For someone who opposes capital punishment (except for political murderers like Saddam who have too many adherents to be allowed the chance to escape), I am in an increasingly draconian mood concerning punishment for convicted sex offenders. The latest case of Joseph Edward Duncan III –who allegedly kidnapped eight-year old Shasta Groene after murdering her family members and is now revealed to have molested both her brother and her–is particularly stomach-turning.
“This little girl really went through more than any little girl should ever have to think about,” Kootenai County Sheriff’s Capt. Ben Wolfinger said Tuesday.
To put it mildly.
Meanwhile, Megan’s Law continues to be irregularly enforced. Maybe the cable news obsession with these lurid cases can have some positive effect. No, I’m not talking about capital punishment for these characters, satisfying as that may be emotionally to some, but absolute assurance that they will not be able to murder and molest children again. If we make Martha Stewart walk around with a homing device for some minor stock hanky-panky, we should be able to think of something to prevent these horrendous crimes. And fast.
I have my misgivings about the death penalty, but this kind of thing pushes me to my limits too.
At the very least, the Eighth(?) Amendment prohibition on Cruel and Unusual punishment should have a much stricter interpretation for clear cases of molestation of any pre-teen by any post-teen.
Mandatory neutering and life behind bars without parole (incl. hard and productive labor) should be federally mandated for anyone convicted beyond UNreasonable doubt of such acts.
…with plenty of rope in the cell.
Well, I don’t have any misgivings about the death penalty in cases like these. And it doesn’t have anything to do with emotional satisfaction or deterrence. I simply believe that there are some people who need to be eliminated. And these guys are in that group. BTK, the guy down in Florida, Mr. Duncan–you want absolute assurrance that they won’t do it again? Well there’s a way to have that assurrance. Incidentally, BTK Rader has at least 10 victims. The guy in Florida (who buried his young victim ALIVE for crying out loud) was a convicted child molester. NOBODY is claiming that these guys might be innocent. Reasonable doubt isn’t a factor. These people need to not be alive.
One good thing about death penalty is it offers police a bargaining tool they’d not have with a perp who is holding info they need, and is already certain of a life-sentence.
Pedophiles, society is gonna have to do this sooner or later, might as well be sooner.
ìIf we make Martha Stewart walk around with a homing device for some minor stock hanky-panky, we should be able to think of something to prevent these horrendous crimes. And fast.î
Is Roger Simon forgetting that Martha Stewart is a member of the capitalist establishment? Since when are child molesters more dangerous than capitalists? Seriously, there is no way to effectively protect children without declaring war on the ACLU and its allies. This evil organization is at the forefront of defending child molesters such as NAMBLA. I am also more than willing to accuse the national Democratic Party, for all practical purposes, of being on the side of child molesters. Letís not forget that child molesters have been helped greatly by liberal lawyers—who are almost certainly Democrats.
ìThe ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today’s ACLU.
The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.î
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
As a former supporter of the ACLU I’m disgusted by their stance.
As a former opponent to the death penalty, I feel it’s too mild a punishment for such a heinous crime.
Why the death penalty for sex offenders but not for murderers? It’s clear to me that taking somebody’s life is far more harmful to him/her than sexually abusing him/her.
Those opposed to capital punishment advocate imprisonment (usually for life) instead; usually they claim that a governmental agency has no right to take a life.. Given the frequency with which sexual abuse of one prisoner by another occurs, imprisonment for a long term seems to me to be morally equivalent to sentencing somebody to sexual abuse. Therefore, those opposed to capital punishment view taking a criminal’s life, if they have thought the matter through, as a more severe punishment than sentencing the criminal to sexual abuse. It seems to me to follow from that that anybody who advocates the death penalty for sex offenders should also advocate it for murderers.
I think it perfectly reasonable to require a higher standard of proof for the death penalty than for simple conviction for a crime; I’m just maintaining that the death penalty is appropriate in some instances and that murder is an even more appropriate instance than is sexual abuse.
Why the death penalty for sex offenders but not for murderers? It’s clear to me that taking somebody’s life is far more harmful to him/her than sexually abusing him/her.
Those opposed to capital punishment advocate imprisonment (usually for life) instead; usually they claim that a governmental agency has no right to take a life.. Given the frequency with which sexual abuse of one prisoner by another occurs, imprisonment for a long term seems to me to be morally equivalent to sentencing somebody to sexual abuse. Therefore, those opposed to capital punishment view taking a criminal’s life, if they have thought the matter through, as a more severe punishment than sentencing the criminal to sexual abuse. It seems to me to follow from that that anybody who advocates the death penalty for sex offenders should also advocate it for murderers.
