Oops, screwed the last sentence.
Qadgop the Mercotan posts the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism
Once someone has raped a child, they by definition cannot ever be the “man with disturbing fantasies who has enough respect for humanity not to indulge in them.”
Huh? If you’re referring to the “can’t,” I’d like to change it or at least offer up a caveat: they WON’T change their behavior. Setting aside issues of drugs or alcohol that can mess up someone’s judgement, the choice to rape a child is exactly that–a choice. It may be hard on their fragile psyche not to indulge, but they’re still doing it consciously.
You’re really stretching, dude. What I’m saying is that the mental state (you love talking about that, right?) of a child rapist is totally different from that of other criminals. Even hardened criminals realize this, that to the extent that any crime is “normal,” child rape most certainly is not. I’m not saying that every child rapist should be shot, although I didn’t say they shouldn’t not be shot either. However, I think whatever punishment they get needs to be something a hell of a lot more drastic than locking them up. I would not be opposed to treating child rapists with a combination of chemical castration and any other medical intervention. If chopping off a dude’s balls will stop him from raping children, then by all means, chop away. But you can’t make me accept them as a coworker, a neighbor, or a member of my society. Let them live and work next to you if you trust them so much.
“By definition”? Yes, they can. There’s nothing there that contradicts that. They may gain some more respect for humanity, for example. Then they would be that man.
I understand you don’t think it’s possible for them to gain that respect, or improve in any way, and that once they’ve done it, they will* inevitably* continue to do so. That’s a reasonable opinion (even if I disagree), but it is not “by definition” an impossibility.
So if I advocate the death penalty for child rapists, and am actually willing to carry out said penalty myself (because I believe that if you vote for the death penalty, you should be capable of pulling the switch yourself), that makes me worse than the guy who rapes a child at gunpoint?
But they already gave in and raped the child. Even if they only do it once, and refrain from doing it again, nothing can clean that up.
Minnesota’s Level 3 Offender Registry is insanely detailed.
I mean, insanely. It gives details of the offense, what was done and to whom, and whether or not the victims knew the offender. It includes details as to circumstances pre and post incident (like that the offender met the victim on the street, convinced her to come home with him, and then threatened her with a weapon, held her for 48 hours, and so on… I mean, it’s really detailed).
So it does vary state by state.
As for the OP… Personally, I think I’d walk out, too. 
True, they did. I’m agreeing with you that that (as you put it) shows a lack of respect for humanity (among other things). I’m just saying, it is possible for them to gain that respect - and so no longer be that person. “By definition” are the wrong words to use, because that suggest that it is utterly impossible for them to do so. I’m not saying that makes what they did understandable, or that they should be let off for it. I’m saying that it’s possible for them to not be that person anymore.
I’m nominally against the death penalty- I can very easily imagine myself unjustly accused, facing lethal injection, for something I didn’t do. Our justice system isn’t perfect, and until it is, I’m loathe to apply a permanent punishment for something that can’t be perfectly proven- there aren’t any takebacks, you see.
However, in the case of an adult raping a seven-year-old at gunpoint, fuck ‘em. If they’re guilty, we don’t fuckin’ need them in our society. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no contribution they can make to society which makes me want to keep 'em around. If we’re not going to kill 'em, lock 'em up for the rest of their lives. Yeah, it sucks that my taxes have to pay for it, but I consider it a small price to pay to keep someone like that away from me and mine.
But here’s the important thing- it’s NOT MY DECISION. We’ve got a system in place, aptly called the “justice system” which I pay to make the hard decisions for me. If the justice system goes to the rapist and says, “Okay, you’ve done your time. Keep your nose clean, live a good life, and we won’t have a problem with you”, then he’s done. He’s paid the time for the crime, and he should be able to get on with his life.
At that point, it’s not any citizen’s right to say, “Well, I don’t think you’ve done enough. I don’t believe you’ll ever straighten up, so I’m going to make your life a living hell. I don’t want you near me or my children. I don’t care where you live, but you can’t live near me. Or anyone else. Or within sight of a school, or a church. Oh, and you can’t have a job. And you’ve got to keep telling us where you are, 'cause we’re just waiting for you to fuck up again.”
That’s not our job. That’s… oh, what’s the word… vigilanteism. Kind of a bad thing, unless you read lots of comic books. But then you have to wear a cape.
If you don’t think he’ll ever reform, insist that the justice system kill him or lock him up. As an individual, you don’t get to do it yourself. Don’t protest his employer- protest the people you think fell down on the job- the justice system.
We’ve got a system of laws, you see. We can’t pick and choose which laws we want to follow- the only thing we can do is try to change the laws we disagree with.
For the record, I’ve got a son. I’ve also got a seven-year-old niece who means the world to me. Would I want this guy working next to my niece’s school? Hell no. But until the laws are changed, I don’t have a say.
All of you assholes who insist that you’d be willing to pop a cap into this slime’s head… honestly, you scare me worse than he does.
If I were to make a list of things that it’s OK to get NIMBY about, I think child rapists would be pretty close to the top of the list.
I feel for the OP - I wouldn’t want to work with a person who had done that (or have any contact, whatsoever, with them, for that matter), regardless of if I thought the guy needed a job, or a home, or whatever.
