Revenge is best served,

[yeahwho]

Really Fucking Hot! Whoa! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/26/wrape26.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/26/ixworld.html)

A Spanish mother has taken revenge on the man who raped her 13-year-old daughter at knifepoint by dousing him in petrol and setting him alight. He died of his injuries in hospital on Friday.

Antonio Cosme Velasco Soriano, 69, had been sent to jail for nine years in 1998, but was let out on a three-day pass and returned to his home town of Benejúzar, 30 miles south of Alicante, on the Costa Blanca.

While there, he passed his victim's mother in the street and allegedly taunted her about the attack. He is said to have called out "How's your daughter?", before heading into a crowded bar.

Shortly after, the woman walked into the bar, poured a bottle of petrol over Soriano and lit a match. She watched as the flames engulfed him, before walking out.

[Mr Films]

he got served

[miss soul fire]

That's good, but nothing compared to this lady who cooked her husband and chopped his pieces and boiled them in a huge pen. I am not kidding. That was about 3 years ago, but it was damn crazy. I couldn't believe it. I can't remember what was her revenge too or if she actually ate some of his stuff.:eek:HOW CAN YOU COOK A PERSON??? EEEK!

[ToucanSpam]

(n)

[cosmo105]

(n)
he RAPED her 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER and then TEASED HER about it. i would have done the same fucking thing as she did, if not worse.

[ToucanSpam]

he RAPED her 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER and then TEASED HER about it. i would have done the same fucking thing as she did, if not worse.
I believe in justice. I really do. But I have a bad feeling about vigilante justice like this. It just seems like bad karma. I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it. Hell, I think I would have done something horrbile, but it just seems wrong to me.

[Ace42]

he RAPED her 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER and then TEASED HER about it. i would have done the same fucking thing as she did, if not worse.

And what if he were innocent, and his taunting of her was motivated out of anger at being falsely imprisoned and villified by that family? What about the pediatrition that was violently harrassed by hysteric parents because they were unaware of what it really means?

This sort of hysterical mob-justice is totally unnacceptable.

[QweenOfBoggle]

I think the new punishment for sickos like this should be doing to them what they did to others.

for example: this guy raped a 13 year old girl. let's have a big black man rape him in jail and see how he likes it.

[TurdBerglar]

or chop his dick off and bronze it and force him to wear it around his neck for all to see. then have him raped





yeah, and we can burn him too

[ToucanSpam]

I think the new punishment for sickos like this should be doing to them what they did to others.

for example: this guy raped a 13 year old girl. let's have a big black man rape him in jail and see how he likes it.
Big black man=13 year old?

[Mr Films]

I believe in justice. I really do. But I have a bad feeling about vigilante justice like this. It just seems like bad karma. I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it. Hell, I think I would have done something horrbile, but it just seems wrong to me.

so you believe in justice
he deserved it

but you have a bad feeling

and you would have done the same

but it seems wrong.

i see.

[QweenOfBoggle]

Big black man=13 year old?

no, but a 13 year old probably couldn't rape a grown man. plus, it wouldn't hurt as bad as a huge big guy.

[Ace42]

What's the punishment for when a woman rapes a man? That teacher who fucked those school kids, should she get burnt alive?

[Rancid_Beasties]

no, but a 13 year old probably couldn't rape a grown man. plus, it wouldn't hurt as bad as a huge big guy.
Dont worry the rest of us understood...just not TS :p

Big black dude is to 69 year old creepy dude what 69 year old creepy dude is to 13 year old girl. Right?

Better make that 2 big black dudes.

Well they dont have to be black, just "big".

[QweenOfBoggle]

Dont worry the rest of us understood...just not TS :p

Big black dude is to 69 year old creepy dude what 69 year old creepy dude is to 13 year old girl. Right?

Better make that 2 big black dudes.

Well they dont have to be black, just "big".

exactly :)

[ToucanSpam]

so you believe in justice
he deserved it

but you have a bad feeling

and you would have done the same

but it seems wrong.

i see.
You are kind of not getting where I am coming from. DO you even know what vigilante justice is?

