depo shots… innarestin. never heard of that in regards to curbing pedophilic cravings. I’m all for that if it works.
It’s often referred to as “chemical castration” in the media but it’s really just the same Depo-Provera that’s used for the birth-control shot in women. It decreases testosterone in men and decreases sexual desire.
Depo-provera is not a panacea for sex offenders. It does reduce drive, and many offenders do say they feel tremendous relief to be rid of the burning urgency of their desires. But it does not render them incapable of sex, and many have committed sexual offenses while on it. It has its place in the treatment regimen.
I agree. I don’t think the Depo alone should be the only treatment but only used as part of an overall program.
well, i’d say that it depends on how old the pervert is…if he’s already 80 years old, sure give him 200 years.
if you want an answer from the horses mouth go to nambla 's west coast office in san fran…san fran is big on perverts and other dispicable creatures. there’s a web site in san fran which
says it all. anyone who wants the address can let me know…but, it’s not for the faint of heart so don’t ask if you are sensitive!
I’ll assume this is a matter of principle to you, so that you would apply the same reasoning to other kinds of crimes.
As in: [ul]
[li]Most gay men do not die after being gay-bashed. Therefore, someone convicted of simply punching a gay guy in the belly a few times has not caused any significant or long-term damage.[/li][li]Many women recover from being raped. They can go on to have normal lives. Therefore, some guy who is convicted of only a few incidents of date-rape has not caused any significant damage.[/li][/ul] And so on.
Assuming your figures are accurate, and putting the absolute best interpretation on them that I can manage, your argument is that we should let them out eventually because there is a 50-50 chance that he won’t rape some other child?
That’s the best odds I can hope for? Flipping a coin?
Fine with me. As I said, that is what prison is for.
Some harms are worth spending money to avoid. Even if letting a hundred child molestors out of prison means that “only” fifty more children will be raped.
Or perhaps, in the case of the OP, a hundred thousand will be raped, while the fifty unrepentent perverts sit at their PCs with one hand busy and watch.
Regards,
Shodan
I am disturbed by these statements, Shodan. Do you truly feel that we can and should penalize people for crimes they may commit? Do convicted sex offenders have any rights that can’t be taken away to protect children.
Mind you, I agree that child molestation is a different beast than crimes of passion that aren’t likely to be repeated. But do you truly feel that locking up someone for life because they may molest another child is an answer?
My example was a pedophile taking a picture of a naked child. Your examples involve painful physical contact. Punching someone is bad (albeit not worth 200 years in jail unless they die, and even then maybe not that much). Raping someone is bad. Rape a child and 200 years is just fine.
Now, looking at a picture of someone punching a gay person in the belly a few times, or looking at a picture of someone being raped (ever see the movie “Irreversible”?) does no harm. Even paying for such a picture, no matter how gross/bad/evil the subject matter is, doesn’t hurt anyone not already hurt. As for the kiddie porn I just don’t buy the market demand theory of 200-year sentences. I wish I did… i find kiddie porn disgusting and vile, and my knee-jerk reacting to 200 year sentences for having it is “fine with me” … but … it’s just looking at a picture. If the first amendment means anything, it means you can look at whatever you want to look at. Note: i’m not saying there is a freedom to make kiddie porn.
I am not sure what you mean. If you mean, ‘should we consider how likely a person is to re-offend when determining sentence’, yes, we should. Someone with a 50% chance of recidivism should receive, on average, a longer sentence than someone with a 30% chance. Add to that the relative level of moral outrage to the given offence, and the sentence then increases. Which is why violent offenders receive, on average, more prison time than property offenses, and why you don’t get parole unless you can convince a parole board that you are not likely to rob the first liquor store you come across.
More than other prisoners? No. They have the same constitutional rights as anyone else, until after they are convicted. They then forfeit many of those rights.
If you are asking if we can morally torture child molestors to death, or change their sentence as their release time approaches, no.
Is that what you meant?
Yes, of course it is an answer. Child molestors are far less likely to rape children when they are in prison, wouldn’t you agree?
Obviously, a child molestor could escape, or some soft-headed parole board let him off for good behavior, and we then have an (at best) 50-50 chance that he will rape again, so the death penalty would be more certain still, but I didn’t want to hijack this off to a discussion of the DP.
In other words, I believe locking a pervert up forever gives a much better than 50-50 chance that he will not attack another child. Child molestation is a serious enough crime (like murder) to make life in prison a proportionate sentence. Therefore, life sentences for child molestors are appropriate.
I don’t think this is troubling at all. He is a dangerous pervert, so you lock him away where the danger is reduced. What’s the downside?
Regards,
Shodan
Hmm. It was my impression that jail was punishment for what you had done, more than what you might do in the future. If someone molests a child, hand the law a club with nails in of justice and let it do its work. But I feel this way because of what said someone has done, not what said someone might do. I find your word choice interesting here (hence the bolding).
Do you feel that locking up a non-offending pedophile for looking at child porn to protect potential victims is fair?
I get that the world would be a safer place for children if we simply rounded up all people who were sexually attracted to children and put them away somewhere. But at what point do we start worrying about the rights of the pedophiles?
It is punnishment for what you have done, and an attempt to secure the public from future harm.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lawjourn/Fall97/II1belin.html
From the Princeton Law Review: “… .society’s right to self-defense and protection far outweighs the released criminals’ right to privacy and anonymity…”
Not every pervert is dangerous, especially if he hasn’t actually physically harmed any children.
I’m kind of amazed to say it but i keep agreeing with Shodan on this. I think that molesting a child should merit a life sentence. I think it’s a crime as equally repugnant and as corrosive to society as murder and that (actually, unlike many murderers) they will always pose a significant threat to re-offend if they are let out.
To eliminate ambiguity I will define “molestation” in this case as being the physical use of a child for sexual gratification. If someone rapes a six-year old, I think that should be it, bye bye, asshole, you’re going away forever.
Maybe, I could see lighter sentences for less aggregious circumstances (pseudo-consensual sex with a teenagers, taking nude photographs but not touching). I would still want jail time, though, and for demonstated pedophiles I would still want a regimen of therapy concurrent with Depo treatments. I would lump those who possess child porn in with this class. I do think that the state has a right to protect it’s most vulnerable citizens from tjose who pose a substantive threat. Anyone who can be shown to harbor a sexual attraction to children cannot be trusted until that attraction is dealt with.
I think that I’ve probably changed a little on this since I’ve become a parent. I was always repulsed by pedophiles but I used to be all for giving them a second chance, blah blah blah. Now that I’m a father I realize that I don’t want these people anywhere near children, and that they cease to have any rights once they decide traumatize a child.
eggregious, not “aggregious”
egregious even (sheesh)
I know that some states, at least, have different (lighter) sentences when the molestation is with older teenagers. There is a case (in Arizona, I think) now where a teacher impregnated a 15 yr old and plea bargained for 0 jail time. I think this is still subject to judicial review, but the sentencing guidelines in that state for an adult having sex with a teenager who is underage, but over 15 is 0-2 yrs.
I agree that raping a small child should bring a large sentence, of the 25 yr viariety. As we all know, child molesters are subject to “special treatment” by their fellow inmates.