Serial pedophile charged in abduction of Edmonton girl

Originally posted by NotAnumber
As the parent of three girls I say first offense equals death. There is nothing more horrible than a girl/woman that has to live with what is left behind after abuse like this. Anyone that even considers giving these guys a second chance should have to hand over thier mother/daughter/sister/aunt/grandmother to a rapist or pedophile and then live with the pain of what was done to them. I for one feel that once society recognizes an abuser of this sort we the people should not have to live with the risk of that person ruining or taking another life. I don't care that you are sensitive to the death penalty. Too bad! My daughters and every woman in this world is more important than your moral dilemma.

NotAnumber

Why do you leave out boys? many boys get raped/molested too!?

Originally posted by NotAnumber
reply to post by jsobecky

 

How would you like YOUR mother or daughter to be the "second offense"? get real.

I wouldn't!? But I don't understand your point. I already said first offense, 25 to life. Second offense, death.

I only say that because the recidivism rate is less than 100%. It varies from 5% to 50%, with incest incidents being less frequent. So there might be some rehab possible, esp. for incest victims. Much more research is needed.

Actually there were 2 young girls assaulted, just heard it on the radio on the way home, lock him up and let prison justice look after him, he won't last more than a week, unfortunately they will put him in PC and one day he will be released.

Just a general comment.

There's a reason we have a 'civilized society'. It takes away the onus of 'eye-for-an-eye' justice.

Obviously any attack on one's personal loved ones is going to be met with a death penalty. But a wise and evolved society realizes this and takes steps to adjudicate the crime.

Anyone who has this happen to them personally would be prudent to remove themselves from the equation.

Though one might call for the death penalty and even contemplate pulling the switch, killing someone carries a heavy burden. It might seem like the thing to do, but I would not want to do it - at least philosophically.

So all those calling for 'death and dismemberment' should this happen to you? OF COURSE! It would be inhuman not to want the death of someone who violated your loved one.

BUT...it does nothing to further the argument, or the discussion. So let's all stipulate that.

We get plenty angry if someone grabs a child. Why aren't we equally angry when some inattentive, but attractive co-ed, runs off the road in her SUV and kills two innocent pedestrians, because she's fishing on the passenger's floor boards for a CD? Heck, if she's REALLY cute and cries on the witness stand (true case), we give her sympathy and a suspended sentence and pat her on the back. But she KILLED two innocent children of some Mother and Father and didn't even CARE.

We even call people who kill wantonly with their cars a special type of crime - 'vehicular homicide' - it's as though the car did it and the perp just happened to be along for the ride.

(not to derail the thread - just giving an example)

So, what does that tell us? It says that we give crimes a special emphasis depending on their social impact at the time. In the Middle Ages, killing and abusing children was socially acceptable. In the Old West, stealing one's horse called for public hanging. In the 1700-1800s, stealing corpses and sewing body parts together warranted a parade of torches and pitchforks.

Now, we realize that harming a child is heinous and carries a lifetime of shame and stigma and even mental problems for the victim and indeed, harms the very core of the society. An enlightened society should simply not allow that to happen and all steps should be taken to prevent it, from neighborhood watches to oversight boards on releases from incarceration.

Thus, all such criminals as described by this thread should be imprisoned and if released be tagged by a device that alerts their whereabouts. In addition, if there are failures in the system, such as happened here, those holes need to be plugged. We should direct our outrage at those venues.

Make sense?

Bleeding-heart liberals are literally handing this world over to criminals and monsters, and it makes me SICK. I swear, I think some of you would offer tea and biscuits to a robber who'd shot you and was about to leave you for dead.

In the real world, treating monsters as equals with rights does nothing but empower them to be the worst monsters they can be. If Superman were real, you fools would have him locked up for human rights violations before he made even a tiny dent in crime.