It is where you do something to someone, and in return, rather than have the courts or a higher power dealing with it, you take matters into your own hands and do something that is obviously much worse. Now, I know rape is extremely terrible. But are you saying that rapists deserve the death penalty? They deserve to be brutally burned alive? No human being deserves that. Yes, the man committed a terrible crime. He should go to jail for it, he should suffer, but death? I'm not so sure anyone deserves death.

Yes, I would likely do something like that if it was my child. That doesn't make it right. I would do it knowing fully that the consequences would be jail time. I hope the person who did the burning is prepared for jail time.

I hope you people do not think I am some kind of retard. Just try to see where I am coming from without jumping to conclusions.

[ToucanSpam]

Dont worry the rest of us understood...just not TS :p

Big black dude is to 69 year old creepy dude what 69 year old creepy dude is to 13 year old girl. Right?

Better make that 2 big black dudes.

Well they dont have to be black, just "big".
I do understand this. (lb)

[TurdBerglar]

You are kind of not getting where I am coming from. DO you even know what vigilante justice is?

It is where you do something to someone, and in return, rather than have the courts or a higher power dealing with it, you take matters into your own hands and do something that is obviously much worse. Now, I know rape is extremely terrible. But are you saying that rapists deserve the death penalty? They deserve to be brutally burned alive? No human being deserves that. Yes, the man committed a terrible crime. He should go to jail for it, he should suffer, but death? I'm not so sure anyone deserves death.

Yes, I would likely do something like that if it was my child. That doesn't make it right. I would do it knowing fully that the consequences would be jail time. I hope the person who did the burning is prepared for jail time.

I hope you people do not think I am some kind of retard. Just try to see where I am coming from without jumping to conclusions.

this pussy attitude is why people are crazy

[Ace42]

I hope you people do not think I am some kind of retard. Just try to see where I am coming from without jumping to conclusions.

I concur. Why on earth would you want to see a criminal tortured? I think getting satisfaction out of seeing someone else suffer, even if you believe their suffering is justified, is no better than a sadist commiting crimes.

What purpose does punishment serve?

To correct?
To protect?
To satisfy the mob's blood lust?

The former is impossible if a criminal is dead, and unlikely if they are brutalised. The middle is achievable by solely imprisonment, or execution if absolutely necessary. Clearly burning or torturing does not qualify, leaving the latter. You want revenge to satisfy your own craving for suffering, and that makes you as bad as the criminal.

[Mr Films]

You are kind of not getting where I am coming from. DO you even know what vigilante justice is?

It is where you do something to someone, and in return, rather than have the courts or a higher power dealing with it, you take matters into your own hands and do something that is obviously much worse. Now, I know rape is extremely terrible. But are you saying that rapists deserve the death penalty? They deserve to be brutally burned alive? No human being deserves that. Yes, the man committed a terrible crime. He should go to jail for it, he should suffer, but death? I'm not so sure anyone deserves death.

Yes, I would likely do something like that if it was my child. That doesn't make it right. I would do it knowing fully that the consequences would be jail time. I hope the person who did the burning is prepared for jail time.

I hope you people do not think I am some kind of retard. Just try to see where I am coming from without jumping to conclusions.

thanks for the lesson, professor.

anyways, I know someone who has been raped and guess what- i'd like to kill the guy that did it. Cuz I'M FUCKING CRAZY!

and if it were my daughter, I wouldn't blink in lighting that fucker up- CUZ I'M A LOOSE CANNON LIKE THAT!

[ToucanSpam]

thanks for the lesson, professor.

anyways, I know someone who has been raped and guess what- i'd like to kill the guy that did it. Cuz I'M FUCKING CRAZY!

and if it were my daughter, I wouldn't blink in lighting that fucker up- CUZ I'M A LOOSE CANNON LIKE THAT!
You know, all I am trying to do is explain my answer. I do not understand why you would feel the need to act so childish to my responce. Honestly, I never said someone who would burn someone alive was crazy. I just think they should accept that jail time is imminent and that really all they did was throw their own life away just to take another.

