I will vote for the candidate who is committed to the following measures:
Anyone convicted of sex crimes against children be either given life without parole, the death penalty or after a mandated lengthy sentence have a chip implanted in their brains that tracks their global position and constantly monitors their activities. If they should violate their parole and "disappear" then parole is revoked and they serve a life sentence, or they can receive lethal injection should they wish.
These people have zero to offer and should be treated like criminals and tracked like dogs forever. Zero tolerance for crimes against children. Zero.
Any moral society should agree.
Anyone convicted of a violent rape should be given either a life sentence or the option of a lobotomy and castration should they wish to return into general population. Period, no discussion.
Premeditated murder of any kind, death sentence. Period, no discussion.
What point is there to argue the sanctity of life, if we are not capable or willing to protect it from those who wish to destroy it? I find it deeply hypocritical to argue for the individual rights granted under the law, when an innocent person's life is not valued equally.
I have no issue with due process - everyone deserves their day in court. What I am proposing is those who have been convicted of heinous crimes be delivered swift, severe and lasting punishment for their crimes. It is right and it is moral.
I will vote for ANY Republican, Democrat, or Benevolent Dictator who is willing to commit these reasonable recommendations to law.
My vote will be waiting.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Berlin
Dawn - I'm a left-of-center person who largely agrees with you.
It a wonder in a way that sex crimes don't have the hard mandatory minimums that many drug-related crimes have.
It's a tough, tough question all the way around though: how do we make the judicial system work better? How do we make society safe while protecting individual rights and punishing the wicked?
Along with the questions you've raised, maybe people should talk more about why you can go to jail for 15 years for selling weed at a Phish show tailgate party... but a CEO's son caught with cocaine is likely to walk. Why aren't we making drug abuse a medical and not a criminal problem?
It's a screwed up system, all the way around. But I agree that sex offenders -- particularly involving children -- should not have an easy path to re-enter society, to say the least.
2 - Angie
Zero tolerance for crimes against children.
I have always felt that way. It just kills me to hear when another child has been hurt. It is beyond my understand how anyone can possibly harm a child.
Altho I have a personal battle within myself when it comes to the death penalty, for crimes against children, death is the only punishment these monsters should get.
3 - Eric Berlin
Angie - I've gone back-and-forth on the death penalty my whole life, but I'm closer and closer to believing that life without parole is a better punishment than the death penalty, for a variety of reasons (cost, burden of proof, and perhaps most: let the evil person rot in a cell and think over the crime for which they will never escape).
4 - SFC Ski
I have little to argue against here, child molesters/murderers have proven their worth to be zero.
5 - Purple Tigress
I would hesitate to say that this period of time was any more depraved than others. There was a time when raping children was legal because it was done under the guise of slavery and the class system.
Although slavery hasn't exactly been abolished. The rich or at least the well-to-do can continue to rape children in foreign countries such as Hong Kong, the Philippines, Thailand, etc. As for porn, the legal "child" porn has young looking "actors."
There is also a question of the failure of morality in Orange County, California where a second trial which has again ended in mistrial. There have been essays about these young men as monsters (assuming their guilt), but in the end it is not people that have changed so much as the attitudes toward having sex with intoxicated women. The old attitude is that a drunk/drugged woman is fair game or "asking for it." Overt social attitudes have changed, but I would say from what I have read about this and other cases, the underlying attitude still lags behind.
Remember, not so long ago rape wasn't considered a crime because the victim was at fault because of her lifestyle, dress or behavior. What challenged these attitudes was the women's movement and books like Susan Brownmiller's1975 Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape.
Until recently, we had a major institute, the Catholic church, protecting pedophiles.
Yes, there should be stronger penalties for rape against men, women and children. And these penalties should reach those protect these people as well.
6 - Dawn
I am usually a strong advocate for the death penalty, but I am even willing to compromise with life in prison if it is without parole and when it applies to crimes against children.
In my mind, there is nothing more vile, heinous, reprehensible and repugnant than monsters who prey on children and if comes down to not having the death penalty, but that they be permanently removed, then I can accept that.
I don't want anyone convicted of even one crime against children to ever see the light of day again.
I can't see how ANYONE could argue with that logic.
I think of it in the most simplistic of terms, a sickminded person who lusts in their heart to hurt and prey on children is without redemption, they can't be cured, they can't be fixed, therefore they must be removed from society as the urge is too great, the possibilities to injure too unlimited.
Children are completely defenseless against those intent on hurting them, what kind of civilized society wouldn't make their protection its number one priority?
It's unfathomable.
