Court mulls death penalty for child rape

[Fandango 1,439]

Inside the Sex Offenders' House on Long Island

From New York magazine. Pretty interesting article on this subject.

What is so interesting at an attempt at a 'feel good' piece for monsters? The article is completely slanted sh!t made to either stir up pity for absolute monsters, OR to make everyone feel good about the prison system and how it 'rehabilitates'. For example:

Before his arrest, he was married, earned $45,000 a year at a technology company, and belonged to an Evangelical church. Then, in 1999, his wife accused him of molesting their 2-year-old daughter. According to Bill’s therapist, Bill was angry at his wife, and the abuse was driven by a desire to get back at her. He spent six years in prison. The crime is a topic Bill doesn’t talk about much; when pressed, he discusses it in oblique terms. “You look back in your past, and there’s always 100 different things you could’ve done differently or better,” he says. “I was very passive-aggressive.”

With wire glasses, salt-and-pepper hair, and a slight paunch, Bill has the look of a computer nerd.

That man molested his 2 year old daughter for crying out loud. And the writer isn't even being honest about it. Words like 'his wife accused him' instead of 'he molested his 2 year old' and a therapist's excuse? I'm sorry, but no amount of 'passive aggressive anger' justifies molesting your 2 year old child. And the bias on this article sickens me.

Look at how harmless Bill is! He's a nerd, everyone! He only diddled his toddler cos he was mad at his wife...so he's ok now everyone!

It makes me wretch to think there's some piece about molesters having a house rule list and fighting over who cleans the dishes. They're still monsters. You can't polish sh!t. Never can, never will.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Monsters yes - but still human beings.

[Alex+R 0]

Inside the Sex Offenders' House on Long Island

From New York magazine. Pretty interesting article on this subject.

What is so interesting at an attempt at a 'feel good' piece for monsters? The article is completely slanted sh!t made to either stir up pity for absolute monsters, OR to make everyone feel good about the prison system and how it 'rehabilitates'. For example:

Before his arrest, he was married, earned $45,000 a year at a technology company, and belonged to an Evangelical church. Then, in 1999, his wife accused him of molesting their 2-year-old daughter. According to Bill’s therapist, Bill was angry at his wife, and the abuse was driven by a desire to get back at her. He spent six years in prison. The crime is a topic Bill doesn’t talk about much; when pressed, he discusses it in oblique terms. “You look back in your past, and there’s always 100 different things you could’ve done differently or better,” he says. “I was very passive-aggressive.”

With wire glasses, salt-and-pepper hair, and a slight paunch, Bill has the look of a computer nerd.

That man molested his 2 year old daughter for crying out loud. And the writer isn't even being honest about it. Words like 'his wife accused him' instead of 'he molested his 2 year old' and a therapist's excuse? I'm sorry, but no amount of 'passive aggressive anger' justifies molesting your 2 year old child. And the bias on this article sickens me.

Look at how harmless Bill is! He's a nerd, everyone! He only diddled his toddler cos he was mad at his wife...so he's ok now everyone!

It makes me wretch to think there's some piece about molesters having a house rule list and fighting over who cleans the dishes. They're still monsters. You can't polish sh!t. Never can, never will.

I didn't get that from the article at all. Bill is obviously not harmless and the writer paints him as a slightly disturbed person. Also "his wife accused him" or something, is a necessary way of writing. You're actually asking the writer to be unbalanced. I think you are uncomfortable with the fact that they are painted as DEEPLY (and sometimes irreparably) flawed human beings, and not inhuman monsters.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Monsters yes - but still human beings.

...that are very dangerous to others, have no morals, no sense of what's right or wrong, and so they have no place in society

Saludos,

Caro

[Alex+R 0]

Monsters yes - but still human beings.

...that are very dangerous to others, have no morals, no sense of what's right or wrong, and so they have no place in society

Saludos,

Caro

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend. Either way, you are confusing not having morals with mental illness. Which is what these people have.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend.

How much more likely? Since you made the claim, I assume you have access to the data.

[Fandango 1,439]

Inside the Sex Offenders' House on Long Island

From New York magazine. Pretty interesting article on this subject.

What is so interesting at an attempt at a 'feel good' piece for monsters? The article is completely slanted sh!t made to either stir up pity for absolute monsters, OR to make everyone feel good about the prison system and how it 'rehabilitates'. For example:

Before his arrest, he was married, earned $45,000 a year at a technology company, and belonged to an Evangelical church. Then, in 1999, his wife accused him of molesting their 2-year-old daughter. According to Bill’s therapist, Bill was angry at his wife, and the abuse was driven by a desire to get back at her. He spent six years in prison. The crime is a topic Bill doesn’t talk about much; when pressed, he discusses it in oblique terms. “You look back in your past, and there’s always 100 different things you could’ve done differently or better,” he says. “I was very passive-aggressive.”

With wire glasses, salt-and-pepper hair, and a slight paunch, Bill has the look of a computer nerd.

That man molested his 2 year old daughter for crying out loud. And the writer isn't even being honest about it. Words like 'his wife accused him' instead of 'he molested his 2 year old' and a therapist's excuse? I'm sorry, but no amount of 'passive aggressive anger' justifies molesting your 2 year old child. And the bias on this article sickens me.

