Should we protect sex offenders??

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I was reading through the thread about the lady who taught Sunday school that killed that little girl and put her in a suitcase and dumped her in a pond.
I was thinking about how hippocritical it all is.

1.The suspect will be judged by her peers.(The jury and fellow citizens)
2.If found guilty she will be placed in protective custody to serve her time as sex offenders are protected from the rest of the inmates.

Shouldn't the guilty party be made to live with her peers in jail??If she is going to be judged by her peers then why protect her against her peers in jail??
So they might attack her and they might even kill her.
Is this not also a way of having your peers judge you.

Why protect people guilty of heiness crimes??




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Personally I have always been against protective custody for these sickos. It's rancid political correctness. They should be put in the hardest prisons and left to rot & fend for themselves. If they get beaten, raped or killed.. then too bad... that's karma. It's not like we need these people sucking air and wasting tax payers dollars. Let the hardened criminals do society a service I say.

IRM



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I agree with IRM on this one, if you rape or kill a child... or even anyone, you shouldn't get special treatment once you've been convicted. Same goes for political figures or celebs.... like when Paris Hilton went to jail. The system is F'd up in almost every way you can imagine, and what you posted is just one drop in the pond. No pun intended.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I am against protection of a criminal in prison. If you do the crime you should do the time and pay for it! You shouldnt be protected in any way. The victims werent protected were they? I also think prisoners shouldnt be allowed to do anything but sit in a cell all day. The fact they get to go to school, read, get medical treatment, work out, watch tv and so on is ridiculous. They are being rewarded with things that are not needed to live (well maybe medical but I still dont think they should get it, hell I dont have ins and nobody gives me free exams) It just really bothers me! I pay for my own schooling and yet you hear of prisoners who get DEGREES while IN prison! It's a waste of money. If they didnt want to be in prison they shouldnt have done what they did.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
Personally I have always been against protective custody for these sickos. It's rancid political correctness. They should be put in the hardest prisons and left to rot & fend for themselves. If they get beaten, raped or killed.. then too bad... that's karma. It's not like we need these people sucking air and wasting tax payers dollars. Let the hardened criminals do society a service I say.

IRM


Id agree with you. No protection.

However, my thoughts are that we should take them to the desert. Make them dig a hole. Make them get in that hole, put a breathable cover on it and give them bread and water (after all, we have to be humane to these animals
right?
). Make them stay in that hole until they die. Than cover said hole with the dirt they dug out. The end. On to the next pervert.




And now, I will sit back and wait for the appeasers to show up and make excuses and tell us how these perverts deserve this or that....blah blah blah.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Some random thoughts here:

If you take a person into custody, you are responsible for their safety. In prison, child-molesters are the bottom of the food chain. When you consider the low-lifes you often find in prisons that's saying something.

As for this grandaughter of a preacher man and Sunday School teacher, she should be confined in a suitcase at the bottom of a lake. "Eye for an eye", don't you know.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


They should have to work. And get paid, at national minimum wage rates, and from these earnings, pay tax, pay board and lodging to the prison, and provide support to their victims first and then any of the prisoners dependent family members. Of the earnings, they should only be permitted to keep a nominal amount for personal savings or use whilst in prison. There should be no retirement plan, no access to state support upon release and their identities and address should be published locally so that the community can police them. Anyone wishing to take vigilante action that is similar or worse than the original crime, should be deterred by such draconian sentencing for such crimes.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Exactly! Some people don't believe in "An eye for an eye" but like greeneyedleo said


Make them get in that hole, put a breathable cover on it and give them bread and water (after all, we have to be humane to these animals
right?
). Make them stay in that hole until they die. Than cover said hole with the dirt they dug out. The end. On to the next pervert.


Maybe this is a better punishment than being sunk in a lake. Heck let's throw a few scorpions in there just so they have something to play with or train... kind of like Cell Dogs



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

And here I come to paint a target on my back.

I have the same visceral reaction to a heinous act like this as everyone else. No punishment too severe, no "eye for an eye" too over the top. As a human being who weeps for what that little girl was subjected to, I have the exact same reaction.

However (I like "big buts" and I cannot lie), the very fact that it would be the gub mint invoking a punishment like that makes it impossible for me to support it. Even down to the non-protection aspect.

Now if something awful were to happen to someone like this, I sure wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it. But the very idea that a governmental agency would qualify that as not cruel or unusual or consider it legitimate under due process, leaves me cold.

Be careful what you wish for.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
man, life's just so cheap for you guys, isn't it.

an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind. it's a waste of time.

what gives one person the right to determine another should die? it's not about protection the prisoner, it's about being a better human being than the prisoner. it's about being wise enough to judge. it's about being so sin free you can cast the first stone.

so, hands up who trusts the cops enough to put your life in the hands of each and every one of them.
now, those of you with your hands up, put them down if you trust the justice system to always determine the truth of every case.
now those of you that still have your hands up, take that hand and slap yourself in the back of the head until you get some sense into it.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I just can't understand the logic of protecting them in jail.
The people in jail are her new peers.
Why not let them be the judge after she is convicted.
I would prefer their way of punishment alot more then the courts and protective custody.
It worked for Dahmer didn't it?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
man, life's just so cheap for you guys, isn't it.

an eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind. it's a waste of time.

what gives one person the right to determine another should die? it's not about protection the prisoner, it's about being a better human being than the prisoner. it's about being wise enough to judge. it's about being so sin free you can cast the first stone.

so, hands up who trusts the cops enough to put your life in the hands of each and every one of them.
now, those of you with your hands up, put them down if you trust the justice system to always determine the truth of every case.
now those of you that still have your hands up, take that hand and slap yourself in the back of the head until you get some sense into it.