I think it perfectly reasonable to require a higher standard of proof for the death penalty than for simple conviction for a crime; I’m just maintaining that the death penalty is appropriate in some instances and that murder is an even more appropriate instance than is sexual abuse.
I’ve come to agree with John Douglas, former FBI “profiler,” that serial sex-offenders (such as pedophiles) can’t be rehabilitated with any reasonable certainty. This is one of those crimes that should qualify for life without parole, or death if loss of life is involved.
What about Roman Polanski? This man dares not return to the United States. Still, does anyone think that he is a pariah among the Hollywood crowd—the same people who send money to liberal Democratic candidates? Many leftists donít believe there is anything wrong regarding adults having sex with minors. One should view the movie ìTadpole.î Not only is it one of the later John Ritterís last films, it is about the nonchalant attitude the parents have concerning their 15 year old sonís sexual involvement with a woman in her early forties.
I’m going to pretend that I’m a Supreme Court Justice. The Constitution expressly prohibits cruel “and” unusual punishments.
I can think of several punishments involvong broomsticks that are not at all unusual in prison. Moreover, I find my reading to be no more creative that Roe v. Wade.
The best available evidence concerning the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent is presented in this Emory University study the results of which were presented to the House Judiciary Committee.
There are other rational arguments for and against capital punishment but the fact that it is a significant deterrent cannot be denied. There can be no “absolute assurance” short of execution regarding these predators. One would have to believe that we had a system concerned about justice rather than process in order to be thusly assured and the vast preponderance of evidence weighs heavily against such a belief. One technical error and one appellate attorney without a moral conscience are all that is required to set any convicted criminal free to begin their depredations anew.
Either incarceraton for life or castration, and I’m not talking about the chemical kind, prior to parole. Pervert’s choice.
What would that have meant in this case?
Maybe I’ll weigh in here because although I didn’t have an opportunity to have daughters (we have four sons), I have two delightful nieces (one exactly Roger’s daughter’s age and even with the same name!), and I always worry about them.
I think sexual predators who victimize children should be put to death.
Not that long ago I opposed the death penalty, because I hadn’t really thought it through, and movies like that one about the nun in Louisiana starring Sean Penn and that horrid superannuated virago Susan something, only reinforced my [sentimental] opposition to the practice.
I realized later that, like most (il)liberals, I was developing more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victim(s).
On a different but related note, one of my medical colleagues was biking in the Berkeley hills over the Fourth and was assaulted by three “youths” who pushed him off his bike into a ditch, then proceded to kick and severely beat him. He is in hospital with a badly fractured hip and other fractures and internal injuries. I spoke to another friend who is a Berkeley police officer, and he said that even if they catch the perps (unlikely, in his view), he felt it was improbable that much would happen to them.
The victim of this crime is a man in his mid fifties who is a superb physician, and who has dedicated his life to work with injured poor patients.
I think there is something seriously wrong with our “justice” system.
Jamie Irons
Capital punishment never pertained to Amirault nor was I suggesting that it should pertain to all sexual offenders. Pedophiles who are also murderers are the subject of the moment.
Life without parole in an automated prison, where doors are opened and shut remotely to let them into exercise yards once at a time, so that no guard must be near one.
If these types MUST be released, could we create “closed cities,” like the Russians did for dissidents? We could have a closely-monitored town constructed, where they would be allowed to have a relatively normal life with other convicts. No children, obviously, would be allowed to visit.
Attempting to leave the town would lead to hanging. Anyone caught trying to breach the perimeter-in or out-would be shot without warning.
Rick,
Pedophiles who are also murderers are the subject of the moment.
I should have made more clear that it was that type of sexual predator of children I was referring to.
The more usual type should just be locked up for life.
No parole.
Jamie Irons
On a different but related note, one of my medical colleagues was biking in the Berkeley hills over the Fourth and was assaulted by three “youths” who pushed him off his bike into a ditch, then proceded to kick and severely beat him.
The victim of this crime is a man in his mid fifties
That one hits disturbingly close to home. I’m a man in his fifties (soon to be fifty-three, so I guess I’m close to mid-fifties, if not there yet), who was bicycling in the hills in Portola Valley (about forty miles away, for those of you not familiar with Bay Area geography) on the Fourth. There has been a terrifying rise in that type of crime in the past year or so here. I’ll be glad to get out soon.
Jamie,
And I should have clarified that I was referring to ‘someone’s’ link to Amirault.
Perhaps I should make clear that I was referring to serial sex offenders in general and child molesters/pedophiles in particular. For those who also murder, parole should never be an option.
