It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


There should be no protection for sex offenders in prison

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:24 PM
Bearing in mind the recent case of the paedophile caught possessing and distributing videos of babies being raped and other similar cases do you think it is right that paedophiles get a special wing in prison to keep them separate and protected from the main prison population?

Also, do you think it is right that those paedophiles are allowed to live together isolated form the main population when psychological studies have shown that it only reinforces their self justification that they are normal because they find others similar to themselves in prison with which they share their disgusting tastes and fantasies?

Shouldn't all sex offenders have to take their chances in the main prison population?

It is also worth noting that many sex offenders were in a position of trust that allowed them access to children. THEY HAVE A ABUSED A POSITION OF TRUST AND THEN THEY ARE GIVEN PROTECTION IN PRISON.

If they are willing to commit the crime they should have to face the consequences in prison WITHOUT SPECIAL PROTECTION ON A SPECIAL WING AWAY FROM THE PRISON POPULATION.

And it would be more of a deterrent if they knew what might happen to them if they faced even short prison sentences than the easy safe sentences they serve with protection.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:39 PM
I'm against special accommodations for anyone in prison. Prison is for criminals (excluding the wrongfully accused). If you commit a crime, you go to prison. You don't go to a special wing, you don't get solitary confinement, you go to prison. Thats as simplified as it needs to be.

I'm against solitary confinement even for the worst of serial killers. Not because I want them to get their ass kicked and not because I want other prisoners to be murdered by them, but because I approve of a more rapidly executed death penalty. Anyone sentenced to death shouldn't be in the prison system longer than 6 months, and that is simply for appeals, which should be about 2 at the most.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:50 PM
If someone is not condemned to being beaten, raped, etc. then they should provide protection from that possibility if they can not guarantee that the prison is free of people trying to doing it.

What I think should be done is to really know who are the ones that are not responsible for their actions and those who are, the ones sane enough for being considered responsible should be treated in the same way as any other criminal.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:13 PM
Depends on what you mean by sex offender. Because here in the states Statutory rape is consider a sex crime. Stat rape as it is commonly called is basically having sex with consenting minor (usually under the age of 18 some states it still 16) who cannot give their consent due still being dependent on their parents. You can still be accused of this crime even if the minor has claimed their independence from their parents which in some most states teenagers can do at the age of 16. But if the state law says 18 that means 18 even if at 16 they can make their own choices.

I have seen many people go to jail for this crime and on top of that once they get out of jail they have to go on the same list as actual rapists and pedophiles so the public is aware of them. Once you are on that list you are on it for life at least in my state. Yet most people who get charged with stat rape are not repeat offenders due to the fact most I know ask for ID after that point if getting involved with a girl. Which in most cases the girl gets offended and walks away.

These people get compared to pedophiles and rapist even though they made one mistake of sleeping with a consenting minor who can't give consent according to law. They are punished for life being on list which means all jobs they work at or apply for are notified and are seldom given any information on the crime they committed other than that they are on the sex offenders list. Which makes it hard for them to get a job, housing, and allot of other things.

They to me should be the only exception to law make them due the time to learn after that they mostly should be alright. Pedophiles and actual rapist should be given the death penalty or at least castration for what they have done.

I do know the exact age but I anything under puberty age which is 12 or 13 is constituted as pedophilia in my state and not stat consenting or not. Molestation or rape is non consenting, molestation under 18 initiated by any over that age; rape everything else to deal with non consent of any age.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:57 PM
Those perverts get a whole separate wing, they don't get solitary confinement.

And they are all responsible for their actions! Like we all are.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 02:02 PM
I've been saying for years that if you put these animals into General Pop. you would cut these crimes drastically. It would be a death sentence. Make them think twice before abusing any child. Serial rapists also falls under this imo.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by intrepid

But that is precisely the thing I think is wrong.

If they can be sentenced to death than do it, but do not sentence him (or her, people forget that women can also be sexual predators) to some years in prison as a disguised way of sentencing him/her to death.

