Are Sexual Offense Laws Too Harsh? And Do They Work?

[manualman]

I suspect that the current culture would consider castration of rapists “cruel and unusual” in Constitutional terms. Good luck winning that battle.

It would be interesting to hear if it is known if castration simply removes the ability or actually changes the desire/drive. Is that buried in one of those links somewhere?

 

[centurionguard]

I suspect that the current culture would consider castration of rapists “cruel and unusual” in Constitutional terms. Good luck winning that battle.

It would be interesting to hear if it is known if castration simply removes the ability or actually changes the desire/drive. Is that buried in one of those links somewhere?

Really? Which do you think is more barbaric, having your own child raped or sending a clear unmistakable message to would be sadistic rapists.

Your not going to help pedophile rapists by nurse-maiden them by a slap on the fingers are you?

 

[white_sheep]

I’m not sure about whether castration is even effective at reducing recidivism.

When I look up sexual predators on the state website most of those guys aren’t people I’m really all that worried about. You can get put on that list for peeing behind a bar. I think some of the laws are too harsh, particularly the registry of minor offenders, and some of the laws should be much tougher and certainly some of the minimum sentencing standards.

 

[centurionguard]

I’m not sure about whether castration is even effective at reducing recidivism.

When I look up sexual predators on the state website most of those guys aren’t people I’m really all that worried about. You can get put on that list for peeing behind a bar. I think some of the laws are too harsh, particularly the registry of minor offenders, and some of the laws should be much tougher and certainly some of the minimum sentencing standards.

Calling for government justice systems for stricter minimum jail sentences is like playing Russian Roulette.

Most Rapist are out of prison today in 8-10 years. What damned deterrent is that when little more than half of them are repeat offenders?

I’m certainly not convinced by any secular statistical standard that psychiatric or psychotherapy secular mental health sciences can cure most rapists.

You can argue with statistics all you want.

The Justice System itself is deplorably laughable and a ridicule unto itself.

In order to keep Rapists in Prison for a minimum of (“25”) years or more with no chance of parole and in solitary confinement 23 hours a day would cost billions a dollars to build new prisons. No government will do this.

So what does the government do? They play Russian Roulette releasing convicted Rapists into society only to often rape an innocent victim again.

There was a time in history when all Rapist were put to Death like that of Murderers. They still do this in a number of countries where laws of there country are respected and Crime Rates are low.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

and Crime Rates are low.

Liberals always like to claim that harsh laws do not make a difference in rates.

 

[Warrenton]

In order to keep Rapists in Prison for a minimum of (“25”) years or more with no chance of parole and in solitary confinement 23 hours a day

 

[centurionguard]

;7653181:

The statistics show that the sexual assualt recidivism rates fluctuate according to a few major variables: age of victim, substance abuse, and whether treatment was given. As with most crimes, sexual offenders usually know the victim, and there is usually some kind of back story.

If ten people are locked in a dungeon for ten years, half of them will not reoffend, regardless of the crime they committed.

If we think that recidvism rate is too high, then why would we conclude that locking people in the same dungeon for twice as long will work? If the method is unsuitable, the length of time will not make it suitable.

.

As with most crimes, sexual offenders usually know the victim, and there is usually some kind of back story.

Explain and there is (“usually”) some kind of back story.

this sounds like conjecture to me…like advocating blame on the victim

 

[vera_dicere]

I think they’re not harsh. I accept people can change and can repent and find Christ, but that’s all very well and good except that we have no real guarentee the paedophile/rapist won’t do it again, and the risk is too great when we’re talking about children.

Life imprisonment I think is fair. For both rape and paedophilia, I’d also like to see people in possession of child porn to get a very long sentence indeed. I recently met a guy on an online dating site who told me he had basically got a 'slap on the wrist" for possessing thousands of images of child porn. He couldn’t understand that each one of those images happened in real time to a real child who chances are, is still in those very circumstances. He just didn’t get it.

If its a mental illness, treat it, but I don’t think a child’s innocence can be protected enough. Put the sleezes behind bars, forever as far as I’m concerned. If they want to repent and find Christ they can do it inside.

I think the same should be done to priests who commit such acts, why should a man of the cloth be protected if he rapes a child?

 

[centurionguard]

I think they’re not harsh. I accept people can change and can repent and find Christ, but that’s all very well and good except that we have no real guarantee the paedophile/rapist won’t do it again, and the risk is too great when we’re talking about children.

Life imprisonment I think is fair. For both rape and paedophilia, I’d also like to see people in possession of child porn to get a very long sentence indeed. I recently met a guy on an online dating site who told me he had basically got a 'slap on the wrist" for possessing thousands of images of child porn. He couldn’t understand that each one of those images happened in real time to a real child who chances are, is still in those very circumstances. He just didn’t get it.

If its a mental illness, treat it, but I don’t think a child’s innocence can be protected enough. Put the sleezes behind bars, forever as far as I’m concerned. If they want to repent and find Christ they can do it inside.
…
I support your sentiments 200%.