I don’t know–just speculating here–but the recent rash of proven child-harmers/killers have all involved judges who are too lenient, or, in the current case, apparently hadn’t done a rudimentary amount of homework, hadn’t looked outside the case in front of him, where the pattern would’ve emerged. This judge has been relected 4 times (according to Fox) “without opposition”.
Appears to be, “Ho-hum,” said the judge, “…next case?” And soon the dead family and the single little survivor, 8 yrs old.
The problem with no death penalty is amply illustrated by Gitmo. The problem is not that life without parole isn’t *potentially* a better sentence (for many reasons). The problem is that, practically speaking, pretend permanent solutions aren’t really permanent. What starts out as “we’ll lock this guy up unless we find that we made a mistake,” becomes, “another example of the fascist Republicans and the cruel, judgemental Americans.”
Until this issue is fixed, I remain a relunctant but committed supporter of the death penalty.
Face it. Anyone locked up for 30 or 40 years is more sympathethic than he was when he went in, in the vast majority of cases. I’m no Kantian in most things, but I think the Categorical Imperative applies to certain criminal acts: Treat these guys according to a standard as if what they willed was the norm. That is justice, strictly defined. If they say life does not matter, then justice takes them at their word.
We are supposedly also interested in mercy. Well, mercy has several applications in these cases. Putting these guys out of their misery makes a lot more sense than any case for euthanisa. Plus, it’s dehumanizing to treat people as if their acts do not matter. Punishment is a kind of respect. OTOH, if we are to say that mercy means that life matters so much that we will lock a person away for the rest of his life, then we owe it to *him* and everyone else to follow through.
Personally, I think one of the biggest problems with U.S. criminal justice is that we conflate the ideas of justice and mercy. We should be very strict with questions of justice (guilt or innocence of the specified charge) and more generous with mercy (what sentence will apply). “Guity, but insane” makes sense. “Not guilty by reason of insanity” is nonsense.
Then we could say, “Guilty of X, which automatically defaults to a sentence of death. However, we choose to be merciful in the sentencing phase (not arbitrarily, but by law). We choose to let you live, but you carry the sentence of death for the rest of your life.” That gives us an easy argument when someone objects to said criminal locked in a small cell in the Arizona desert, doing hard labor every day. “Hey, we are letting the guy off easy.”
Or maybe we just need another designation tougher than “Felon” that is reserved for convictions of certain crimes. Then it would be easier to write laws about what rights such a person had or didn’t have. If a felon loses right to vote and carry a firearm, why shouldn’t a convicted murderer or sex offender lose more if we let him live?
Will someone start offing convicted sex offenders, please?
http://spanktuary.blogspot.com/2005/07/will-someone-start-offing-convicted.html
Superchachi, you may be getting your wish (from Taranto):
Good Riddance
“1,000 Sex Offenders Vanish in Arizona”–headline, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), July 6
On that different, but related, note, California is a “may issue” state. You need to present a convincing reason why you need to have your right to carry a defensive firearm permitted. I would submit that “I ride my bycicle in the foothills” should suffice.
An armed society is a polite society!
Worth knowing, Triticale. Thanks.
Jim,
As I understand, the only people whom the state of California ìmay issueî CC permit are celebrities and politicians. If you belong to either category, you are in luck.
superchachi, while I hope it doesn’t come to vigilate justice in these types of cases, your post reminds me of this dream I had once after reading about a little girl who was gangraped in Pakistan by order of the tribal elders or somesuch nonsense. Anyway, my dream was pretty weird. In my dream I was a Pakistani male (instead of being a little white girl) who was part of a group that would kill any rapists or rape facilitators such as the village elders who ordered the gang rape unless the authorities prosecuted with lengthy jail sentences those people involved. Essentially, if you threw acid on a woman’s face or participated in a stoning and the cops wouldn’t prosecute you, my group would, well, hunt your ass down and kill you. It was a scary dream to say the least. The scary thing is that part of me thinks that such behavior is probably the only way to actually change the treatment of women among fundamentalist Muslims.
Katherine,
I’ve heard that there are Californians who interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than do county sheriff’s and act accordingly. Of course, if you make a point of staying thirty miles or so from the Blue Castles, the need for going armed drops precipitously. Odd how that works.
Rick,
Blue Castles?
Jamie Irons
ìI’ve heard that there are Californians who interpret the 2nd Amendment differently than do county sheriff’s and act accordingly.î
Rick,
And, after exercising their right to self-defense, end up in a clink? Arguably, it is still better choice than a morgue.
Jamie,
I think I live in one of the purest blue of the Blue Castles. (Sigh)
Katherine,
I think our crawl space should be at least 30 miles from Rick’s Blue Castles (whatever they may be) and should have gun racks as well as those wine racks which it already features.