Justice should be clear, if it's death they want for those cases then they should change the law; if they do not want death penalty for those cases then they should protect them from suffering any other punishment, in the same way they should protect all other detainees.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:56 PM
Yes, nd this is how it should work.
Once someone is convicted of a sx crime against a child, they should go to prison.
Once in prison, they can choose to live in their own special wing, as long as they want to stay there for life.

posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:01 PM
Actually, in a perfect world, they would be sentenced to being killed at the hands of the family of the victims, and if they chose to pass, lethal injection.

Even though that's too good for them.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:58 PM
Wait pedophiles get their own special wing? So you're saying we only need to "accidentally" have a gas main leak in one part of the prison to rid the world of these animals? Sounds like a good plan to me.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:07 PM
I can understand the point of view that they did something horrific and if something horrific happens to them in prison..... it's great. The people I'm concerned about is someone that is 18,19, or 20 that has sex with a 17 yr old, gets labeled a sex offender, and gets beat up, raped and potentially killed. Yes this person broke the law, and they deserve to get some prison time, but should they get mixed into general pop where they will get sexually abused?

I'm really with ArMap on this one. If they deserve to die, then execute them, don't just throw them to the dogs.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:15 PM
We should spare a thought for the people, men and women, that have to run the prisons, their safety is important. So potential conflicts that could endanger them (more) should be avoided.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:16 PM

Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) was at the age of 14 found guilty in 1959 of the murder of his 12-year-old schoolmate Lynne Harper, and sentenced to death.


On August 28, 2007, after review of nearly 250 fresh pieces of evidence, the court declared that Truscott's conviction had been a miscarriage of justice. As he was not declared factually innocent, a new trial could have been ordered, but this was a practical impossibility given the passage of time. Accordingly, the court acquitted Truscott of the murder

Many would have had him hung, other's would have the inmates do it for the justice system.

Both would have been wrong.

The cost to taxpayers;
6.5 million in compensation
the cost of the trials which preceded the acquital
The cost of the incarceration

To Steven Truscott, the cost was even higher.

Say no to the death penalty.

[edit on 14/7/08 by masqua]

[edit on 14/7/08 by masqua]

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by Now_Then

I didn't think about that. It should certainly be taken into consideration as well. Their jobs are difficult and dangerous enough as it is.

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 11:34 PM
Obviously, this is an incendiary topic. And I understand why people feel such unmitigated rage toward the perpetrators. Sexualizing a child is the lowest form of using force to victimize another human being and reveals the absolute worst of humanity. The child carries this scar throughout his or her life, without question; it is no mystery that most pederasts were abused themselves. That is NO excuse for continuing the 'cycle of abuse', to borrow a phrase. Not all who suffered from such abuse commit the crimes themselves.

That all said, many of you seem ready to rip the criminal limb from limb, obviously hoping that they all meet the worst of fates once behind bars. Understandable. But what if YOU were FALSELY IMPRISONED for a sex crime, esp. pederasty?

I know more than a few men who've done time in my state's prisons, and the 'tree jumpers' [as they're called, amongst other things] get little protection as it is. Furthermore, it is generally just a matter of time before another prisoner, with little to lose and much rep. to gain, will attack, often raping and/or killing the sexual offender.

This post does not attempt to argue the ethics of such an act. I merely wonder what any of you would say if YOU were the one in those shoes, YET were 100% innocent.

This is why I also oppose the death penalty. If ONE innocent person is murdered due to a flawed conviction, then it is simply not worth the risk.

Likewise, subjecting the convicted ped. to death by peers [which so often happens anyhow] by disallowing protection by the state is, quite frankly, un-ethical, as well as highly hypocritical.

[edit on 7.14.2008 by ItsTheQuestion]

posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 07:55 PM

Originally posted by LateApexer313
Actually, in a perfect world, they would be sentenced to being killed at the hands of the family of the victims, and if they chose to pass, lethal injection.

Even though that's too good for them.

I can't believe I'm even honoring this with a response, but your words are quite simply disgusting....not to mention childish and ignorant. I don't think I need to explain further since it's self-evident.

new topics

top topics


log in