Blah x 1,000,000

[edit on 9-10-2008 by maus80]

reply to post by Badge01


Yeah, a lot are for killing them, but actually killing them, the person doing it, well it would change them, killing somebody is not that easy. Especially for the state of mind.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by maus80


OK, let's say your child, heaven forbid, was abused by their uncle when they were ten, and at 18 was accused of a sex crime on a minor.

You'd want due process, right?

There's no argument that crimes such as this should be processed to the full extent of the law. If that means imprisonment without release so they can't repeat, then so be it.

But here, the prison board released him and didn't inform the cops. Maybe we should line up the board and machine gun them? They're responsible, at least in part.

Now, you're left with sorting out the 18 year olds who are imprisoned for having relations with 16 year olds.

Make no mistake if it was my kid that was harmed, I'd want the perp drawn and quartered. But I thought we were talking crime and punishment, not personal vendettas.

The death penalty has never kept crime from re-occuring. Otherwise there would be no crime punishable by the death penalty.

Keeping offenders locked up WILL prevent the crime from happening again by that offender.

But of course there are those that would still say that killing the offender would also prevent the offender from doing it again.

So...what we got here is a catch 22 situation. Does justice throw out a blanket resolution to this kind of crime? Maybe. Or does justice allow for the scale to be fairly judged and measured, as depicted on every single statue of justice in front of every single court house across the country.

I dont know, but I have yet to see a judicial statue with a blindfold holding a scale in one hand and a death sentance sign in the other.

Cheers!!!!

reply to post by _Phoenix_


I read a story in a book on 'Shotguns for Home Defense' that brought that point home, at least to me.

The author caught a perp in his living room at 3am and the guy, holding a knife, advanced on him. Understandably, the homeowner pulled the trigger on his shotgun. Twice.

He now says he wish he'd never have done that. He spent a week picking bone and flesh out of his wall and cleaning carpets and his hearing wasn't right for a week. He suffered from PTSD for a while.

Obviously, you have to act to save your life, but those who would relish killing someone after the fact in cold blood are to be feared just as much as the perp.

IMO the emphasis should be on prevention and detention. My feeling is that the perp's family often are quite aware that the person is a danger to society. What do they do? Call the cops? No - they look the other way until it's too late.

It's a tough call and a hot button subject. I've said about as much as I can.

Originally posted by RFBurns
The death penalty has never kept crime from re-occuring. Otherwise there would be no crime punishable by the death penalty.

Keeping offenders locked up WILL prevent the crime from happening again by that offender.

But of course there are those that would still say that killing the offender would also prevent the offender from doing it again.

To say that the death penalty has NEVER prevented a crime from happening is false. No, it has not prevented ALL crimes or all particular crimes.........however, neither has any other punishment. It has prevented some more then likely. Some is better then none.

Both the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole will keep a convicted killer/rapist/pedophile off the street.

However, does a convict of this nature REALLY deserve 3 meals a day, a warm bed, and all the other many ridiculous amenities that prisoners get?

And before someone says: life in prison is hard.....life in prison is NOT hard enough for some of the crimes these animals commit. It is NOT equal to the hell that victims and their families must live thru for the rest of their lives.

Can someone explain why a pedophile/rapist/murderer of innocent life deserves to live? Or why their life is worth saving? What is the point of keeping them around?

If people choose to do horrible things to innocent people - regardless of their background (excuses) - then they have, IMHO, forfeited their "right" to life". And our world is MUCH better off without them.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

To say that the death penalty has NEVER prevented a crime from happening is false. No, it has not prevented ALL crimes or all particular crimes.........however, neither has any other punishment. It has prevented some more then likely. Some is better then none.

Absolutely. There is no way of telling how many crimes are prevented by enacting the death penalty. But we do know one thing: That particular perp WILL NOT be committing any more crimes. So the net sum is one less perpetrator to commit crimes such as Willie Horton

Untill our science is advanced enough to fully understand if it's a genetic disposition, or neurological disorder, Kill them.

Indirectly all of us kill humans as well, our money and taxes supports wars and weapons manufacturing. Hell we import food from 2nd and third world countries with people dying of starvation.

