand the burden they are putting unto another in abusing them.

If every 16 year old is as responsible as an adult, then why not lower the drinking age? If your going to be treated as an adult when it comes to punishment, then you should be treated as an adult when it comes to rewards as well.

I have watched numerous documentaries on young males that have been sexual abused, and the running pattern amongst them was not to run out and do abuse another, rather that they were disgusted by the entire ordeal and are now seeking professional help.

Most don't run out and abuse others, but I know for a fact that the average male who was molested as a child DOES NOT go out and seek professional help.

I'm starting to grow sick of seeing you compare sexual abuse to drinking.

umm...25 to life...25 years is along time. Worse though is the fact that he'll get out when he's 41 or so having spent most of his life in prison. Obviously his disgusting behavior will continue to be conditioned into him while in prison. Rape happens all the time in prison, most likely it won't seem like a big deal. Rather than lock him away as punishment, why not rehabilitate him?
I doubt he'll even spend fifteen years. I could be wrong, but I'm just going by the normality of such cases.

So molesting a kid is worse than killing that kid? Murderers often get off with much more lenient sentences.
No, it isn't. Murderers should be locked away forever.

The unfairness in this is not the 16-year-old being put in prison for so long; the unfairness in this is that others who do the same/worse crimes aren't given the same treatment as they should be.

You can't discount the fact that children who were molested as kids are MUCH more likely to molest kids themselves. Obviously having been molested messes people up. Why not give the person treatment?
Um, yes I can. Maybe, rarely, they can be a little more likely, I don't know. But not MUCH as you are pointing out. As I said, you are debating with someone who has been molested. What happened to me gives me NO RIGHT to even think of doing the same thing to another. If I ever had the slightest urge to harm a child, I'd kill myself on the spot, or turn myself in before it happened. I am disgusted with such behavior, and want to help prevent it from happening to others at all, and help those who've already gone through it.

I'm not speaking through my experience alone, but I've known others who have been molested/raped and they didn't turn into the monstrous thing that happened to them.

So sorry, I can discount it.

I'm not saying he's INSANE. I'm saying he was obviously messed up because of his having been molested as a child. (and never got any help with it.)
If what happened to this boy when he was little caused him to do this, then he is insane. Otherwise he's using what happened to him as a defense.

It's nice you add in "and never got any help with it" now, and didn't include it with the facts in the beginning. But, I've never gotten any help (professionally, I'm assuming you mean) for the things that have happened to me. I probably should have, it might have saved me a lot of pain, but I'm fine.

This boy doesn't need help, I doubt anything can help him.

And should we give him the chance? To go back into society? Around children? Oh yeah, you never answered that question, if you'd ever trust him around your kid.

I'm starting to grow sick of seeing you compare sexual abuse to drinking.

I never compared sexual abuse to drinking, fool. I am angered that the system has minimum age qualifications for many actions (drinking, consentual sex, voting, etc.) which are NEVER altered nomatter how mature and responsible an individual is, but as soon as someone does something wrong, there are exceptions. If someone is responsible enough to be treated as an adult in court, then why aren't people who are responsible enough to be treated as adults given adult privileges in other aspects of life?

I doubt he'll even spend fifteen years. I could be wrong, but I'm just going by the normality of such cases.

Explain to me how someone would get out of prison in 15 years if they were sentenced to 25-life. Unless he breaks out, it ain't going to happen.


No, it isn't. Murderers should be locked away forever.

Alright, than you agree that the courts are inconsistent, which is my entire point. Thank you for the support.

The unfairness in this is not the 16-year-old being put in prison for so long; the unfairness in this is that others who do the same/worse crimes aren't given the same treatment as they should be.

So you admit that the system is punishing people, not rehabilitating them. Personally, I am completely against "life in prison". If someone has done something that bad, they should be executed. Life in prison costs too much.


Um, yes I can. Maybe, rarely, they can be a little more likely, I don't know. But not MUCH as you are pointing out. As I said, you are debating with someone who has been molested. What happened to me gives me NO RIGHT to even think of doing the same thing to another. If I ever had the slightest urge to harm a child, I'd kill myself on the spot, or turn myself in before it happened. I am disgusted with such behavior, and want to help prevent it from happening to others at all, and help those who've already gone through it.