I’m not going to say much, since The King of Soup is already doing an admirable job of arguing for reason and moderation here. I do wish to point out that belief is a pretty piss-poor basis for a system with goals and consequences as serious as the justice system. I don’t take this position, but let it be resolved for the sake of argument that the death penalty is the appropriate means of dealing with criminals who cannot (to a reasonable degree of confidence - say 99+%) be rehabilitated. Just for the hell of it, let’s assume also that the justice system will never make an erroneous conviction. That being the case, hadn’t we be damned sure about the inefficacy of therapy, reinforcement or whatever sort of rehabilitation strategies are available? “I don’t believe” is not an adequate basis for this kind of life-or-death, high-stakes decision.
Even if we do have reams of accurate data, the best possible rehab techniques, no chance of making a mistaken conviction, what is the necessary rehabilitation failure rate (and, therefore, recidivism rate) to comfortably say “just kill 'em all”? If it is truly, precisely 100%, then I can be convinced to go along with you. However, this seems ludicrously unlikely. So at what recidivism rate are we okay with just executing all offenders, bearing in mind that a certain percentage of them would have reformed, if given the chance? 99.99%? 99%? What about 90%? I think that even the latter figure is probably a good deal higher than the actual recidivism rate, but it is well into the territory of injustice, IMO.
I realize that this argument fails if you think that child rape is so heinous a crime that it deserves the death penalty, not as a matter of pragmatism, but as a matter of justice (and let’s be honest: your “I don’t believe” statements were probably not coming from a pragmatic mindset, despite your presentation of them as such). Quite frankly, in spite the very real heinousness of the crime of child rape, I do not see punishing it by execution is anything but a caricature of justice. The death penalty is reserved for murder with malicious intent, and is at times not deemed appropriate even then! I can’t see any sensible reason to have the same punishment for a crime that does not result in the death of the victim. Fortunately, the U.S. justice system seems to agree with me on this more than it does with you.
Grelby, the problem is that you are trying to appeal with logic to emotion. Quite frankly, I don’t want rapists (child or otherwise - but not necessarily statutory) back in soceity. Recidivism doesn’t matter. Just get rid of them. Throw them all far away somewhere where they can’t come back, and let them fend for themselves.
Emotion aside, logically it cannot be done. I also understand that some of these people will one day make their way back into soceity. However, it is not my job nor my duty to make their transition easy. It is not my job nor my duty to employ them, nor even to make an effort to like them. They already tore up the social contract and I’m not going to help them tape it back up.
We could give them a choice: “Do you want to be shot, or do you not want not to be shot?” By the time their lawyers parse that out, they’ll have served a life sentence. Kidding aside, I think that’s great! I knew we’d find common ground. I don’t know the best thing to do with child rapists either. It’s just that my default position, when I don’t know what to do, isn’t to shoot somebody (or to refrain from not shooting them, or whatever).
Other than to satisfy your personal sense of outrage at a horrific crime, why? Because as sincere and morally infallable as you may be, that’s not a good enough reason.
Let’s see the evidence that that’s a necessary and sufficient remedy, and maybe I’ll agree with you. Otherwise you’re stuck with the combination of chemical castration, medical intervention, and then shooting them, which doesn’t seem very cost effective.
Well, that’s the thing. Up to a point, you do have to accept it, or face the alternatives of changing your own circumstances or becoming an outlaw yourself. My personal attitude (and it isn’t one of unquestioning welcome and trust toward ex-offenders) doesn’t enter into it. One of the drawbacks of civilization is that we don’t get to indulge our worst impulses even on those who really deserve it.
By refusing to expend any effort to rehabilitate the criminals you admit must someday be released into society, you are creating the conditions for more children to be raped. You cannot simply ignore them and hope they go away, just because the law prevents you from warehousing or killing them. If you want to protect children, you must find a way to love your enemy. If the welfare of future victims is unimportant to you, then continue to seek vengeance.
I have several, in a small room in the basement behind the furnace.
For those advocating the death penalty, remember Mr Nordmark.
But my main point is that the boss seems to have forgotten that work is as much a social contract as a financial one: a workforce behaves as a group, and group dynamics apply. He should have consulted with his staff before employing someone convicted of such a henious crime. Something along the lines of, “As you know, we’ve been looking for an experienced widget-maker, and we’ve found one. But, he’s a convicted child rapist. Now, I know he’s served his time according to law, but I would appreciate your considered opinions, and my door will be open for them, in confidence, tomorrow morning.”
Oh dear, that link is 404-compliant. Try http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/23/national/main601627.shtml
And if it turns out they were innocent ? “Sorry we offed your Dad” isn’t much of an excuse. False accusations are very common, after all.
And they are human, like it or not. Nor is child molesting the worst thing someone can do; it’s silly to act like it’s a uniquely evil thing.
Well, if he can’t, he hardly deserves punishment or condemnation, does he ( confinement until/if he’s cured, but not punishment ) ? For behavior to be evil/unethical, a choice must be involved; if choice is involved, then they can change their behavior. If they can’t change, then it’s a compulsion, not a choice, and therefore not their fault.
That is a description of someone who is insane, and therefore not responsible for his actions.
Your link isn’t working. Did you mean this guy ? ; that’s what I got from Google.
Never mind; missed your response, somehow.
Perhaps we should put them all into a big prison colony. Fence off some godforsaken place like North Dakota and let them fend for themselves.