It's to costly to house these offenders in prison. Unless they are used as forced labour to pay off thier debt. Chain them up and attach microbomb bracelets. Have them clean highways, crush gravel etc etc. underwatch of dudes in aviator glasses and shotguns...

Data base these guys their D.N.A. all the scientific crap, cross reference it throught super computers algorhithms, find similarities , something like that lol. It would cost as much to inprison them, but twith resuslts leading to a possible cure or treatment for them.

There's no room for such wickedness to be allowed, you want to give them one chance I hope its on you.

This case is a glaring example of the short comings of the Canadian Legal system. I won't call it justice, as all to often as shown by this case, it doesn't mete out justice. We have a rehabilitation/restorative model of punishment for criminals here in Canada. We don't want to punish people for crimes. We want to get them into halfway houses and treatment centres as soon as possible.

We do have tools in place to deal with offenders like the monster in this case; we seldom use those tools though. One of these is called Dangerous Offenders Status

Dangerous offenders are not mentally disordered (see CRIMINAL CAPACITY). Neither are they common criminals, even recidivists, to whom the ordinary sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code apply. They belong to that small minority of offenders who are neither deterred nor reformed by ordinary punishment and who pose a serious risk to the mental or physical well-being of other members of society. The indeterminate sentence permits these offenders to be controlled until their dangerousness abates.

The problem is that prosecuters here are very reluctant to go after Dangerous Offender Status for someone like this. The offenders have more rights than the victims.

I could give you a long, long list of names of violent or dangerous criminals in Canada that deserve to have this designation but don't. The Crown(our prosecutors) will ask for Long term offender status instead, which is very different than the DOS.

Long term offenders can be released back into society. Dangerous offenders can be locked up indefinitely. This is what this animal deserved under our Law but instead he is released back into society after 3 YEARS! He sexually abused 6 children, one only 3 years old and he is out in 3 YEARS!

There are some very very serious flaws in our Legal system here and death for these animals would save mistakes like this from happening.




[edit on 9-10-2008 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy

Originally posted by Grafilthy
What is the problem with castrating these guys?? Repeat offender? Caught in the act?

I assure you, without the right "equipment", there would be less of these slap on the wrist repeat offenders. I volunteer to be the....eh....."executioner" of said bits and pieces. Let me know....

I agree, although I may sound kind of heartless by saying it, but by all stretches of fairness I think it should be 3 strikes and it's gone.

Re-Offend twice after the first time and you can kiss your dick goodbye (perhaps literally?)

Some people just don't learn quick enough ya'know?

It's difficult to be "the judge" and decide where to draw the line.

As really horrible as what he did, no form of violence should ever be the answer. Fine lock him up forever, but don't do that to him, or anyone.

How about this, why not have some sort of modern day Alcatraz/Siberian prison camp to send all these guys to?
Put it in the middle of nowhere, almost completely cutoff from civilization.
Make it set up so that the inmates have to grow their own food and everything, a self-sufficient prison where noone has to die but are shoved someplace where they most likely won't ever be heard from again.
Just isolate the problem, kind of like surgery to remove early stage cancer to get it before it spreads any further.

Originally posted by GAOTU789

There are some very very serious flaws in our Legal system here and death for these animals would save mistakes like this from happening.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by GAOTU789]

What? I expected you to say 'we need to plug these holes'. But, instead, you say 'kill the perp'?

Obviously, like dangerous animals in a Zoo, if you have poor locks on your cages and they get out they'll kill and commit mayhem. So the solution is to improve the system, strengthen the cages (electronic bracelet monitoring and home confinement?), keep the animals confined.

I'm not saying 'never' apply capitol punishment. I'm saying that throwing up your hands and admitting the system is flawed so kill 'em all and let the Diety sort them out is not, imo, a good solution. It's no solution. It's giving someone else the problem. After all, you have to charge somebody to do the killing.

2 cents.

reply to post by Badge01


What you need to understand Badge is that there are no more holes to be plugged. The dam burst awhile ago. We have the laws, the system just won't enforce them. I believe our whole legal system here in Canada needs a serious redo.

