I don't necessarily agree with the execution part (except on an emotional level), particularly as there is a fair amount of evidence that paedophilia (not child molestation, but the unacted upon urges) is a genuine mental illness (not an excuse for acting on said urges...but certainly good reason to look at treating it as such to avoid action on said urges).
But why should they be allowed so many opportunities to inflict harm on innocent people?
In my plan, they would be punished for the 1st two offenses by the laws we already have, unless, due to the severity of the crime and the certainty of guilt, the judge decreed a life sentence. Then I'd trade that for a death sentence.
Sex offenders get out and re-offend all the time. My 3 strikes system would allow this to happen a maximum of 3 times before they're executed and stopped completely and permanently.
The reason it's 3 strikes is because for the 1st offense, the rapist or molester could have been accused falsely in the first place, or have made a mistake that they regret, and be effectively rehabilitated and corrected.
You can be less sure of a pattern of behaviors and true guilt the 1st time, in some cases.
The 2nd time, all of those things are much less likely, but taking a person's life is a serious decision, so normal punishment (jail time + rehabilitation) again.
The 3rd time, the chances of them having been falsely accused 3 times would be almost impossible, a pattern of persistent criminal sexual behavior would have been confirmed, and the chances of such a repeating rapist or molester to be rehabilitated would be miniscule. They would certainly be a tried and true, lifelong serious sex offender.
The only way to keep the public safe would be to give such a person a life sentence.
I think that's a waste of tax dollars. Why should we pay to keep trash alive that's good for nothing but being a resource consuming black hole, a threat to other inmates, and a threat to the society that they leech off of if they escape?
Rapists and molesters damage and even destroy dozens of lives in their wake. Imo, they don't deserve to live feeding off of tax dollars. I know, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", but this case isn't one that I would consider that applicable to.
Sure, rapists and molesters may have urges that the average person doesn't have to contend with, but at the end of the day, they choose to act upon those urges. There are "virtuous pedophiles" you know: pedophiles who acknowledge their sexual attraction to children, but choose not to act upon it.
It's all a choice in the end, because these sex offenders never seem to lack the ability to control themselves when they're around people who could report or stop them, but once they're in a situation where they can satisfy their desires without having to face consequences, they take advantage with few qualms.
The issue with these people is mostly that they don't care enough about other people to not rape or molest them. They'd rather inflict suffering on someone else, than hold themselves back and be deprived.
I was watching a documentary about child sex offenders, and one boy, Garrett Clutter said this,
"I know right from wrong, it's just I choose to do wrong." His crime seemed to be raping and/or molesting his younger sister over a period of 4 years since he was 8.
Yikes, sorry about the lengthiness. Sometimes I just get into it.
Ok, I get you now. Idk why I thought you meant there were no consequences for the first two. I'm a tard.
I wasn't trying to defend them, just to be clear. Emotionally, this is one of the few things I'd be for the death penalty about. Just, intellectually, I can understand that perhaps with treatment, they could be encouraged to not act on urges. But you are quite right - it is ultimately down to their choice.
Nothing wrong with lengthiness if you're saying something important.
Unpopular opinions on random stuff
← View full post
We should have a three strikes (1st offense and 2 re-offenses) and then you're executed policy for molesters and rapists.
--
charli.m
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
RoseIsabella
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Why so many chances?
I don't necessarily agree with the execution part (except on an emotional level), particularly as there is a fair amount of evidence that paedophilia (not child molestation, but the unacted upon urges) is a genuine mental illness (not an excuse for acting on said urges...but certainly good reason to look at treating it as such to avoid action on said urges).
But why should they be allowed so many opportunities to inflict harm on innocent people?
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
RoseIsabella
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
In my plan, they would be punished for the 1st two offenses by the laws we already have, unless, due to the severity of the crime and the certainty of guilt, the judge decreed a life sentence. Then I'd trade that for a death sentence.
Sex offenders get out and re-offend all the time. My 3 strikes system would allow this to happen a maximum of 3 times before they're executed and stopped completely and permanently.
The reason it's 3 strikes is because for the 1st offense, the rapist or molester could have been accused falsely in the first place, or have made a mistake that they regret, and be effectively rehabilitated and corrected.
You can be less sure of a pattern of behaviors and true guilt the 1st time, in some cases.
The 2nd time, all of those things are much less likely, but taking a person's life is a serious decision, so normal punishment (jail time + rehabilitation) again.
The 3rd time, the chances of them having been falsely accused 3 times would be almost impossible, a pattern of persistent criminal sexual behavior would have been confirmed, and the chances of such a repeating rapist or molester to be rehabilitated would be miniscule. They would certainly be a tried and true, lifelong serious sex offender.
The only way to keep the public safe would be to give such a person a life sentence.
I think that's a waste of tax dollars. Why should we pay to keep trash alive that's good for nothing but being a resource consuming black hole, a threat to other inmates, and a threat to the society that they leech off of if they escape?
Rapists and molesters damage and even destroy dozens of lives in their wake. Imo, they don't deserve to live feeding off of tax dollars. I know, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", but this case isn't one that I would consider that applicable to.
Sure, rapists and molesters may have urges that the average person doesn't have to contend with, but at the end of the day, they choose to act upon those urges. There are "virtuous pedophiles" you know: pedophiles who acknowledge their sexual attraction to children, but choose not to act upon it.
It's all a choice in the end, because these sex offenders never seem to lack the ability to control themselves when they're around people who could report or stop them, but once they're in a situation where they can satisfy their desires without having to face consequences, they take advantage with few qualms.
The issue with these people is mostly that they don't care enough about other people to not rape or molest them. They'd rather inflict suffering on someone else, than hold themselves back and be deprived.
I was watching a documentary about child sex offenders, and one boy, Garrett Clutter said this,
"I know right from wrong, it's just I choose to do wrong." His crime seemed to be raping and/or molesting his younger sister over a period of 4 years since he was 8.
Yikes, sorry about the lengthiness. Sometimes I just get into it.
--
charli.m
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ok, I get you now. Idk why I thought you meant there were no consequences for the first two. I'm a tard.
I wasn't trying to defend them, just to be clear. Emotionally, this is one of the few things I'd be for the death penalty about. Just, intellectually, I can understand that perhaps with treatment, they could be encouraged to not act on urges. But you are quite right - it is ultimately down to their choice.
Nothing wrong with lengthiness if you're saying something important.
--
[Old Memory]
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Do you think there's a point where you would say, "That person has no chance of rehabilitation"?
--
charli.m
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Probably. But I don't feel like humans are unbiased/incorruptible enough to make the decision to end someone's life.
I don't think those are the words I want to use I just can't think of anything better right now.
True, one strike, and the pedobear's out.
--
charli.m
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, after cc elaborated, I think it makes sense. I had misunderstood.
Hell yeah!