PS-the proffessor comment was real mature.

[yeahwho]

Closure is far from being found for this family. The whole story and it's implications has me on the my edge.

Soriano's attack on the woman's teenage daughter took place in 1998. The girl was going to buy a loaf of bread when Soriano snatched her from the street, threatened her with a knife and raped her. Her mother is said to have suffered mental illness ever since.

Soriano was convicted of the rape and ordered to serve 13 years in jail. The sentence was later reduced to nine years on appeal.

The woman's lawyer, JoaquÃ*n Galant, told The Sunday Telegraph last night: "The family has suffered a double tragedy. First the attack on their daughter and now this. Both the father and his daughter would like to express their sadness at the death of Soriano."

Earlier, Mr Galant said that the woman did not deserve to be kept in prison. "For seven years she has been deeply affected by what was done to her daughter," he said. "This man, fresh from prison and asking how her daughter was, might be considered to have provoked her."

[Mr Films]

You know, all I am trying to do is explain my answer. I do not understand why you would feel the need to act so childish to my responce. Honestly, I never said someone who would burn someone alive was crazy. I just think they should accept that jail time is imminent and that really all they did was throw their own life away just to take another.

PS-the proffessor comment was real mature.

you're right, I'm sorry.

now I have to feel like shit for the rest of my life because "Toucan Spam" called me immature on a fucking message board.

[TurdBerglar]

HA!

[ToucanSpam]

you're right, I'm sorry.

now I have to feel like shit for the rest of my life because "Toucan Spam" called me immature on a fucking message board.
You are completely hooked on the fact that I am attacking you, which I am not. I only tried to explain myself.

[Ace42]

Righteous indignation is a dish best served...

[cosmo105]

I believe in justice. I really do. But I have a bad feeling about vigilante justice like this. It just seems like bad karma. I'm not saying that he didn't deserve it. Hell, I think I would have done something horrbile, but it just seems wrong to me.
if someone did that to my little sister, much less my imaginary daughter, i would do much worse. i'm not saying it's right or that retribution like that works on a social scale.

[ToucanSpam]

if someone did that to my little sister, much less my imaginary daughter, i would do much worse. i'm not saying it's right or that retribution like that works on a social scale.
I would definately understand your reasoning behind the act. If someone ever did anything like that to my sister, they wouldn't find enough of the guy to fill a ziplock bag. I guess my reaction after thinking hard about it is to allow justice to take due course, rather than take matters into my own hands initially. That feeling of wanting revenge is extremely powerful, and I can totally see where it is coming from. I think I understand both sides of the fence a little better.

[Mr Films]

it would also depend on the inflection of "how is your daughter"

and why the fuck did they let him out, enough to where he was just roaming the streets?

[Tone Capone]

and why the fuck did they let him out, enough to where he was just roaming the streets?

Exactly!
Since when do convicted rapists get 3 day releases so they can hit bars in their home towns? That dude got what he deserved.

[Documad]

The problem is that when you do take the law into your own hands you commit your own crime and you are very likely to be put away yourself and your loved one will (1) not have your support and (2) feel responsible for you being sent away.

This guy sounds like the biggest piece of shit and he was convicted so I'm not going to lose sleep over it. But it's still wrong and still a crime and all.

[Schmeltz]

Ace42 is too rational, and his opponents are too emotional. Neither is a realistic or productive perspective, yet both are fully understandable responses to the situation.

Well fuck, eh.

[zorra_chiflada]

I concur. Why on earth would you want to see a criminal tortured? I think getting satisfaction out of seeing someone else suffer, even if you believe their suffering is justified, is no better than a sadist commiting crimes.

What purpose does punishment serve?

To correct?
To protect?
To satisfy the mob's blood lust?