Well, yes. Life can be that cheap when you violate another person's innocent life. Once you have been the victim of a sexual offense or know someone who has - and you know all the knitty gritty details of such an offense, well, you start to see some lives as good and some as evil and that those evil people have chosen to remove themselves from the rest of society by placing themselve on an entirely differently level of "life". That level lives by different rules and should receive different treatment than the rest of us who choose to live by the rules and respect innocent lives.

I dont believe in being "so sin free, that I wont cast the first stone". Because I would never violate the life of an innocent person.

Sexual offenders and innocent people are not equal and should never be treated equally.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


You took the words right out of my mouth.
Why pretend they they have the right to be protected.
They crossed a line that shouldn't be crossed and a price has to be paid.
If a theif has to put up with the other inmates and fear for his safety then why does a sex offender get the right to have protection while a theif doesn't.
Sounds kinda like reverse discrimination in a way.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Once you have been the victim of a sexual offense or know someone who has - and you know all the knitty gritty details of such an offense, well, you start to see some lives as good and some as evil


no, i don't, you do.
"some lives are good and some are evil" is reactionary, over emotional nonsense. what exactly makes you so wise and blemish free that you can judge a persons soul and worth? seriously, i want to know, what makes you qualified to make that judgment?

"i would never" is all very well and good until your yapping on your mobile phone and fail to notice the kid stepping off the curb. hitting a kid with a car or stabbing her in the head and stuffing her in a suitcase, either way she's just as dead. why should one person be put to death but not the other?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Yes.

I think they are in grave danger. We must provide secure accomodation. Maybe some kind of maximum security establishment, becaue I really think sex offenders would be better of "protected' in this manner. We could be generous and provide this "protection" 24/7, year round. I also think we should find the toughest, roughest criminals to help provide further protection by placing them in side these "protective" facilities. That way, with maximum security, and a population of violent criminals to get through, sex offenders will be really safe from the general law abiding public that may try and harm sex offenders.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Once you have been the victim of a sexual offense or know someone who has - and you know all the knitty gritty details of such an offense, well, you start to see some lives as good and some as evil


no, i don't, you do.
"some lives are good and some are evil" is reactionary, over emotional nonsense. what exactly makes you so wise and blemish free that you can judge a persons soul and worth? seriously, i want to know, what makes you qualified to make that judgment?

"i would never" is all very well and good until your yapping on your mobile phone and fail to notice the kid stepping off the curb. hitting a kid with a car or stabbing her in the head and stuffing her in a suitcase, either way she's just as dead. why should one person be put to death but not the other?


I can judge anyone I want. Judging is giving an opinion. We JUDGE all day long. Oh look, she is beautiful (judgement). Oh look, he is evil (opinion). So, yep, I can judge all day long anyone I want. And people judge me too. Some correctly, some wrong. But people can give their opinion of me all they want. They have that right


As far as "I would never". Doing something on accident, verse doing something on purpose NOT the same. I would NEVER intentionally harm an innocent person. However, in your scenario (which I would never do - I don't talk on the phone nor do anything else while driving) - if my carelessness caused harm to another person - then yes, I should suffer consequences for it. Because driving can kill - if one is not careful. And yes, accidents can happen, but we can also do everything possible to try and avoid accidents.

But accident or negligence is NOT the same as purposely and choosing to inflict harm upon an innocent life.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


WOW!... and I thought my post would be polarizing! LOL! I must commend you!
I'm aware people will think people like you and I are "an eye for an eye" merchants but truth be told I don't feel this way about every crime. Just the ones that cross the line. This one qualifies!


Note to self: Never, NEVER piss greeneyedleo off!


I'm glad you and I are buddies!


IRM



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Its because they want those people to suffer more greatly and be able to do their time. Almost everyone in this thread has obviously not been in such a situation where your scared ***tless to wake up everyday. I have been there and im glad people can get protection to do out their time.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


WOW!... and I thought my post would be polarizing! LOL! I must commend you!
I'm aware people will think people like you and I are "an eye for an eye" merchants but truth be told I don't feel this way about every crime. Just the ones that cross the line. This one qualifies!


Note to self: Never, NEVER piss greeneyedleo off!


I'm glad you and I are buddies!


IRM


Oh, I don't feel this way about every crime either. But anything involving a child and their innocent life or any sex or murder crime that violates the innocent life of another....well, different playing field IMO. After all those crimes are choices - not accidents. They are willful acts to violate an innocent life. I believe it removes you from a civilized world and places you into a world separate from you and I.

BTW. You are not judging me are you?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleoI can judge anyone I want.

peh, wordplay, rubbish. judge anyone you like so long as your opinion holds the weight it deserves. if you want to convict someone in the manner you're advocating in this thread then i suggest some further qualification should be required.


But accident or negligence is NOT the same as purposely and choosing to inflict harm upon an innocent life.


what's the difference to the dead person, what's the difference to the bereaved family?

the only difference i can see in it is that you see the chance that you might be negligent but you think you are above being evil. you feel it's different because you can allow yourself to empatise with the careless driver but not the murderer.

the difference is in your mind, not in the consequence, not in the outcome.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join