I don't think you grasp my argument, I don't feel like explaining it again, so I will direct you to my prior posts. I NEVER said that molesting someone is good. My point is that the molester OBVIOUSLY needs help, as does the person they molested.

I'm not speaking through my experience alone, but I've known others who have been molested/raped and they didn't turn into the monstrous thing that happened to them.

The circumstances are never exactly the same.

If what happened to this boy when he was little caused him to do this, then he is insane. Otherwise he's using what happened to him as a defense.

He accepted a plea agreement, there was no defense. The fact is that he was molested as a child. The fact is that a very large portion of molesters were molested themselves.

It's nice you add in "and never got any help with it" now, and didn't include it with the facts in the beginning. But, I've never gotten any help (professionally, I'm assuming you mean) for the things that have happened to me. I probably should have, it might have saved me a lot of pain, but I'm fine.

Different circumstances. Maybe his was more tramatic.

This boy doesn't need help, I doubt anything can help him.

Alright, don't give help to any molestion victims, they are all beyond help. Post tramatic stress isn't real, it's all just made up. Mental illness is just an excuse for depraved actions, right?

And should we give him the chance? To go back into society? Around children? Oh yeah, you never answered that question, if you'd ever trust him around your kid.

It all depends on how well the therapy goes. Should we just give up on everyone who is at higher risk for committing a crime?

I never compared sexual abuse to drinking, fool. I am angered that the system has minimum age qualifications for many actions (drinking, consentual sex, voting, etc.) which are NEVER altered nomatter how mature and responsible an individual is, but as soon as someone does something wrong, there are exceptions. If someone is responsible enough to be treated as an adult in court, then why aren't people who are responsible enough to be treated as adults given adult privileges in other aspects of life?
Okay, but that still does not mean this boy should go free just because the law is messed up in other areas.

I still don't see what lowering the drinking age has anything to do with molestation. I know what you're saying, he should be treated as an adult in both cases - charged as an adult in molestation, then he should be an adult enough to be allowed to drink.

But just because the drinking age is 21, does not give him an automatic loophole to jump through and molest someone else.

Explain to me how someone would get out of prison in 15 years if they were sentenced to 25-life. Unless he breaks out, it ain't going to happen.
It's happened before. It's called "parole". Or "Good behavior". Both can lower prison time dramatically.

Alright, than you agree that the courts are inconsistent, which is my entire point. Thank you for the support.
Okay, then, I do agree. But I don't agree that this boy should be let free just because of that.

I don't think you grasp my argument, I don't feel like explaining it again, so I will direct you to my prior posts. I NEVER said that molesting someone is good. My point is that the molester OBVIOUSLY needs help, as does the person they molested.
I never said that you said molesting someone is good.

Okay, give this boy help instead of putting him in prison, and still, nobody in their right mind is going to trust him around children. Because we'll never know if he is going to do it again (and I believe he probably would).

If you think it's worth the risk, try telling that to the victim and her family.

The circumstances are never exactly the same.
Yes, but my point was that it rarely happens. I said it possibly can drive someone insane to the point where they will do the same thing because of it, but that is a rarity and not something that's "MUCH more likely" as you said.

Different circumstances. Maybe his was more tramatic. Maybe, but I highly doubt it. I'm not going to display everything I went through, but if the more trauma = much more likely to become a molestor, then I should be one right now.

Alright, don't give help to any molestion victims, they are all beyond help. Post tramatic stress isn't real, it's all just made up. Mental illness is just an excuse for depraved actions, right?
Obviously you didn't get what I was meaning. I was saying that a molestor is probably beyond help, not the person molested.

I have PTSD, I know it's real. But, wow, why am I not out harming little kids?

Even if he can get help, we'll never know. Notice that even rapists/molestors who get help usually do the same thing again.

Even if they won't, they can not be trusted in society again, unless they are kept locked away somewhere.

And he should not go free, anyway. He still needs to be punished for his actions. The person who did this to him when he was young probably did go free.

Is that fair? What if the person who did that to him was molested when he/she was little? What if all rapists and molestors were?

Where do you draw the line?