The former is impossible if a criminal is dead, and unlikely if they are brutalised. The middle is achievable by solely imprisonment, or execution if absolutely necessary. Clearly burning or torturing does not qualify, leaving the latter. You want revenge to satisfy your own craving for suffering, and that makes you as bad as the criminal.

i agree. this idea of "revenge at any cost" against violent criminals is something i hear from all americans. why is that?

[Homsar]

I hope they get her for murder. No matter what, this is unacceptable.

[Ace42]

This woman has been living with the knowledge that her daughter was brutally violated for 7 YEARS.

And if he had been living with the knowledge that he had been brutally violated for upwards of 7 years, would that mitigate his crimes?

Most sex-offenders were victim of abuse as children.

She just wanted to watch him hurt like she has been watching her daughter hurt for 7 years.

it was about making it impossible for him to ever hurt her and her daughter again. In any way.

Those two sentiments are not mutually inclusive. You can make it impossible for him to hurt her or her daughter without having her cause suffering "the like of which had been inflicted on her / her daughter for 7 years."

Is it right? Nope.
Do I blame her? Absolutely NOT.

Fair enough, unless you are suggesting that she deserves to go free. While you not blame her, justice is not about blame but is about "right and wrong."

If she is wrong, then justice must be served.

This guy sounds like the biggest piece of shit

Would a newspaper represent a convicted rapist as anything but?

PS, Schmeltz - you are possibly the first person to say I am rational. Most people interpret my manner as "assholic." The qualifier "too" doesn't detract from the flattery.

[icy manipulator]

in the form of a shitload of potassium cyanide as they did to Rasputin, the Mad Monk, 89 years ago

[wanton wench]

And what if he were innocent, and his taunting of her was motivated out of anger at being falsely imprisoned and villified by that family? What about the pediatrition that was violently harrassed by hysteric parents because they were unaware of what it really means?

This sort of hysterical mob-justice is totally unnacceptable.

what if it was your daughter?

[wanton wench]

I think the new punishment for sickos like this should be doing to them what they did to others.

for example: this guy raped a 13 year old girl. let's have a big black man rape him in jail and see how he likes it.

i agree!

[adam_f]

edit: forget it.

[zorra_chiflada]

what if it was your daughter?

that was brought up before in this thread.
repeating it is really not enough to refute the rational argument that ace has presented.

[wanton wench]

that was brought up before in this thread.

sorry didnt read the whole thing!
i got as far as ace42's post and had to respond!
noone ever knows what they would do until it happens to them!

[wanton wench]

Fair enough, unless you are suggesting that she deserves to go free. While you not blame her, justice is not about blame but is about "right and wrong."

If she is wrong, then justice must be served.QUOTE]

i think they are both wrong but you have to look at and choose the lesser of two evils. dont you? i agree with "treat people the way you want to be treated" if everyone did that the world would be a better place. i would not rape or kill or burn anyone if i knew thats what would happen to me!
but if i thought there was a chance i could get off then i would burn the fucker that raped my daughter!

[zorra_chiflada]

but if i thought there was a chance i could get off then i would burn the fucker that raped my daughter!

well, it is a realistic possibility that she will get off. i don't think any jury would convict her.

[Qdrop]

Ace42 is too rational, and his opponents are too emotional. Neither is a realistic or productive perspective, yet both are fully understandable responses to the situation.



(y) spot on.

and i think mae made a good point with temporary insanity as well. we are still animals...complex animals, but animals none the less. occasionally, circumstances beyond our control cause our congnative patterns to turn primal, primative...rational and logic fly out the window. we act on impulse, instinct....like a sleeping pitbull if you jumped on his back.
it is because of this that responsibility can be mitigated and thus, this is why the legal system has such a plea.
perhaps Documad or Beth can explain further....

