Posted on 03/17/2007 10:17:00 AM PDT by MissEdie
Just how many more children have to die before Liberals realise that the death penalty is the only answer to this problem? This week we learn of the kidnap, murder and probable sexual assault of little Christopher Barrios by a convicted sex offender. Another animal out on the streets free to rape and kill again and again thanks to Liberal policies. Almost every time we hear of a child or young man or woman going missing it turns out to be a convicted sex offender that is responsible. How much longer should we tolerate people of this kind within our society? The truth is we should not permit it for a moment longer, nor should we put them in prison populations. The simple answer is that we should kill them; all of them.
There is absolutely no reason on this earth that anyone can give for keeping them alive; not one. But the one group of people fighting to keep them on the streets, fighting to allow them to live amongst our children, fighting to keep them alive, is Liberals. Think how many lives could have been saved if we executed child molesters at the first offense? How can anyone argue that their right to be released into society after a prison term trumps our children's right to live and be free of perverted sex attacks? Liberals may like to answer that question.
Even a 25 year fixed prison term is not enough. Why should tax payers pay to feed them, give them a roof over their heads, pay for them to work out in a gym, to read books, watch cable TV, have a law library? Liberals want them to have "treatment" which we all know doesn't work, but why should tax payers pay for that also? Why should we pay for expensive monitoring systems? The simple answer is: we shouldn't. They should be executed. Dead people don't re-offend. It shoud be a quick process. If the conviction is based upon DNA or a confession and it is lock tight, then execution should come within a week of conviction. If there are appeals then a new streamlined appeals system should be created so that if it fails they are dead within a year of conviction. They should not be allowed to languish on Death Row for 20 years consuming tax payer dollars.
There really is no reasonable argument against this. Other than Liberals, who would want to argue for child molesters and against the safety of our children? Liberals are prepared to let our children die in order to let child molesters live. Liberals are for protecting sex offenders but not their victims. Isn't this always the way with Liberals? They are on the side of George Edenfield and John Couey and against Jessica Lunsford and Christopher Barrios. What a shameful position to take, but take it they do.
If things don't change soon then the regular citizens will have to protect their children from these animals and then Liberals will be wanting to put the parents in jail for protecting their children. Once again, Liberals will always jump to the defense of the criminal and leave the victim vulnerable. If you go to the sex offender website for your county and see how many of these scum there are on your streets you will be horrified. Put there by Liberals.
RIP Christopher Barrios, another child killed by Liberals.
There's noting to apologize for. Death to these perverts! Scream it from the rooftops.
Death penalty should be applied liberally.
bump!
The hell these people have to go through from the prison guards and their fellow inmates is retribution enough for me.
Torture THEN death.
I agree.
I'm pro-death penalty only when there's no other solution.
We're at that point.
If we don't do something soon to protect our children, then we must accept responsibility for their sexual abuse ourselves.
I agree, as long as the law makes a clearer distinction between statutory 'rape' and child molestation.
Right now the definitions of the two are a bit too close to each other.
Your article is right on, Edie.
I get so sick of hearing liberals say the death penalty is not a deterrent. It is most definitely a deterrent for repeat offenders because that offender cannot repeat the offense and the recidivism rate for child molesters is out of sight.
I believe we need MORE death penalty, swiftly meted out, for violent crimes against children as well as some violent crimes against adults. I would like to see one appeal after a conviction, and then the penalty meted out within 30 days post appeal, a la Saddam.
I'd like the following crimes to have an automatic death sentence post conviction and appeal:
- sexual crimes against a minor (Man, those teachers and pervs would all STOP right away or move to Thailand)
- murder of a minor by anyone 5 years older than the victim
- any multiple murder
- serial murder
- rape of a stranger (any sex, any age, date rape excluded)
For those who maintain their innocence after conviction (absolute "I didn't do it at all" innocence), life in prison without parole. That gives the law the opportunity to discover who really did it, without killing a possibly innocent person in the meantime. And if no one is found, the most likely perp dies in prison, without a chance to harm another child.
Unfortunately, there are enough cases of wrongful accusation and conviction in child cases, that we have to be careful about the ones who say they didn't do it. Keep 'em locked away, but give them a chance to prove it was somebody else.