It certainly screws the person up. Counselling in prison is a pathetic joke. Do you honestly think it would help someone who is gangraped inbetween each session? I am not sure what daily counselling will actually contribute, but that is kind of beside the point. Being in a controlled setting for a long period of time, will likely have more progressing results then him getting a juvenile imprisonment for 2 years, and then set out to do what?? Hmm, which one do you believe will have more substantial results?

Ya think?You may want to stop trying to compare them, then. ;)

The point is that if they aren't considered responsible enough to decide whether or not they want a drink or not, whether or not they want to have sex, or whether or not they want to vote, and if they do who they want to vote for, then they shouldn't be considered an adult ONLY when punishment is involved. It's absurd. Being responsible enough to have an influence on your government is not the same as discerning what is considered acceptable for what is not. Ever hear about the case where the two 10 year old boys were tried in a supreme court for making sexual advancements towards a girl in their class? Why? Because somewhere along the way we need to shift the ownership unto the abuser, and we have already estabished that this can be done at a considerably young age.

We need to set standards and laws based on the victim, not predator.

If every 16 year old is as responsible as an adult, then why not lower the drinking age? If your going to be treated as an adult when it comes to punishment, then you should be treated as an adult when it comes to rewards as well.In some cultures the drinking age is different. Unfortunetly in our society, drinking is usually associated with things such as partying, staying up late, and will usually push for a lot of alchohol consumption at once. If we were to lower the drinking age, and have it the same age as driving, what do you think the results would be? We have enough adults drinking and driving right now.. (yes I realize that teenagers are drinking, just over glorifying a point).

Most don't run out and abuse others, but I know for a fact that the average male who was molested as a child DOES NOT go out and seek professional help.Exactly.

So why should those who do go out and abuse another be held less accountable for there actions?

I'm not speaking through my experience alone, but I've known others who have been molested/raped and they didn't turn into the monstrous thing that happened to them.Like me.

Funny, I would have thought this thread would have been more a debate about the woman's sentence being unfairly light, not the boy's sentence being too strict.

And I'm REALLY surprised AI is arguing for leniency for this guy who MOLESTED AN EIGHT YEAR OLD when he thinks that someone who is convicted of car theft three times should be executed.

In terms of whether or not the 16 male was sentenced properly I am completely with Lly on this one. What happened in his past is a moot point; if we begin to look at past factors of criminals to determine punishment few would serve significant jail time.

Personal responsibility, for some reason, has become passe. That needs to change.

if we begin to look at past factors of criminals to determine punishment few would serve significant jail time.

No shit... EVERYBODY has an excuse...

Let's also remember that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime, not the criminal. State of mind, history etc etc can (and should) mitigate the sentence, but the leaping off point should be a set tariff for the crime.

If you start saying that a child molestor who was abused himself has an excuse for what he did (insofar as you wouldn't sentence him to jail time), then that would open the flood gates. All of a sudden, anybody who'd ever had anything stolen from them could commit burglary and argue for counselling rather than a custodial sentence.

The only time I believe it is proper to commute a jail sentence to a regime of treatment is where the perpetrator honestly does not believe he's done anything that society deems wrong. By that, I mean lacks the capacity to determine right from wrong.

In all other cases, the law must be the law. It's the crime we despise, before the criminal.

Let's also remember that the punishment should be appropriate to the crime, not the criminal. State of mind, history etc etc can (and should) mitigate the sentence, but the leaping off point should be a set tariff for the crime.Best point yet. Once you open the doors for claims or repercussive case exploitations, there is no telling where this could lead our decree for human rights in our judicial system. As of right now, I believe it is only fair that all cases be concidered equal (with the exception of very exteme retardation, such as Head has pointed out). Even then, confinement would be necessary, in my opinion.

If someone is a threat to society, we need reaction. Without consequences you remove almost all negative detrimental thought they may have, on someone who already has an altered sense of morality.

Funny, I would have thought this thread would have been more a debate about the woman's sentence being unfairly light, not the boy's sentence being too strict.

I think that's funny too. Rather than be outraged that this woman nearly killed her husband and got away with it scot free, everyone jumps all over the kid who ONLY is getting locked up for 25 years AT LEAST. I think this shows why the jury system is innately flawed. People tend to punish males much more harshly than females.

And I'm REALLY surprised AI is arguing for leniency for this guy who MOLESTED AN EIGHT YEAR OLD when he thinks that someone who is convicted of car theft three times should be executed.

