Can Rapists Be Rehabilitated?

[Muddy]

Mitch Hedberg lives!

[Allen Farlow]

Cricket, my point was there are way too many people who can do something for their own protection yet don't because they think they can just call the cops and have the creep arrested and let the legal system deal with it.

Meanwhile, he gets out on bail and rapes three more women prior to the court date.

Much better to just lay them down right where they stand, in my opinion, and put a permanent end to their reign of terror.

The U.S. legal system is rife with cases of perverted justice, way too many slaps on the hands for serious crimes. Just look at Orenthal J. Simpson. He's still searching for the real killers...and smirking at the legal system every day.

Originally Posted by Cricket

Respectfully, I disagree. I am not weak, stupid, lazy or inept.

Although I believe that I am ultimately responsible for mine and my daughter's safety, I am a law abiding citizen and do not believe in vigilante tactics.

If I (or my daughter) is in immediate danger, you are darn right I will take all steps necessary to protect us, including squeezing the trigger. But outside of that situation, I leave it in the hands of the law. My passion is fighting for improvement of a system that often does not work, not for taking the law into my own hands.

[Allen Farlow]

Mitch Hedberg! Man, I LOVED that guy! He was the funniest man I've ever heard.

A real shame he died.

ONE MORE PERSON TO ADD TO MY LIST OF PEOPLE I THINK SHOULD BE KILLED: NIDAL MALIK HASAN, THAT TRAITOR WHO KILLED 13 PEOPLE AT FORT HOOD.

[CyberWizard]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Respectfully, I disagree. I am not weak, stupid, lazy or inept.

Although I believe that I am ultimately responsible for mine and my daughter's safety, I am a law abiding citizen and do not believe in vigilante tactics.

If I (or my daughter) is in immediate danger, you are darn right I will take all steps necessary to protect us, including squeezing the trigger. But outside of that situation, I leave it in the hands of the law. My passion is fighting for improvement of a system that often does not work, not for taking the law into my own hands.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

I'd really like to believe that, Cricket, but it's tough to swallow when reading through this thread.
Some are not only advocating it, but more than willing to pull the trigger or flip the switch themselves.
This thread has certainly shown the uglier side of humanity, in more ways than one.

Who is advocating for the denial of a fair trial?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

I would want to be damned sure that the person I was considering doing unspoken things to was actually guilty of the crime.

Pretty sure everybody finds the conviction of innocent people to be appalling. Everybody. Every. Body.

You on the other hand invoke the possibility of wrongful conviction to argue against harsh punishment of the guilty. A nonsense position that denies the ability of a legal system to protect the innocent, while harshly punishing those who deserve harsh punishment.

[anonymously]

Tell me how we apologise to one of the last convicted murders to be executed in the UK when he has now been pardoned.

Fine to say nobody likes wrong convictions, but a little late for the poor sod who was dragged to the gallows and hanged when he had not done what they said he had.

Being able to pardon when someone is wrongly convicted has to be part of any legal system that says it stands for justice. Posthumous pardons are a little underrated.

[robjones]

Posthumous pardons are a little underrated.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Of course in recent news... I also suspect the families of the victims of Anthony Sowell (who raped and murdered at least 11 women while meeting the requirements of a registered sex offender) get little comfort from posthumous apologies for a tragically inept system of handling known sexual predators.

It's also hard to figure out how society can give back stolen years of horror and captivity to Stacey Dugard, who was kidnapped by Phillip Garrido and bore 2 children to him in captivity... and went unnoticed while parole officers and police checked on him regularly. He even slipped by when neighbors reported girls living in tents in his backyard. That's probably at the very least a zoning code violation... but definitely shoulda perked ears when the guy is a known sex offender.

In our attempts to be compassionate to the criminals our system has unwittingly unleashed many thousands of people back into society that are a danger to others. Somewhere there's a balance to be found, but it is a question that will replay itself in society as long as there are sexual predators to deal with.

My own thought is that in cases where there is solid proof such as a confession or DNA evidence, we need to lean more to the need of society to never ever have these guys in a position to become repeat offenders. Double that for cases where there was violence involved. They simply do not deserve a second chance. Some rules are just too inviolable to warrant mercy where justice is the best answer.

--
I think I may be starting to repeat myself, and having made my thoughts known I'll retire from the thread and remove the subscription. I don't believe anyone on either side of this issue want to harm the innocent. I think everyone involved would like to see the guilty unable to repeat. We all have different thresholds of tolerance as to how these valid objectives can be accomplished. When somebody comes up with a perfect solution feel free to email me. ~ Regards....

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by anonymously

Tell me how we apologise to one of the last convicted murders to be executed in the UK when he has now been pardoned.

Fine to say nobody likes wrong convictions, but a little late for the poor sod who was dragged to the gallows and hanged when he had not done what they said he had.

Being able to pardon when someone is wrongly convicted has to be part of any legal system that says it stands for justice. Posthumous pardons are a little underrated.

Entirely horrific sentiment. If your justice system allows the innocent to be convicted, it's not a justice system, is it?