The ones that confess -- string 'em up. The sooner the better.
Nope. Make there no distinction. I don't care if the girl is in love with the adult male (or vice versa with the genders). We really do not want statutory rape to be going on either. We need to protect our young people and "good" teachers who "fall in love" with children will think 2x about sex with them if the penalty is death.
Do you include high school seniors who have sex with their sophomore girlfriends as child molesters? Because the state does.
I'm all for life sentences or civil confinement for sex offenders, but am for this reason adamantly opposed to the death penalty. That should be reserved for murder alone.
Those who claim they are "damaged" are right, and almost never turn themselves around. Defense based on "damage" is the same as confession, for child molesters. String 'em up.
We need to take the recidivism rate to ZERO now.
"The hell these people have to go through from the prison guards and their fellow inmates is retribution enough for me."
Nope. If they are alive, some lib will try to get them back on the streets.
These people are defective beyond our ability to fix, let's send them back to their Maker for repair.
Change the law -- if it overlaps what you and I recognize as "child molestation".
Don't let the real molesters off the hook because the law doesn't recognize that older teenagers screw jailbait. Change the law to accommodate the reality of being a teenager, and nail the real molesters to the wall with an improved law.
"Nope. Make there no distinction."
An 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old is guilty of stautory rape. You want to kill someone in that case?
Are Abortionists .... Child molesters?...
The Death Penalty is for murderers. As detestable as child molestation is, it should not receive the death penalty. However, molesters should receive a greater penalty than mere imprisonment, perhaps hard labor, solitary confinement, or being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" over and over.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but that headline is the product of a sick mind.
I might agree with that headline if it were removed from the mindless emotionalism that renders it worthless. Perhaps the use of the word "some" might redeem it.
The expected next statement is that I am defending "child molesters". So be it.
Wrongful deaths are caused by a great number of factors. Injuries to innocent people can be the result of an unlimited number of causes, from accident to deliberate planned mass murder.
To state that "the only answer to anyone who causes the death of another should be the death penalty" would also be characterized as the product of a sick mind.
It would cover all forms of murder, as well as the killing while defending one's home and family.
Non-sensical in the extreme.
The present state of civilized criminal justice has a large component of proportionality, rightfully so.
Yes, this is true also of crimes presently categorized as "child molestation", crimes which may be real or merely suggested.
You need professional help.
To liberals it is only a different sexual orientation.
The hell these people have to go through from the prison guards and their fellow inmates is retribution enough for me."
The sheer cost of keeping a prisoner is more than enough for me to say a firing squad is only about $4 worth of bullets. Firing squad works for me.
I absolutely think these scum should never be on the streets again, and I don't want to spend any more money feeding and housing them
I agree with you 100%!! Doesn't sound harsh at all to me. Worse than harsh is what these inhuman b@%tards are continually doing to our children.
Second offense: death penalty.
No. But how to make the law? You have to draw a line somewhere. If you like it better, maybe all "sex/fondling with a minor more than two years younger than yourself" should receive the death penalty. I would definitely want there to be a deterrent to the 24-year-old guys who prey on 14-year-olds today. Or vice versa with the sexes.
Agreed about sex offenders who target children.
However, I am annoyed that all sorts of individuals who *aren't* "sex offenders who target children" are being lumped together with them. We need CLARITY of our terms.
Among others who have been classified as "sex offenders", along with "sex offenders who target children", are:
Indecent exposure
Public urination
Sexual harassment
Spousal abuse
While those are crimes, THEY ARE NOT CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. So it is very wrong to put them in the same category as child molesters, child pornographers, and scum like that.
Again, when we talk about the death penalty for child molesters, be very careful that you don't "buy in" to all criminals being put in the same pot with them.
Because it would be pretty stupid to give some drunk frat boy the death penalty for peeing on the sidewalk. As it is pretty stupid to call him a "sex offender" in the first place.
The counter argument is that "what if we happen to execute an innocent man".
The answer to that is that there will be more innocent people murdered by by repeat offenders then will be executed by mistake.
Where is this true?