the logical side, as ACE pointed out, is that punishment serves no utilitarian purpose.
if someone is a danger to society, they should be removed from society though imprisonment or death (i prefer the latter). punishment or torture would serve no purpose for anyone....and drags society down into the gutter.
if rehabilitation is deemed possible or likely...then straight imprisonment as punishment would again, serve only a negative purpose. criminals don't "learn lessons" in prison...other then to hate society more and how to be a better criminal.
imprisonment should focus on rehabilitation and education...so someone leaving a prison facility might actually come out a better person for society.

having said that, this is not a likely scenario for sex offenders. even the most positive stats and studies have repeat offenders well over 70%. similar with other chronic mental illnesses.
sex offenders, IMO, are best put to death.
no punishment per se (in the form of torture), just a quick death following a trial conviction with substantial DNA evidence or anything equally binding.

one question could be if one considers a standard rape to be along the same lines of other sex offenses.
a frat boy who gets a girl drunk and screws her....is not the same as a malicious pedophile who likes 3 year old boys.

the standard misconception is that rape "is all about power and domination...and not about sex".
this is *patently false* and propagated by the feminist movements of the past 40 years. it flys in the face of logic for many reasons.
the point being...while rape is vile, it does not necessarily point to mental illness of the sexual deviant kind.
just malicious desparation of the most horrid kind.


now, the question that keeps getting thrown around is "having said that, what if it was your daughter?"
yes, i would kill the fucker. no question.
that doesn't make me a hypocrit (or anyone else), it makes me human.

[wanton wench]

it makes you human, but is it right or wrong?

punishment serves no utilitarian purpose! well said but the thought of punishment might.
if you knew for sure without a doubt your dick would get cut off if you raped this girl then i bet you wouldnt do it? not you personally! you seem like a nice guy, but people in general. i think it would make people stop and think about what they are doing if we had more severe punishments and not just jail. i remember in school reading about some country(cant remember where)that had a great justice system if you stole something they cut your hand off, if you lied they cut your tongue out and on and on. why cant we do that? doesnt anyone feel this would be better? yes i do see the problems with it! like the people who are in jail that are really innocent! i guess you could always sow their hand back on if you found out later they didnt really do it! :)
i dont think jail helps anyone except people on the outside. there is some sense in locking up the people who hurt other people with people who hurt people....see then they can just hurt each other.

[Ace42]

if you knew for sure without a doubt your dick would get cut off if you raped this girl then i bet you wouldnt do it?

You'd say that about execution - but capital punishment is no deterant.

I'll take that bet. Castration of sex-offenders is not unheard of and it hardly impacts sex-offence statistics at all. The vast majority of serial sex offenders do so because of deep engrained behavioural traits and psychological illness. The threat of a death-penalty is no detterant, so neither would castration. This is just the blurring of the line between retribution and prevention.

Q-drop brings up his "feminist" argument which is not entirely wrong, but again most of the serial paedophiles and the most dangerous of the criminals are sadists looking to exorcise some demons via inflicting suffering through a "bully-ramming." All castration would do would turn them from rapists in the literal sense into torturing murderers. Infact, there are quite a few sex-offenders who commit crimes despite having erectile dysfunctions, clearly castration would be little detterant to them.

i think it would make people stop and think about what they are doing if we had more severe punishments and not just jail. i remember in school reading about some country(cant remember where)that had a great justice system if you stole something they cut your hand off, if you lied they cut your tongue out and on and on. why cant we do that?

Quite simply, because it is brutal and totally inneffective. I heartily recommend A History of Torture by George Riley Scott (Published by Senate press. ISBN 1 85958 174 9) as a useful source for a compendious knowledge of the subject.

[beastiegirrl101]

I once beat up a girl in the parking lot of McDonalds with an umbrella for calling me a girl scout cookie.

[Tone Capone]

I once beat up a girl in the parking lot of McDonalds with an umbrella for calling me a girl scout cookie.

Why a girl scout cookie??? :confused:

[beastiegirrl101]

Why a girl scout cookie??? :confused:

maybe cuz I'm sweet...like a tag a long

[TAL]

May I eat you?

[beastiegirrl101]

May I eat you?

Hmmm....I can go several routes with this one....