Well, looks like you have discovered my secret. I just like debating. (usually the side that sounds the most extreme.)

Personal responsibility, for some reason, has become passe. That needs to change.

I agree completely. Welfare needs to be done away with, along with Federal Aid for students. Welfare rewards apathy and Federal Aid discourages saving. Hell, my parents gave me a college fund, which disqualifies me for any federal aid. If instead of being responsible and saving their money, my parents would have been rewarded if they spent their money extravagantly.

Being in a controlled setting for a long period of time, will likely have more progressing results then him getting a juvenile imprisonment for 2 years, and then set out to do what?? Hmm, which one do you believe will have more substantial results?

I think both options are flawed and only a fool would present two options as if they were the only options available. If I had my way, the kid would get special therapy while in a low security prison, or possibly released to the care of the doctor(s) giving him therapy.

You may want to stop trying to compare them, then.

I never compared them.

In some cultures the drinking age is different. Unfortunetly in our society, drinking is usually associated with things such as partying, staying up late, and will usually push for a lot of alchohol consumption at once. If we were to lower the drinking age, and have it the same age as driving, what do you think the results would be? We have enough adults drinking and driving right now.. (yes I realize that teenagers are drinking, just over glorifying a point).

I think the results would be a more just, logical system. The number of drunks probably wouldn't increase much, it may even decrease because it wouldn't seem as cool. The people who would drink a lot if the law was changed probably already do. It's the principle of the matter. I am 18 years old, the government has determined that I am responsible enough to drive a hunk of metal down the road at high speeds, if I am responsible enough for that, why aren't I responsible enough to make other adult decisions? (ie, whether or not to drink, and if so, how much.)

So why should those who do go out and abuse another be held less accountable for there actions?

Because they are messed up. The number of molesters who were molested themselves is very VERY high. OBVIOUSLY there is a correlation there. Treatment would help these individuals a LOT more than sending them to jail and reinforcing their faulty conditioning.

Okay, but that still does not mean this boy should go free just because the law is messed up in other areas.

I never said he should be set free because of the law being messed up in other areas. I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult in any other circumstances.

I still don't see what lowering the drinking age has anything to do with molestation.

Goodness gracious, I never said lowering the drinking age has anything to do with molestion, I said it has to do with CHARGING HIM AS AN ADULT.

But just because the drinking age is 21, does not give him an automatic loophole to jump through and molest someone else.

I didn't say it should. I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult at any other time.

I think that's funny too. Rather than be outraged that this woman nearly killed her husband and got away with it scot free, everyone jumps all over the kid who ONLY is getting locked up for 25 years AT LEAST. I think this shows why the jury system is innately flawed. People tend to punish males much more harshly than females. The point is that, just because another's case is treated unfairly does not mean this one should be.

I agree completely. Welfare needs to be done away with, along with Federal Aid for students. Welfare rewards apathy and Federal Aid discourages saving. Hell, my parents gave me a college fund, which disqualifies me for any federal aid. If instead of being responsible and saving their money, my parents would have been rewarded if they spent their money extravagantly.
Have you ever been homeless?

Have you ever worked hard to get into a good school, but aren't "blessed" enough to have enough money?

I take it your parents have handed everything to you in your lifetime?

I never said he should be set free because of the law being messed up in other areas. I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult in any other circumstances. Other circumstances...such as drinking, right? Because that is SO in the same class as murder and sexual abuse.

Yeah, I know, as you've said a few times over you aren't comparing them.

But, it sure as hell seems that way to me.

Goodness gracious, I never said lowering the drinking age has anything to do with molestion, I said it has to do with CHARGING HIM AS AN ADULT. Did you completely miss what I said right after that?

I think both options are flawed and only a fool would present two options as if they were the only options available. If I had my way, the kid would get special therapy while in a low security prison, or possibly released to the care of the doctor(s) giving him therapy. Such as you implied, and I merely played along.

So in other words, you don't believe a child molester should be punished at all, rather just psychologically treated? Just out of curiousty, what actually stops someone who may be having thougts of doing such thing? Obviously not the law.