7 - Eric Berlin
Just to play devil's advocate, Tigress: there can be a point where the pendulum swings too far the other way. For example, some places are pushing to make it illegal to have sexual relations with a woman who is drunk, or labeling all manner of inappropriate conduct as rape.
That said, it is good that we live in a more open and fair-minded society than in the past, one in which evil conduct can be more easily labeled as such and rooted out and punished.
8 - Dawn
P.T.
I agree, but with one exception to your statement, while rape against men and women is a heinous and vile crime, there is nothing more disgusting and contemptible than preying on children - with perhaps the exception of the old and disabled. They are similar in my book.
I don't care who the perpetrator is; priest, teacher, parent, stranger, or porn ring - they all deserve the harshest of penalties.
9 - Purple Tigress
Sometimes rapists begin with the old/disabled and the very young until they build up their confidence.
Others just target a certain type.
I think anyone who targets the helpless is reprehensible.
As for Eric Berlin play the devil's advocate, I'd have to reply that I don't believe in drinking alcohol or doing any kind of business--personal or professional with someone under the influence of any type of drug.
As a strong advocate for safer sex, sex under the influence of drugs is also less likely to be safe at all.
As for outlawing sex with anyone who is intoxicated, I believe the law currently stands on whether that person was still able to give consent. This is the very central point of the trial in Orange County.
But there was also an infamous case several years ago where a DJ, Steve Hageman, and his friend drugged with GHB women in order to have sex. These rape drugs leave the victims in a hypnotic state and easy to control.There was also a case of the Max Factor heir Stuart Luster.
The main factor is: helpless and easy to control. Alcohol is the old date-rape drug. GHB is a new one.
After all, didn't someone once write: Candy's dandy, but liquor's quicker?
10 - Eric Berlin
I think it's: wine is fine, but...
Well, if I was trying to make any kind of point, it's that some people use alcohol (a legal substance/drug) responsibly, and others don't. Obviously, it's a crime to drug up a person to do with them what you will, but I think it's dangerous to criminalize a situation where two consenting adults consume legal substances and then make way for a bedroom to have legal intercourse.
11 - bhw
but I think it's dangerous to criminalize a situation where two consenting adults consume legal substances and then make way for a bedroom to have legal intercourse.
No kidding! That would make just about 90% of all sex illegal!
12 - Eric Berlin
Ex....actly!
13 - Michael
and
No reasonable person would oppose the removal of violent predators from our population, but how is the ACLU to tell that they're only defending the innocent, especially when their goal is to defend the civil liberties that presume that a person is innocent? You can't un-lobotomize and de-castrate someone who was the victim of prosecutorial malfeasance. Despite the extensive protections in place to prevent it, it's undeniable that innocent people have been executed. If we enact your punishment scheme, I think that number will go up significantly.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in theory. I think that if the state cannot make citizens safe from a felon by any other means, the death penalty is an unfortunate last resort. I can't see, under the current implementation, expanding it or streamlining the process.
I'm from Harris County, Texas. Our police department and courts have sent more people to death row than any other county in the country. And our police labs are proven to have mishandled and misrepresented evidence that our prosecutors (who are rewarded based on their conviction rate) have stated in court prove rapes and murder. Later scrutiny shows that they neither knew such a thing nor was it true.
I'm not willing to grind up the lives of 10 people and their families to create a false sense of security. Creating a state that is callous to factual errors in execution, castration and forced lobotomization is not the solution. I don't know what is, but I can't agree to what you suggest.
14 - Growpeace
Dawn you really scare me. You may be willing to give up the last bits of privacy and freedom we have, but I can tell you that I am not and I am willing to fight for my rights.
Are you aware of how many people are on death row that are there wrongly?
You would send 10 innocent human beings to prison...Can we send you first please?
Big Hugs even though I feel like slapping, Joy with Growpeace
We are the people we have been
waiting for.
15 - Eric Olsen
I don't have much problem with your severe penalties for crimes against children, especially when you remove the death penalty which I am opposed to for many reasons, but totally disagree with your procedural approach: I do not want to see ten innocent people convicted to make it easier to convict a guilty person, and I also disagree that society is the indivisible unit, the individual is. We must protect the rights of the individual while pursuing the guilty as vigorously as possible within those parameters.
16 - Phillip Winn
Hear, hear! No innocent people put away, but every guilty person who commits a crime against children oughtta be prosecuted severely.
If only it was easier to know who is guilty and who isn't...
17 - Dawn
I am pretty sure that I stated that the CONVICTED be treated to the harshest penalties.
I am willing to bet ANY amount of money that if that were your child, abducted from her bed, tortured, raped, smothered and left to rot you would be singing a different tune.