[TAL]

Pick the good one.

[wanton wench]

You'd say that about execution - but capital punishment is no deterant.

I'll take that bet. Castration of sex-offenders is not unheard of and it hardly impacts sex-offence statistics at all. The vast majority of serial sex offenders do so because of deep engrained behavioural traits and psychological illness. The threat of a death-penalty is no detterant, so neither would castration. This is just the blurring of the line between retribution and prevention.

Q-drop brings up his "feminist" argument which is not entirely wrong, but again most of the serial paedophiles and the most dangerous of the criminals are sadists looking to exorcise some demons via inflicting suffering through a "bully-ramming." All castration would do would turn them from rapists in the literal sense into torturing murderers. Infact, there are quite a few sex-offenders who commit crimes despite having erectile dysfunctions, clearly castration would be little detterant to them.



Quite simply, because it is brutal and totally inneffective. I heartily recommend A History of Torture by George Riley Scott (Published by Senate press. ISBN 1 85958 174 9) as a useful source for a compendious knowledge of the subject.



ok i can see your point! there are some people that just cant be helped or dettered, and some things cant be prevented, so the best option is to just kill them all off? which is what this lady did when she burened the man. so one down and how many more millions to go? thanks for the recommendation. i'll have to read that!

so having said all that then why do we let these people back on the streets?
if we know they wont change then why? are we that stupid to believe in the goodness of humans that we overlook the past?

[Ace42]

ok i can see your point! there are some people that just cant be helped or dettered, and some things cant be prevented, so the best option is to just kill them all off?

If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was guilty and likely to reoffend, then clearly from a rational point of view, killing them off would be the most effective means of dealing with them.

However, it is impossible to guarantee guilt in all but the most open and shut cases, and even harder to determine whether someone is likely to reoffend. Combined with the hysteria that comes with the charges (irrespective of the presumption of innocence which goes out the window in the case of vigilante justice) - the only safe conclusion (in that protecting the innocent is more important than dealing with the guilty) is life imprisonment.

which is what this lady did when she burened the man. so one down and how many more millions to go?

The lady killed the man in a particularly contrived and brutal way. There are numerous ways she could've "executed" him without causing an undue amount of suffering. You could argue that dousing a dog in petrol is an acceptable way to put it down, but I doubt most people would concur.

so having said all that then why do we let these people back on the streets?
if we know they wont change then why? are we that stupid to believe in the goodness of humans that we overlook the past?

And yet I think you are in favour of releasing this woman that killed him? Does that make you stupid to believe in her goodness and overlook the past?

One thing that irritates people a lot is the misconception that a "life-sentance" means the person will be in prison for life. Actually, judges take parole into consideration when they are delivering their sentences. Though they may say "life imprisonment" what that means (and what everyone in the legal profession knows it means) is "a maximum sentence of life barring good behaviour and the ability to demonstrate reform".

For the guy in the article to have gotten out when he did we can either deduce:

1. He served his full sentance and thus had served his debt to society. To "extend" his debt, the people of his country (or rather, the people in the government that represent the populace of his country) would have to agree that the crime (as a concept, not the specific crime as commited by the individual) merits greater punishment. While you might personally think that sexual assault merits the greatest of punishments, that is not exactly... "reasonable." - Would it be fair for a statutory rapist who was in love with a minor who loved him (and who would later go on to marry and have kids upon his release) to be locked up permanently? Would someone who regularly assaults men in a non-sexual way (GBH, ABH, Ofrey, etc) deserve permanent incarceration? Or would the non-sexual nature of the violence and suffering being inflicted make it "less bad" - even though the physical (and thus consequently psychological) damage might be substantially higher?

As a male it is not likely (although still possible) that I will be raped. [Technically it is not likely a woman will be raped either, but that is beside the point and doesn't lessen the severity of the matter.] however, it is much more likely that I will be physically assaulted in a non-sexual way. If a youth were to attack a young man you know, hurt him severely, and leave him emotionally scarred (afraid to leave the house, agitated, maybe causing nocturnal enuresis, etc etc) would you be as quick to demand blood (or a comparable custodial sentance and stigma to that of sex-offences)?