But in an imperfect world this regrettably won’t happen.

Meanwhile in the time its taken me to write this another 180 people will have become victims in the United States the highest occurrence of Rape, Sexual Assault in any country in the world. One Rape Every Three Seconds

I think the same should be done to priests who commit such acts, why should a man of the cloth be protected if he rapes a child? Totally Agree

Peace
Chris

 

[Warrenton]

this sounds like conjecture to me…like advocating blame on the victim

It’s not conjecture. When politicians enact harsher penalties, they usually bring up the Willlie Horton type of case, in which an total stranger abducts a woman and rapes her.

These cases are far less common than the situation in which a young man is accused of a sexual offense following a date, or night of mutual drinking or drug use. They are less common than claims against men who have some kind of contact with females who are under the legal age of consent, but who know the defendants personally and contact him consensually.

The problem in these cases is that the function of the jury is basically different than in most other criminal cases. In the typical criminal case, the jury decides whether a given act was legal: When Stagger Lee shot Billy DeLion, was it murder? In many sex cases, though, the question is “Did Humbert carnally know Lolita?” In the absence of witnesses, which is usual, only Humbert and Lolita know the truth. Being designated a juror does not give anyone special abilities to see the past, and there is a high liklihood of innocent people going to prison. The liklihood, in fact, is about one in two.

 

[Warrenton]

I think they’re not harsh.

Life imprisonment I think is fair. For both rape and paedophilia, I’d also like to see people in possession of child porn to get a very long sentence indeed.

What about cartoons or animated images? How is it fair to put someone in prison for having a fictitious image? How is it fair when someone who has killed a man gets less time in prison for someone who has a cartoon? What obligations does the government of internet service provider have to block these images? Is Bill Gates a conspirator because he knows his machines enable the dissemination of these images?

 

[white_sheep]

Child porn is a touchy subject. What if a guy(or girl) went to adult porn sites to see adult porn and there were images stored into the temporary cache on his computer that he hadn’t actively attempted to download, or possibly ever seen? Like on this site, I might not look at all the little smilies, but my computer stores them somewhere.

 

[centurionguard]

It’s not conjecture. When politicians enact harsher penalties, they usually bring up the Willie Horton type of case, in which an total stranger abducts a woman and rapes her.

These cases are far less common than the situation in which a young man is accused of a sexual offense following a date, or night of mutual drinking or drug use. They are less common than claims against men who have some kind of contact with females who are under the legal age of consent, but who know the defendants personally and contact him consensually.

The problem in these cases is that the function of the jury is basically different than in most other criminal cases. In the typical criminal case, the jury decides whether a given act was legal: When Stagger Lee shot Billy DeLion, was it murder? In many sex cases, though, the question is “Did Humbert carnally know Lolita?” In the absence of witnesses, which is usual, only Humbert and Lolita know the truth. Being designated a juror does not give anyone special abilities to see the past, and there is a high likelihood of innocent people going to prison. The likelihood, in fact, is about one in two.

So let me get this clear…are you advocating the majority of all people who become Victims of Rape are reminiscent Willy Horton type cases?

In a human court of Law fallacy will always exist. And yes; innocent people do unfortunately serve prison terms. I’m certainly not insensitive to this nor will I ignore this as just another statistic. Where ever humans are mistakes happen.

Innocent people do not generally go to prison.

and there is a high likelihood of innocent people going to prison.

I don’t know where you are getting your resources. Show me something tangible where there is a high likely-hood of would be innocent people charged with rape going to prison?

Peace
Chris

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Child porn is a touchy subject. What if a guy(or girl) went to adult porn sites to see adult porn and there were images stored into the temporary cache on his computer that he hadn’t actively attempted to download, or possibly ever seen? Like on this site, I might not look at all the little smilies, but my computer stores them somewhere.

The hypothetical guy or girl doesn’t even have to go to porn sites. Someone like you could be browsing Catholic Answers and get a virus that would allow someone access to your computer, and they could store illegal images on your computer, and because you are in possession of them, you are guilty. Ignorance is no excuse. It’s been done.

PS. Maybe I should add that I don’t know of it being done at CAF, I only say CAF as an example, but it has happened at other sites.

 

[Warrenton]

QUOTE=centurionguard;7656261]So let me get this clear…are you advocating the majority of all people who become Victims of Rape are reminiscent Willy Horton type cases?

No. Perhaps you misunderstood me? I said politicians use the Willie Horton type case to support augmenting punishment for sex crimes, though that type of sex crime is comparitively rare.

Innocent people do not generally go to prison.

For that matter, guilty people generally do not go to prison.

I don’t know where you are getting your resources. Show me something tangible where there is a high likely-hood of would be innocent people charged with rape going to prison?

Well, let us apply reason and see where we get.

Jones is accused of a sex crime, and Smith accuses him of committing it. In our system (USA), that is sufficient to require Jones to stand trial. Further assume that there are no witnesses to this crime, other than Smith and Jones themselves. Jones says the sexual
contact was consensual, and Jones said it was forced.