Humans have a high level of intelligence. Either a man is proven guilty, or he isn't proven guilty. The idea that proof is never really proof, so we should treat all convicted criminals as if they were really innocent is about the worst idea liberals have come up with.

[anonymously]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Entirely horrific sentiment. If your justice system allows the innocent to be convicted, it's not a justice system, is it?

Humans have a high level of intelligence. Either a man is proven guilty, or he isn't proven guilty. The idea that proof is never really proof, so we should treat all convicted criminals as if they were really innocent is about the worst idea liberals have come up with.

And there is never a miscarriage of justice in the US??????

[anonymously]

This started as a thread about rehabilitation and has now moved into the death penalty debate and not it's original intent, so I to will unsubscribe from it.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by anonymously

And there is never a miscarriage of justice in the US??????

Who said there was never a miscarriage of justice in the US? Show me the guy, so I can beat the snot out of him. Democracy itself is a miscarriage of justice.

And just because democracy is an injustice doesn't mean that rapists should get a free pass as well.

[NewMedia422]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Who said there was never a miscarriage of justice in the US? Show me the guy, so I can beat the snot out of him. Democracy itself is a miscarriage of justice.

And just because democracy is an injustice doesn't mean that rapists should get a free pass as well.

Haha, agree with you there. Democracy is a system where the best liar is rewarded with absolute power. There's a reason all of our presidents cept Ike for a century have been lawyers (who make money helping criminals get off the hook). Nonetheless, I think the issue here isn't that people don't want harsh punishments for rapists (which we sorely lack), it's that they fear false identification. So like I said, swift execution by firing squad in cases with irrefutable DNA evidence.

We're so afraid to give harsh punishment to criminals, that they live a better life than most homeless people. Guaranteed food, shelter, clothes, TV time, some prisons are even giving them video games (like in Oregon) or computers with (monitored) internet access. They even get conjugal visits in many prisons for up to 72 hours.

Being soft on crime always increases it.

My compromise to people who don't believe in the death penalty: at least put the criminals to work. Make them turn a profit for us instead of being a leech. Sweatshops, coal mines, or whatever! At least the old style of making them work on farms. Anything other than this drain on our economy the current system produces. The hard work will also teach them character, and not make prison a resort.

[NewMedia422]

Oh and one more thing: some people don't understand that criminals are a *double* drain on our economy. First by the visible taxes we pay to house them, but secondly by inflation. Let me explain: when someone does not produce a good or service (which the millions of prisoners do not), yet is given goods and services (food, clothes, shelter, guards, TVs, games, exercise equipment, etc.) that debases the currency, causing massive inflation.

Thus we should *atleast* put them into forced work programs. It could cause prisons to actually bring income, instead of using tax dollars, as well as teach the prisoners to obey society, build character thru hard work, and make prison a harsh environment instead of a resort.

While I may seem to be a hardliner, I am only so on violent crimes (rape, murder, burglary). On other issues, like drugs or even prostitution (let the wicked be wicked), I believe in legalization, so we can have cops on the street catching REAL criminals. I just think when a criminal crosses the line into violence (murder, rape, etc.), it must be met with a harsh or violent punishment or they won't hesitate.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Pretty sure everybody finds the conviction of innocent people to be appalling. Everybody. Every. Body.

I have no doubt that you're sure of that, but that's only because you've failed to do your homework and read this thread properly.
Maybe your definition of appalling is very different from mine.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

I think that if they changed the penalty for rape to automatic death, a lot of guys would think twice about it. But that still wouldn't stop it because there are people out there who just can't control themselves. Rehab doesn't work for everyone.

So, if we could, would you agree that anyone convicted of rape should be sentenced to the death penalty?

I think that would be a good thing. Sure, a few innocent individuals will be kicked out of here a bit earlier than they should be but hey, at least we get all the bad guys...

And if you think Allen is alone, think again.
There are plenty of others who feel as he does.
I understand the anger, but that doesn't mean we get to dispense with the law and take matters into our own hands.
This is why people have rights, including the criminals who have committed even the most heinous of crimes.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

There are plenty of others who feel as he does.

Who think that guilty people claim to be innocent? Yes, I believe that too.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Innocent people, what about them? Well, there are innocent people sitting on death row right now (at least that's what they all claim).

I don't believe for a minute that Allen Farlow thinks that executing people who are honestly innocent is ok.

I'd like some clarification from him, but if he does think the way you suggest he thinks, I'll be shocked.

[Muddy]

Fair enough. Allen what did you mean by this?

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Sure, a few innocent individuals will be kicked out of here a bit earlier than they should be but hey, at least we get all the bad guys...

[Zap]

The section of his post that I bolded for you is clarification enough for me.
He seems unconcerned (certainly not "appalled") if a few innocent people get killed "but hey, at least he gets all the bad guys".

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

The section of his post that I bolded for you is clarification enough for me.
He seems unconcerned (certainly not "appalled") if a few innocent people get killed "but hey, at least he gets all the bad guys".

Killing innocent people doesn't get all the bad guys unless the government that executes them is likewise executed.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Killing innocent people doesn't get all the bad guys unless the government that executes them is likewise executed.

HA! No argument from me on that one.
Not a world I want to live in.