I'd say that is gender-descrimination.

2. The parole board felt he qualified due to showing satisfactory evidence of reform. As being a big-mouthed asshole is not a crime (if it were, America would extend its over-whelming lead in incarceration statistics) we cannot assume that he was not reformed. The assumption of innocence is a corner-stone of all fair justice systems. Certainly an update of the procedures for parolling, etc is not out of order - but that includes entertaining the possibility that they are adequet at present.

3. His sentance was commuted or artificially lenient because of perculiarities of the trial that we cannot understand. We are only getting half the story from the article, and we know there are always two. While I don't doubt the person was a "bad man", newspapers and the media are not above feeding the frenzy of finger-pointing and recrimination associated with the issue. Can you honestly say that there will not be cases where someone is wrongly convicted of a sex-offence, and then subsequently villified / demonised in all subsequent accounts?

4. He was mentally unbalanced, and the early release is because he was remanded in a medical facility. If someone had a brain-tumour which caused them to commit horrible crimes, and it was subsequently treated - would that person still deserve to be imprisoned for crimes that he could not help, may not remember, and it can be guaranteed he will not commit again?

Would you be as quick to judge if it was a loved-one or family member who did it?

So, if not with a physical disorder that can be treated, why not with a psychological disorder that can be treated? Psychiatric treatments have a comparably accurate success (in diagnosis and treatment) rate to that of physical medicines, yet because it is an invisible science and treatment, it meets and undue amount of skepticism.

If a doctor pronounces a patient cured, and they then die of the illness (or a relapse of it) - then people would consider it regretable, but would not say that medical science is quackery and unreliable. The failure rates are accepted, and work is done to improve them all the time.

If a doctor prounounces a criminal cured, and that prisoner then goes on to kill due to their illness, the failure rates become immaterial, and the whole system is considered quackery.

That is a double-standard.

What I have done
That might your nature, honour, and exception
Roughly awake, I here proclaim was madness.
Was't Hamlet wrong'd Laertes? Never Hamlet.
If Hamlet from himself be taken away,
And when he's not himself does wrong Laertes,
Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it.
Who does it, then? His madness. If't be so,
Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd;
His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy.

[zorra_chiflada]

having said that, this is not a likely scenario for sex offenders. even the most positive stats and studies have repeat offenders well over 70%. similar with other chronic mental illnesses.
sex offenders, IMO, are best put to death.



ok, but what if the victim goes on to abuse others in the future? kill them too? the cycle doesn't end.

also, another thing i was thinking about - what if the mother does actually serve a severe sentence for what she did? she won't be there for her daughter, when her daughter obviously needs her.

[Beth]

One thing that irritates people a lot is the misconception that a "life-sentance" means the person will be in prison for life. Actually, judges take parole into consideration when they are delivering their sentences. Though they may say "life imprisonment" what that means (and what everyone in the legal profession knows it means) is "a maximum sentence of life barring good behaviour and the ability to demonstrate reform".
that's not entirely correct. it depends on what state you're in. in florida, life means life. no possibility of parole.

in the federal system, there is no parole. so if a federal sentence carries a life term, that's for life also.


as for qdrop's statement that all sex offenders should be put to death, i disagree. i know i've said it before, but it needs repeating. if a sex offender / pedophile knows that he or she will receive the death penalty for what they've done, there's no incentive to leave the victim alive. better to kill the victim, because a dead victim can't identify anyone. sure, he or she could possibly get the death penalty for the murder if caught, but is the sex offender really in a worse position by killing the victim? no.

