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.


Is Phillip Garrido a Serial Killer?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by Aeons

that's a good start. we need to rethink what we do with sexual predators. our normal justice system says you if you get convicted of a crime, you serve your sentence and start fresh. but sexual predators are dangerous as long as they live. i know there is a problem identifying them, but once it's clear that a person is a predator--and it was clear with garrido and duncan--they must be put somewhere permanently. they must never be allowed to be free in society, but where do we put them, where they can't get away and do harm. nobody wants to spend their life watching these guys, much less provide services to them. especially when you get the folks that push the disease angle, and that these predators can't help it, that they need help instead, and so on. can we create a situation where they must live together, away from potential victims, and figure out how to grow food and earn money in some way?

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:53 PM
Or we could treat premeditated, predatory rape like premeditated murder, and give them the death penalty.

That is probably the most humane thing to do in cases where they are clearly guilty.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by poet1b

that would be the perfect solution, but i can't see people taking sex crimes all that seriously. they just won't do it.

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by earlywatcher

Sadly, and this is a very dark, dark, look at the truth, but the real story is that by putting these criminals back on the street, our justice system is able to keep itself growing, keep tricking the people into supporting a system that has is out of control.

The people of the U.S. want to stop predators like Garrido more than anything, and I think the people putting these predators back out on the street know exactly what they are doing.

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: poet1b

Are Obama and Congress serial killers? Seems to me if you allow a religion to promote violating a minor's sexual rights and kill for that belief then you are just as guilty as the people who promote it.

Here was Joseph Smith Jr. promising to exalt 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball's entire family into heaven in exchange for her willingess to marry. Yet, the Mormons reject Original Sin doctrine and state that individuals are held accountable for their own actions not their children's actions unless they fail to teach their children to be baptized and repent. Children on the other hand are never responsible for their superiors actions. So, Helen can neither merit nor demerit her parents. Joseph Smith actually told her family that God commanded the relationship. It's like having Phillip Garrido for a prophet.

Joseph Smith killed HUNDREDS of people for his greed in pursuing young girls. And Obama and Congress puts their stamp of approval on this.

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 06:39 PM
I prescribe castration.

Nobody will have to worry about him in or out of jail. Not that he is likely to get out of jail though. I say unlikely because never underestimate the stupidity and corruption of our government (might want to make room for a pot smoker).

Abduction, kidnapping, rape with a minor etc etc.
edit on 18-7-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
(might want to make room for a pot smoker)

I'd affirm that but having had my life threatened by pot users I'd say that they are a little paranoid about non-users. Every non user is narc to drug users even though you could care less about their drug use.

After that I say execute all illegal drug users.

posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 07:52 PM
a reply to: 7redorbs

I've given a lot of thought to this over the years. I used to be a pacifist who believed very similar to you in this regards, but I now wonder what is morally more humane regarding the following two scenarios; (1) If we have a vision of peace and progress for our future humanity, there will have to be some sacrifices for navigating towards that vision of peace and progress. (2) The current trend seems to be to let the wind blow us wherever it may, as long as we don't hurt anyone, offend anyone, or label anyone. This leads to innocent and good people being hurt, whereas in scenario number 1 at least we can concentrate our swift and humane punishments (without hatred and anger) on those that actively make this world a worse place by their actions.

The winds are now strong, and due to no one being willing to stand up and call out people and thinking that create more chaos than good in this world, we are going to be bringing more chaos until someone grabs the helm and says enough is enough.

edit on 18-7-2016 by Galacticsun because: Forgot to include numbers for my two scenarios. Thanks!

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in