Lets use this case as an example. This predator could conceivably receive 10 years for his crimes. It may take a year maybe a year and a half to prosecute the case. He's convicted on all charges and receives 30 years in total for all crimes. He won't go to jail for 30 years though. He'll be sentenced to the longest sentence given, say ten years. The sum of the other convictions will be served concurrently.

So he's got ten years. Nope, he gets double time for his time awaiting and during trail and sentencing. So he's now down to 8 years. Most sentences are reviewed after 1/3 to 1/4 of the duration. If the criminal has been good, he can either get moved to a halfway house or a treatment centre. So now, after only 2-2.75 years, they are out of prison. Favourable behaviour in the centres or halfway houses and they get there sentence reduced even further or just released. So out of a possible 30 years of total convictions, the criminal is back on the street after 4-6 years.

As in the case of this fellow in his original conviction back in 2002, he only spent 3 years actually in prison.

This may not happen with this particular crime but this happens often, way to often in Canada.

As I said in my opening comments, I don't favour the death penalty. I am glad that Canada doesn't enforce it. There have been alot of innocent lives that have been saved because we don't execute people.Capital punishment is generally not the answer. In extreme cases such as this, where defenceless children become life long victims of a monster like this, I would accept it..

reply to post by GAOTU789

OK, I follow you. In fact these kinds of criminals are VERY good at playing the system. They know how to fool the shrinks and how to be very good. Their sole agenda is to get back out on the streets so they can ply their 'trade' and, in their mind, be 'better at it'.

This turns my stomach to be sure.

If we were dealing with a 'village', maybe 1000 people, then my position would be to turn them out into the wilderness and banished, they'd have to fend for themselves and likely, without support, perish. I think this would solve the problem.

But for large populations and in civilizations, you're faced with dealing with such problems as 'systems management'.

The keys would be:
1. Make sure your kids are never alone.
2. If families suspect such behavior is taking place, then turn the person into the authorities
3. Make sure the checks and balances work. Have an oversight committee and assign a person to be sure that notifications take place
4. Have electronic monitoring.
5. Repeat offenders are put away for life, no parole.
6. Nobody, no matter how heinous their crime are abused by the prison system. After all, in the right settings they are not dangerous to adults. We are not barbarians. If we are then give everyone guns and have a polite, but armed society and let vigilante justice rule. (that's not a bad idea). Perps like this would be shot on the scene, as would robbers and burglars and even drunks who run people over. Put your money into hiring more undertakers.

Remember, this is a system and a society that condones homicide by automobile. It's hypocritical to allow people to get drunk and run people over and just get their license pulled for a year. It's true that in someways there are worse things than death, so it's arguable which is a bigger crime.

2 cents.

I am devastated for that young victim. I pray she has a decent life, despite what she has suffered.

Stories like this always grab my attention, because my beautiful, young cousin was abducted at gunpoint last March; held against her will overnight, , , then shot to death... The 'man' who committed this atrocity then set his filthy place on fire, and shot himself to death!
Bridgett's Murder

Our family had to identify Bridgett through her dental records, because the fire consumed the building! She was only 21. 'He' was 63, and had been stalking Bridgett for some time. The Sycamore, Illinois police knew about this 'man' , but failed to protect Bridgett. I really don't know which fact sickens me more; The crime; or the cops knowing. . . . . . .Sounds familiar with this article.

Perhaps one idea of mine, would be to sentence the offender to hard labor for life; with modest earnings going into a fund for his victim, when she turns of legal age! Maybe, just maybe, this little girl would feel a tiny bit of personal justice for herself, knowing she'll receive some small compensation from her victimization at the hands of her offender!?!

The only just sentence for animals like this is death.

The time is long overdue for the public to exterminate these vermin. I call on every father of every victim to do the right thing and prevent further crimes by exterminating the offenders the day they are freed from prison.

I would certainly do it.