I am 18 years old, the government has determined that I am responsible enough to drive a hunk of metal down the road at high speeds, if I am responsible enough for that, why aren't I responsible enough to make other adult decisions? (ie, whether or not to drink, and if so, how much.) I believe that males aged 16 to 18, are the last people I want on the road with me. I am really the last person you want to be using that comparative with..

Oh, and lets place verso-comparative for a minute. If you are old enough to drive a chunk of metal around at high speeds, why not be held responsible for all for your actions?

Because they are messed up. The number of molesters who were molested themselves is very VERY high. OBVIOUSLY there is a correlation there. Treatment would help these individuals a LOT more than sending them to jail and reinforcing their faulty conditioning. Knock-knock.. jail would enforce treatment. And as you pointed out earlier, how many abusers actually seek help on there own? Right.

I never said he should be set free because of the law being messed up in other areas. I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult in any other circumstances. A juvenal sentencing is as good as setting them free.

I didn't say it should. I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult at any other time.He should be tried as an adult given the nature of the crime. If he broke into a car and took it joyriding I would consider it a juvenal crime given it's nature, and so he should be tried as such in court. This is not a juvenal crime by any means, therefore it should not be tried as such.

Personally, I am completely against "life in prison". If someone has done something that bad, they should be executed. Life in prison costs too much. Wrong.
The Cost of the Death Penalty

One of the least obvious, but most important problems with the death penalty is it’s enormous cost. Research on cost has consistently shown that pursuing a capital case is at least twice as costly as housing a convicted murderer for life in a high security correctional institution. Cost studies in North Carolina, Kansas, Texas, Kentucky, Nebraska and New York all show varying costs but similar ratios with regard to expense of death as a sentencing option...
These high costs strain local and state budgets, divert money from other crime control and victim assistance programs, result in tax increases, prolong and extend the anguish of victims families over years of appeals and successive execution dates, reduce other governmental services...
-source- (http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html) I am 18 years old, the government has determined that I am responsible enough to drive a hunk of metal down the road at high speeds, if I am responsible enough for that, why aren't I responsible enough to make other adult decisions? (ie, whether or not to drink, and if so, how much.) I'm tired of this "if I can drive, why can't I vote?", "if I can vote and die for my country, why can't I drink?", "if I'm an adult here, why am I not an adult there?" line of thought. When you consume alcohol, things (like judgement) get impaired. For example, when I was 21 and I consumed alcohol to excess, my intellect and judgement were impaired to a degree that I was, at most, functionally an 18 year old. The guy was 16 and sober and committed a heinous crime deserving of treatment as an adult in the view of the prosecuting attorney. Enough said.
I'm saying he shouldn't be charged as an adult if he isn't considered an adult at any other time. I'm not aware of how old you are, but I can only surmise that you are either younger than me, or if older in years, that you have significantly less life experience than I do. I don't say this to insult you, so please don't take it personally, but in my few years on this planet, I have (reluctantly) come to accept the fact that no system is consistently logical 100% of the time. As much as it annoys the shit out of me, logic doesn't rule all. There are those among us (myself included) who would feel more comfortable if it did, but it doesn't. So the sooner you come to grips with this little bit of wisdom, the your life should become easier.

EDIT: The U.S. legal system is the last place you should go looking for logical consistency. It is often arbitrary, frequently political, and not at all logical in many respects. The common perception is the opposite of that assessment, but that's what keeps the system going. Don't get me wrong - there's not another legal system that I've come across that I'd rather be living under. I'm just pointing out another little bit of the reality that is. If you want to read more into this line of thinking, read some of the columns of Paul Campos (http://insidedenver.com/drmn/columnist/0,1299,DRMN_86_105,00.html) or his book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195130839/qid=1090245804/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4213690-9227009?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). He was the most instructive professor at the law school I attended in that his lectures eventually led me to the conclusion that, if I had any self respect, I must get out before it was too late.

I think I understand what AI is trying to say. He's not saying underage drinking should carry the same seriousness as molestation. Rather, I think he's complaining about what he sees as double standards.