The disgusting reality of it is to get a monster to the firing squad - or gurney or chair or chamber - means a decade of appeals and legal gamesmnship that ultimately cost two to five times as much taxpayer money as just leaving them to rot in prison forever.
All child molesters need to be executed. Giving them long prison sentences isn't going to "cure" them, they'll just leave prison wanting to hurt kids even more. Don't give them that chance.
That is, IF they get sent to prison and held there for any period of time.
When that 14 year old dresses and acts indistinguishably from an 18 year old slut - or a 24 year old slut for that matter - and fools a drunken college boy at a party, you want the state to kill him?
In what state is that statutory rape?
"No. But how to make the law? You have to draw a line somewhere. If you like it better, maybe all "sex/fondling with a minor more than two years younger than yourself" should receive the death penalty. I would definitely want there to be a deterrent to the 24-year-old guys who prey on 14-year-olds today. Or vice versa with the sexes."
Agreed. I'm just saying the law needs to be thought out. Things that are done knee jerk, (as liberals do), tend to have unintended consequences.
Justice isn't quick or easy, which is why executions cost more than keeping offenders in prison for life.
You work with the nine year boy who has been raped by his grandfather like I have, then tell him the bastard who did that to him should live. I think not. The only ones with sick minds are the ones who want to protect scum like that.
"In what state is that statutory rape?"
Isn't the definition of statutory rape sex between an adult and a minor?
18 - Adult
17 - Minor
I don't know the law intimately, as it's something I've never contimplated.
re: liberals say the death penalty is not a deterrent
The deterrence thing is a straw man argument. It's called capital punishment, not capital deterrence. Any deterrent effect is serendipity. The object is to punish, not deter.
While Cuoey(sp), and all the rest of them should be hung until dead, there is a lot of prosecutorial abuse of the system.
Take for example the teacher who is targeted for being tough on grading and bad behavior. While I'm guessing many of the female teachers arrested are guilty of child molestation according to the laws, don't forget about the ones who get framed. I want to see the evidence.
Then you have the man who runs afoul of a vindictive soon to be ex wife/gf. Most dangerous. The courts will wait you out until you run out of money. You will then plead "no contest", because your lawyer has taken 20k and doesn't work for free. Your happy face will be forever on Megan's Law website, sometimes even if you manage to exonorate yourself.
Never forget, the DA wants to appear tough on crime and will twist, manipulate, and ignore exculpatory evidence to nail that conviction. The judge too, wants to be reelected, and even if he/she realizes that the accusation could be a set up, has personal and financial reasons not to do their job.
The real child predators sometimes claim hundreds of victims before being caught. The real dangerous ones if let out of prison, disappear and don't register, or honor their parole/probation terms. Those are the ones that you have to find and dispose of, because they're out there hunting down their next victim. They're the ones that are NOT on a Megan's Law website.
I understand your anger and frustration, and I share that with you when it comes to predators in the woodpile.
No, most states require a five year age difference. So in order to commit statutory rape with a 17 year old, you would have to find a state where 17 is not considered of age (it's 16 here in my home state) and where the older person is at least 22 years old.
I would wager there isn't a single state where 18/17 would consitute statutory rape.
Liberals call for the death penalty for republicans and Christians...they only object when it might be applied to someone actually deserving it such as child rapists and cop killers. Those they lift up as shining examples to follow.
Do not apologize for wanting to expurgate animals from the midst of human society. For there are animals roaming wild among us.
They are disguised as humans but under the skin, they are sub-human and worthy of nothing but elimination.
Justice is both of those things. You're defining American legal.
The results of brief googling, accuracy not to be vouched for.
Alabama: <2 year difference OK
Alaska: <3 year " "
Arizona: No exemptions. 18/17 is a felony.
Arkansas: <3 year " "
California: <3 year " "
I don't feel like going through the rest of the list, but five years would be the exception and not the rule - if it exists anywhere at all.
this is heresay but i beleive it to be true because of my sources.
on one fantasy island, off the coast of Mass, one of these 'things' raped one of the island boys. word got around to the locals and somehow, he met with a bad end (of a steel pipe to the head). the 'thing' is still alive but he wont be doing any more damage.
I would be willing to forego the death penalty, provided the punishment make them WISH for death.
See my profile page for a proposed solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.