What are the odds that Jones is telling the truth? Fifty-fifty, right? The jury’s guess can not be any better than the mathematical odds, can it?

If every other such case results in an erroneous conviction, is that a “high” rate of error?

That is a judgment call, but the government believes that a 15% recidivism rate over ten years (plus or minus a few percents) is a “high” enough rate to justify keeping sex offenders incarcerated, so under the government’s own reasoning, 50% error is high.

What would be a great average for a batter may not be so good for a legal system.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If it is a **true **case of child molestation, then the laws are fair, usually not too harsh and also not too lenient. Prison is a scary place for these offenders because the other prisoners do not like child molesters.

But the laws are being applied to situations that are not true child molestation, like the girl who is 16, appears 21, and who lures a young man and lies to him about her age. Of course the best approach is not to have sex with anyone except your wife, but I don’t think someone who is 20 should have to be on a sex-offender list if he had sex with a girl who is 15 or 16. It may not be a good thing but he is far different from a true child molester. Yet the law demands that he register and stay registered, for the rest of his life?? What is that going to do to his job prospects? marriage prospects? Parenting prospects? There are severe repercussions from this.

The zero-tolerance type laws just do not work, IMO and experience. Like the kids who get arrested for pointing their fingers at each other on the playground. Or for bringing a toy Lego man holding a toy gun to school.

 

[centurionguard]

No. Perhaps you misunderstood me? I said politicians use the Willie Horton type case to support augmenting punishment for sex crimes, though that type of sex crime is comparitively rare.

For that matter, guilty people generally do not go to prison.

Well, let us apply reason and see where we get.

Jones is accused of a sex crime, and Smith accuses him of committing it. In our system (USA), that is sufficient to require Jones to stand trial. Further assume that there are no witnesses to this crime, other than Smith and Jones themselves. Jones says the sexual
contact was consensual, and Jones said it was forced.

What are the odds that Jones is telling the truth? Fifty-fifty, right? The jury’s guess can not be any better than the mathematical odds, can it?

If every other such case results in an erroneous conviction, is that a “high” rate of error?

That is a judgment call, but the government believes that a 15% recidivism rate over ten years (plus or minus a few percents) is a “high” enough rate to justify keeping sex offenders incarcerated, so under the government’s own reasoning, 50% error is high.

What would be a great average for a batter may not be so good for a legal system.

…
OK now I understand your angle.

What would be a great average for a batter may not be so good for a legal system

Laughably said; who ever said the Justice System was perfect and fair.
Leave it up to humans to make a huge mess of the system.

Peace
Chris

 

[centurionguard]

If it is a **true **case of child molestation, then the laws are fair, usually not too harsh and also not too lenient. Prison is a scary place for these offenders because the other prisoners do not like child molesters.

But the laws are being applied to situations that are not true child molestation, like the girl who is 16, appears 21, and who lures a young man and lies to him about her age. Of course the best approach is not to have sex with anyone except your wife, but I don’t think someone who is 20 should have to be on a sex-offender list if he had sex with a girl who is 15 or 16. It may not be a good thing but he is far different from a true child molester. Yet the law demands that he register and stay registered, for the rest of his life?? What is that going to do to his job prospects? marriage prospects? Parenting prospects? There are severe repercussions from this.

The zero-tolerance type laws just do not work, IMO and experience. Like the kids who get arrested for pointing their fingers at each other on the playground. Or for bringing a toy Lego man holding a toy gun to school.

Prison is a scary place for these offenders because the other prisoners do not like child molesters.

The Majority of Child-Molesters are segregated to a special area of the prison or sent to a special facility appropriate to their crime.

Prisoners despise two big crimes in the prison population…Wife & Girlfriend Beaters and Rapist, especially Child Rapist and Molesters. If they were put amongst the regular prison population they wouldn’t survive a week.

If Prison is Scary for Child Molesters it should be.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

**I just hope everyone that has a copy of the lp “Blind Faith” has thrown the cover away. **

 

[centurionguard]

**I just hope everyone that has a copy of the lp “Blind Faith” has thrown the cover away. **

And your point being?

Presumably I’m guessing here as a norm to human justice,

Like any crime the accused is innocent until proven guilty. At least, this is the way it should be in a just society.

Unfortunately, accusers of any crime aren’t always honest or can sometimes be mistaken (for example, police line-ups often yield false-positives). That’s why we need protection of the accused.

This makes me wonder though that every person who claims innocence being charged with Rape thinks they are innocent.

Given the ridiculously high global statistical occurrence of Rape, Incest and Sexual Assault Crimes in the United States, why would people always see the majority of Rape Victims Crying Wolf.

This is beyond me. This only adds more Stigma too all Victims who are raped.

Similar to big greed mongering pharmaceutical companies the whole Justice System has become a sham!

Funny how any monumental Statistics revealing truly innocent Rape Assailants never get published. And why is that?

Most Rape Victims never go to court because the Justice system is a big Kiss-off that can’t be trusted.