Jamie Irons
Jamie,
Sounds like a plan. I may have to move from SF anyway: this November the City will try to make gun ownership illegal. There are enough leftie nuts here for this one to pass.
And Rick,
On another thread (now defunct, of course) I posted my “analysis” — grand term! — of why “The Truth” as a moniker bothers me so much…
Jamie Irons
Katherine:
There are enough leftie nuts [in San Francisco) for [a measure outlawing gun ownership] to pass…
That, my dear, has to be the understatement of the New Millennium!
Jamie Irons
Jamie,
One tries to do oneís bestÖ:-)
Jamie,
Regarding your analysis of ìThe Truthî: donít let it bother you. You cannot fight this kind of self-delusion and paranoia. I know as a kind man you would like to help these people, but my advice is, give it up unless they are paying your professional fee.
Jamie,
“Blue Castles” are what used to be referred to as “liberal bastions”. Those who seek to rule without gaining the consent of the entire populace live in their towers, defended by a moat of rentseekers, the functionaries who service them and the predators who live off the rentseekers. Certainly, SF and Oakland/Berkely qualify as does LA. San Jose, Sacramento and San Diego do not qualify. Nationally, the finest examples are St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Detroit. Manhattan qualifies but other boroughs do not. Napa is safe.
Katherine,
Judged by twelve always beats carried by six. I lived in Emoryville for a bit and had business that took me into Oakland late at night and early in the morning. I’ve always been rather prudent and have the ability to find solace in small things.
Humm lets spends thousands of dollars on these guys or $.20 for a bullet. The only way to make sure these people won’t commit more sexual or murderous acts is to remove them from society. I say lets take the cheap route. I can’t afford more. Beside the bullet can be recovered and reused. Seems more ecologically sound.
Jamie,
Wrt Pravda – shouldn’t we be thankful that the Atridiots and Guantanamorons have so few horseys to ride on their merry-go-round? If I count correctly the lefty memeorama consists of:
1)Selected not elected – defunct
2)TANG – defunct
3)Drug use – defunct
4)Dumb – fails the comparative test
5)Lied – has always lacked foundation
6)WMD’s – ask the Kurd’s if Saddam had them
7)No after war plan – Iraqi elections
8)Abu Ghraib – corrected at the appropriate level.
9)Guantanamo – Try a Cuban prison and get back to me.
10)Falling recruitment – remedied in June
11)Terror in Iraq – but not in the US
Kind of a sad merry-go-round in my opinion, but then – simple things for simple people.
Montreal has ten–count ‘em–international terrorist organization headquarters, according to a Canadian ex-security agent interviewed on TV this eve. TT should get busy on her own problems up there, I’d think.
Rick, throw in the al-Baradi (you know him, the UN IAEA chief who’s done such a good job of sheparding along the Iran Bomb) October Surprise, for an even dozen.
Buddy,
I think al-Baradei just gets to be the saddle on the WMD horsey. I did forget the Plame Game, which would make an even dozen. Very small beer, all told.
Alternatively, we have the magnificent behavior of Saddam’s benefactors at the UN. Couple that with the stunning victories achieved by the lefties in the consolidation of Europower achieved by the overwhelming acceptance of the Euroconstitution and I don’t see why they seems to be so panic stricken.
Rick,
Thanks for that enumeration; I believe it is both comprehensive and persuasive.
It has always seemed that there was a kind of tension between numbers (4) and (5), which could only be resolved by the ALL-PURPOSE ROVE AS EVIL GENIUS MEME!
Jamie Irons
Right, between 4 & 5 we can’t have Bush the Lying Idiot Genius, or Genius Idiot Liar, so we have to have Rove/Cheney Puppetmasters. I’m thinking, “So? It’s working, isn’t it?”
And, the God-driven religious robber-murderer. No contradictions anywhere, so long as you’re a complete nutjob!
Gutfeld is just scratching the surface. If he knew that Shiva-Kali had access to a time mac.., I mean to other vectors of influence, his article would be much longer. He didn’t even mention Howlin’ Howies selection as head of the DNC, nor picking Kerry, nor arranging for Gore’s makeovers, nor getting Lewinsky the interns job, nor providing the initial planning document for the ’93 health care revisions. Shoot, I’ll bet he’s never even been to a meeting of the Central Planning Committee of the VR.. Moderate Centrists.
Rick, a “baker’s dozen” needs a 13th–UNscam–as DNC-friendly a cross-feed as you’ll ever find!
Pretty badly o/t already, so why not this for the Kelo/Pelosi bemused (ht instapundit)? Wonder what she would make of herself if she were in the other party?