But DS makes a valid point. I came across an article by a George Mason University law professor that might interest you. (http://mason.gmu.edu/~jhasnas/MythWeb.htm)

What Professor Kingsfield knows is that the legal world is not like the real world and the type of reasoning appropriate to it is distinct from that which human beings ordinarily employ. In the real world, people usually attempt to solve problems by forming hypotheses and then testing them against the facts as they know them. When the facts confirm the hypotheses, they are accepted as true, although subject to reevaluation as new evidence is discovered. This is a successful method of reasoning about scientific and other empirical matters because the physical world has a definite, unique structure. It works because the laws of nature are consistent. In the real world, it is entirely appropriate to assume that once you have confirmed your hypothesis, all other hypotheses inconsistent with it are incorrect.

In the legal world, however, this assumption does not hold. This is because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent. The law human beings create to regulate their conduct is made up of incompatible, contradictory rules and principles; and, as anyone who has studied a little logic can demonstrate, any conclusion can be validly derived from a set of contradictory premises. This means that a logically sound argument can be found for any legal conclusion.

When human beings engage in legal reasoning, they usually proceed in the same manner as they do when engaged in empirical reasoning. They begin with a hypothesis as to how a case should be decided and test it by searching for a sound supporting argument. After all, no one can "reason" directly to an unimagined conclusion. Without some end in view, there is no way of knowing what premises to employ or what direction the argument should take. When a sound argument is found, then, as in the case of empirical reasoning, one naturally concludes that one's legal hypothesis has been shown to be correct, and further, that all competing hypotheses are therefore incorrect.

This is the fallacy of legal reasoning. Because the legal world is comprised of contradictory rules, there will be sound legal arguments available not only for the hypothesis one is investigating, but for other, competing hypotheses as well. The assumption that there is a unique, correct resolution, which serves so well in empirical investigations, leads one astray when dealing with legal matters. Kingsfield, who is well aware of this, knows that Arnie and Ann have both produced legitimate legal arguments for their competing conclusions. He does not reveal this knowledge to the class, however, because the fact that this is possible is precisely what his students must discover for themselves if they are ever to learn to "think like a lawyer."

He advocates a free market in law, an idea that puzzles many people, but one that I also advocate and can offer more information on if anyone's interested. This article runs a little long, but it gets the message across.

IF i see the drinking age ever drop... i am never coming out of my house again! LOL
Which to a degree I can understand.. how is it when you are 18 you can decide the fate of your country ( meaning who is in charge) and sign away your life to the military but you can't drink alcohol. I never understood it. But I do stand by my word... I think 21 is a perfect age for a drinking age~

I think I understand what AI is trying to say. He's not saying underage drinking should carry the same seriousness as molestation. Rather, I think he's complaining about what he sees as double standards.
Yes, that's what I believe he is trying to say, also.

But my point was mainly that flaws elsewhere do not mean that a molestor shouldn't be tried as an adult just because the drinking age is 21; then perhaps a 19 year old murdering someone could get out on a loophole because he isn't legally old enough to drink.

It just seems to me, that the "privileges" of drinking and being tried as an adult after molesting someone don't ring anywhere close to one another.

Plus so many other factors, that have been discussed by several different people in this thread.

I should mention that, as much as AI says that the kid needs treatment, pedophilia is considered incurable.

I believe that if someone harms a child in that way or... kills a child i think that they have should have 2 choices.. Life in prison or Death. But hey thats IMO.

So since we are on the topic of.. pedophilia let me ask you this. There is a registry that the sex offender must update ever so often when they get out of jail. So you believe in it? Do you think that their names should be open to the public to know who they are... or do you believe that no one should know.

At the moment i know that they are trying to fight this. They say it is unfair.

Hm, um just a thought (perhaps broad when concerning your exact examples, but still a thought for your ideas), but court systems HAVE to be 'inconsistant' if you want them to be as functional and worthwhile as possible. Every case HAS to be dealt with in a different manner. You can't just take a case that's similar and round it off the same way as the last one was ruled.

You can't take every murder case and say "someone died, the accused is guilty." That's not the way it works at all. Facts have to be examined, and the facts and background information are ALWAYS going to be different for every case. So to expect cases to be examined in the same way is actually a terrible and dysfunctional thought.

I should mention that, as much as AI says that the kid needs treatment, pedophilia is considered incurable.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because I didn't know that. I've always believed it, but refrained from saying so because I didn't want to state something that I didn't know as fact. So thank you.

So since we are on the topic of.. pedophilia let me ask you this. There is a registry that the sex offender must update ever so often when they get out of jail. So you believe in it? Do you think that their names should be open to the public to know who they are... or do you believe that no one should know.