I am hardly advocating a lynch mob here, basically what I want our legal system to do is find the truth behind the crime, through whatever means possible and once that truth has been discovered and the perpetrator has been linked to the crime through irrefutable evidence, then book 'em and cook 'em!
Sorry, you will find ZERO tolerance from me ever when it comes to child molestors and child killers. I would kill them with my bare hands and teeth if elected to do so.
I am sure that there IS no place in society for these types of individuals.
SO, unless GP you are one of those people, you have no reason to fear me - I am completely harmless to those who are also.
18 - Eric Olsen
all of this turns on the meaning of "irrefutable"
19 - Dawn
um, like forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, videotapes, DNA you know, all that sciency stuff that cops like to use to frame people and whatnot.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE NAPALM PEOPLE!
20 - Eric Olsen
the problem is "irrefutable" is only what people agree it is - you cannot remove subjectivity from the system no matter how hard you try or what you are willing to give up
21 - bhw
Dawn, you did say convicted people, but you also said it was okay to convict ten innocent people for every one real criminal. I think that's what people are struggling with.
We already do put some innocent people behind bars, and some have even made it to death row or the chair itself. I don't see that as an acceptable sacrifice for the good of the community.
I have no problem with sex offenders serving extremely long sentences, particularly pedophiles. They have a sky-high recidivism rate and tend to be unapologetic and even advocates for their own behavior, saying the children wanted it. Sickening.
But our burden of proof needs to stay high. Most cases don't have the mountain of evidence you're talking about, and in particular, eyewitness testimony, even by victims, has been shown to be extremely unreliable but extremely persuasive to juries. So juries will often believe an eyewitness, even if what they're saying doesn't match the physical evidence or contradicts a good alibi. Poor eyewitness testimony has put a lot of innocent people in jail, some who are later exonerated and some who aren't.
That said, I'm scared shitless by the FL case and others like it. I can't believe that we keep hearing about children being snatched from their own beds in the middle of the night. I mean, if they're not safe in their own beds, where are they safe? Can I leave my windows open at night in the summer? Do I need a motion sensor security system? It makes me friggin' paranoid.
I agree with you 100% that with a criminal history like that guy had, he should have still been in jail.
22 - Eric Olsen
I also agree that if we are going to have the death penalty, it should be particularly applied to those who prey on children. I hate the fuckers jsut as much as you do
23 - Dawn
I have had the opportunity to see the inner process of evidence collecting, investigating, interrogation and the measures taken in prosecuting.
Police, in general have a very labor intensive process in order to arrest a person, hold them over for trial, and get them convicted.
While, no one can state emphatically that every person convicted of a crime, is also guilty of that crime, the burden of proof is on the police and they go to great lengths to make sure they have the right person.
Therefore, I would be willing to bet that the percentage of guilty to innocent in prison is extremely high, and higher still on death row.
I also feel I must state that not all crimes are created equal in my book. I am interested in motive and intent more than the actual result.
Anyone can accidentally kill someone, even in a rage. But no one accidentally abducts, rapes and murders someone.
Therefore a person whose intent and motive is to harm the innocent and helpless is what I call a malignancy on society and therefore has no place.
Even someone as whacked as say Robert Blake is probably no a risk to the population at large, he is not a predator.
Honestly, I can't see how anyone could disagree with my logic.
Now, that scares ME.
24 - Dawn
BHW - I understand what you are saying about my hyperbolic statement about ten innocent men - but I was using that as a yardstick to measure how far our judicial system has fallen from it's original intent.
Prosecuting a crime is less about the truth of what happened, than it is about hiding the truth, plea-bargaining and reducing sentences.
The judicial system has lost sight of its goal - to protect society from those who wish to cause it harm.
What point is it to have laws, police, lawyers, courts, prisons and all the administration that supports it, if the purpose is not to punish those who break the laws.
I have always believed that any information that can help prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who broke the law should be available for court proceeding. It's the loopholes, and the legal wrangling that I oppose.
Quite honestly, I would not oppose a more invasive big brother type of presence in our country (i.e. letting local, state, and federal jurisdictions interract with each other more easily in tracking offenders and criminals across state lines - this is currently NOT an easy task).
Maybe, the whole national id card isn't a bad thing.
If I can be penalized harshly for having less than perfect credit in our society, my God, fuckers who hurt children should have ZERO freedom.
25 - aacool (Gee-Had)
THere's a term for this kind of justice - and it's not frontier justice - your approach is close enough to Islamic Sharia to be indistinguishable.
Your anti-liberal approach is another slide down the path of totalitarian thought, whether you realise it or not.
Sex offenders deserve punishment, but a leap from that to your comments in #24 is questionable.