Look at how harmless Bill is! He's a nerd, everyone! He only diddled his toddler cos he was mad at his wife...so he's ok now everyone!

It makes me wretch to think there's some piece about molesters having a house rule list and fighting over who cleans the dishes. They're still monsters. You can't polish sh!t. Never can, never will.

I didn't get that from the article at all. Bill is obviously not harmless and the writer paints him as a slightly disturbed person. Also "his wife accused him" or something, is a necessary way of writing. You're actually asking the writer to be unbalanced. I think you are uncomfortable with the fact that they are painted as DEEPLY (and sometimes irreparably) flawed human beings, and not inhuman monsters.

First of all, if he was convicted, it's no longer 'he was accused of'

As to the bit in red: There you go again saying things you have know way of knowing. Miss Cleo is running!

Finally: me too! to what Gdawg said. State your source.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Monsters yes - but still human beings.

...that are very dangerous to others, have no morals, no sense of what's right or wrong, and so they have no place in society

Saludos,

Caro

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend. Either way, you are confusing not having morals with mental illness. Which is what these people have.

I think people have become too quick with granting the "mental illness" asylum. I think most of these criminals are just rotten. And why feel bad about runing their lives with life in prison or death penalty? God only knows how many lives they've ruined before getting caught.

Saludos,

Caro

[Alex+R 0]

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend.

How much more likely? Since you made the claim, I assume you have access to the data.

My source was the article. That's why I used the word "apparently."

Lisa: Since I'm not Miss Cleo, I used the words "I think" at the beginning of the sentence.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend.

How much more likely? Since you made the claim, I assume you have access to the data.

My source was the article. That's why I used the word "apparently."

Aah, the article.

For Lisa's benefit, here's the relevant text:

A 2007 report by Human Rights Watch found no evidence that residency restrictions reduce crimes against children, and further noted that the sex offenders who are most likely to stay out of jail and not reoffend are those who are not segregated but have “positive, informed support systems—including stable housing and social networks.” This is one of John’s concerns about relegating sex offenders to one particular area. “Isolation is not a good thing,” he says. “One of the things that creates a lot of sex-offender behavior is isolation.”

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, FWIW, I found the article a little fluffy and I thought it needed a lot more heavy information to ground it.

[Nearly Done 8]

While some may see the punishment as being too harsh, I totally agree with it. It shocks me when I read the news here and see how lenient the punishment can be, here is one example :

Man Guilty Of Repeatedly Raping Girl Over 7-Year Period

A Belmont County man will spend the next five years in prison after being convicted of sexual battery.

The jury found James Wilkinson guilty of repeatedly raping a girl from the time she was 9 years old until she was 16 years old.

Wilkinson was sentenced to five years in prison and will have to register as a sexual predator.

John Paul, NEWS9

 5 yeard what the hell is that!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Monsters yes - but still human beings.

...that are very dangerous to others, have no morals, no sense of what's right or wrong, and so they have no place in society

Saludos,

Caro

I don't think anyone's denying that. But "having no place in society" is open to degress of interpretation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Apparently, by ghettoizing them, they are more likely to repeat offend.

How much more likely? Since you made the claim, I assume you have access to the data.

My source was the article. That's why I used the word "apparently."

Aah, the article.

For Lisa's benefit, here's the relevant text:

A 2007 report by Human Rights Watch found no evidence that residency restrictions reduce crimes against children, and further noted that the sex offenders who are most likely to stay out of jail and not reoffend are those who are not segregated but have “positive, informed support systems—including stable housing and social networks.” This is one of John’s concerns about relegating sex offenders to one particular area. “Isolation is not a good thing,” he says. “One of the things that creates a lot of sex-offender behavior is isolation.”

I've actually heard that before in relation to alcoholics and drug addicts (though not specifically in relation to child sex offenders) in my social science class at uni. I don't think its anything that can easily be proven, anecdotally. The idea is that if you slap a label on someone who practices a deviant behaviour - ostracise them to the point that they have nowhere else to go, they will resign themselves to their status and play up to it. Not the best example perhaps, but bullying springs to mind - if you push the idea onto a person that they're worthless their self-esteem diminishes as a result.

Anyway, despite the "mulling" in the OP article its not currently the law to hang someone for child rape, nor does it incur an automatic life sentence, nor indeed is it legal to go out with a bat for "vigilante justice". These people have to live somewhere, they have daily routines, whether we want to read about them or not. It is a reality, but what tends to happen is that people don't want to admit that discussing those mundane things is in any way useful. Its a terrible crime yes (will there honestly be anyone who disagrees?), yes it should be punished, the people are extremely dangerous and yes they should be locked up - preferably in psychiatric institutions - but its easier to plumb the depths of our negative emotions than deal with those realities and actually look at the perpetrators rather than fixate on the crime.

I mean, look at the other thread on Iranian justice. That justice system actually does a lot of the stuff that some of the people in this thread seem to fantasise about; yet, of course, its fine to throw stones at Iran's lack of morals and hideous human rights record - yet here we are rubbing their nether regions about torturing people and "hanging's too good for them" when it comes to a frankly, easy target like child sex offenders. It seems the subject can't be discussed unless people are already fuming with anger.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

the best therapy to stop repeat offenders.......

and if you get offended, tough. i've got plenty of these.