At the moment i know that they are trying to fight this. They say it is unfair.

It figures they would say that. Let me guess, it's an "invasion of privacy" or something?

Talk about irony.

I completely agree with it. People should be aware of the potential dangers that are in their area, and be able to protect their children from it. It's not like the sex offender's address even shows up (to protect him/her/whatever from people burning down their house or something).

I really don't think there should even need to be such a registry, only because I don't believe such "people" should ever be let free.

I should mention that, as much as AI says that the kid needs treatment, pedophilia is considered incurable.True, and apparently it is 95% likely that a predator will repeat offense.

There is a registry that the sex offender must update ever so often when they get out of jail. So you believe in it? Of course I believe any known predators in the neighborhood should be made public, especially at schools. I think it's important to note that this program was not intended to punish people who have served time as pedophiles, but rather protect our rights as a community.

I also believe that our judicial system should be able to place the sex offender in a place where it is in the publics best interest, where they can not only be watched over more easily, but are also not in a surrounding neighborhoods which has a prevailing amount of children (such as culdesacs) . I remember while in high school, there was a bulletin on a known predator in my neighborhood, and the article was even so descriptive as to offer the man's home address, which actually turned out to be almost right beside an elementary school. :/

I was trying to post a link to show the registry but it won't let me. the way i do it is go through www.ask.com and type in sex offender list and then it says what state. and you can look. It does infact show the last known adrs a picture and their charges. My old boss was a sex offender (long story) and he is on the list. He only did weekends in jail. Their were guidlines that he had to go by when he got out. He could only live so close to a school...ect.

I found this (http://www.nationalalertregistry.com/index5.shtml?source=overture&kw=megans_law), and I think it's what you're looking for, but not sure.

the one in VA you do not have to be a member. it was easy for me to access
http://sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/Static/Search.htm
just type in a name and you will see it.

I agree completely. Welfare needs to be done away with, along with Federal Aid for students. Welfare rewards apathy and Federal Aid discourages saving. Hell, my parents gave me a college fund, which disqualifies me for any federal aid. If instead of being responsible and saving their money, my parents would have been rewarded if they spent their money extravagantly.

Doing away with welfare would not help anything, but time-limiting it would.

Your comment about federal aid is totally selfish on your part, not to mention irrelevant. The vast majority of federal aid is given in the form of loans. The students who receive free money (grants) from the government are living at or below the federally determined poverty line. Also, parental assets contribute very little to a student's Expected Family Contribution unless they are held in the student's name. Either way, this is poor financial planning on your parents' part. They should have instead saved in a grandparent's name. I work in a financial aid office. I watch kids who didn't think they'd be able to school light up at the thought that a low interest deferred payment loan might allow them to go to school. Lack of credit history often bars students from pursuing such loans in the private sector. For many, it is their only option. I am highly offended by your elitist attitude toward education. Next you'll be griping about how uneducated and ignorant some people are. Can't imagine why. Maybe it's because there are people like you.

That was totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now back to the real topic.

It is also not only a matter of punishment, but a matter of locking away someone who is a danger to children and others.

By this reasoning insanity shouldn't be allowed as a defense.

Are you talking about temporary insanity or permanent mental incapacity? Because people who use actual permanent insanity as a defense often do get locked away for being a danger to children or others. Not in jail, but in a mental institution. Maybe that's where this guy belongs. Sex offenders will repeat over 90% of the time, and that is a conservative estimate. We need to get these people off our streets forever, not just for 25 years.

Murder and sexual abuse are two vastly different offenses. One deprives a person of the rest of his or her life, and one scars a person for the rest of his or her life. I have heard certain victims of sexual abuse say that they would rather be dead than have to live with what their attacker has done to them. This is particularly true of people who were abused repeatedly or by close family members. I don't know which crime is worse, to be honest with you.

Was the sentencing of the guy unfair? Yes. It should have been much longer.

Was the sentencing of the woman unfair? Probably. She, too, should have gotten a stricter sentence. However, if she had no criminal history and committed this crime while mentally incapable of proper decision making but is not permanently so, her sentence should reflect the impassioned nature of her crime.

Just my two cents.

<3 Mary