[pip07]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

[zorra_chiflada]

as for qdrop's statement that all sex offenders should be put to death, i disagree. i know i've said it before, but it needs repeating. if a sex offender / pedophile knows that he or she will receive the death penalty for what they've done, there's no incentive to leave the victim alive. better to kill the victim, because a dead victim can't identify anyone. sure, he or she could possibly get the death penalty for the murder if caught, but is the sex offender really in a worse position by killing the victim? no.

exactly. if they know they are going to get the death penalty for abusing one person, what is going to stop them from abusing many more?
the death penalty increases violent crime.

[Ace42]

that's not entirely correct. it depends on what state you're in. in florida, life means life. no possibility of parole.

in the federal system, there is no parole. so if a federal sentence carries a life term, that's for life also.

I was not talking about US - The crime was in Europe, and here in the UK (unless specifically excluded by the judge in sentancing) life does not necessary mean life. But you are quite right to point out that important distinction.

[Qdrop]

Q-drop brings up his "feminist" argument which is not entirely wrong, but again most of the serial paedophiles and the most dangerous of the criminals are sadists looking to exorcise some demons via inflicting suffering through a "bully-ramming." All castration would do would turn them from rapists in the literal sense into torturing murderers. Infact, there are quite a few sex-offenders who commit crimes despite having erectile dysfunctions, clearly castration would be little detterant to them. well, i was making the distinction between your standard college GHB keg party rapist vs. a sadistic serial rapist/murderer. i believe there are very differant mental aspects at play there.
one is a crime of oppurtunity....the other is a mental illness.

[Qdrop]

ok, but what if the victim goes on to abuse others in the future? kill them too? the cycle doesn't end.


so what's your option?

rehabilitation for repeat sex offenders ends in failure virtually every time. what's the differance between life inprisonment and death? (assuming that the convicting evidence was secure and substantial)

if you kill them, that's less victims they can leave with mental scars for the future.

[Qdrop]

as for qdrop's statement that all sex offenders should be put to death, i disagree. i know i've said it before, but it needs repeating. if a sex offender / pedophile knows that he or she will receive the death penalty for what they've done, there's no incentive to leave the victim alive. better to kill the victim, because a dead victim can't identify anyone. sure, he or she could possibly get the death penalty for the murder if caught, but is the sex offender really in a worse position by killing the victim? no.

here's why i don't agree with this....
again, because there a differant distinctions between sex offenders...
the most general is the one i've been using between situational rapists (crimes of oppurtunity like a drunken keg party or GHB pusher, date rape, ect.-- which are really about sex and only sex) and mental illness (serial rapists, killers, torturers..true sadists).

situational rapists or "date rapists" are not sadistic madmen. they are people who see an oppurtunity to have sex with someone, and they take advantage of it...the extent of thier planning is usually no more then getting some girl real drunk, or putting GHB in her glass....or as simple as just not stopping when she says "NO" when they're making out in his bed.
these perpatrators WOULD likely be deterred by death penalty in some cases, if it was premedatated...and perhaps even in the throws of passion. they are rational people, and do not want to be put to death for fucking some class slut or teeny bopper after the party.
and they certainly wouldn't consider killing her after they rape her. killers are not common...for a reason: most people just can't do it, under anything but the most extreme conditions.
no college jock or date rapist is gonna think to themselves "wow...i'm gonna get that bitch drunk tonight....but i'll have to kill her later, i don't want the death penalty."

mentally derranged purpatrators certainly would NOT see a death penalty as deterrant...or even consider it.
they are motivated by mental illness, and they rarely if ever see their victims as people. they are objects. the law does not come into play when they commit thier crimes. they rape and/or kill on impulse. there may be extensive planning involved, but fear of a death penalty is not a deterant.
would it be an INCITER to further their crime by killing the victims to aviod detection? (seeing as how a rape and a killing would be the same in the eyes of the law)....eh...i dunno. i don't really think so.
i mean, i really don't know enough about the nature of these crimes and thier perpatrators....
perhaps it would...not due to fear of a death penalty...but due to them not wanting to get caught..they don't want thier "game" to end. they aren't really afraid of dying...they're afraid of not being able to feed thier sickness any longer.
in which case...a death penatly for rape *would really have no effect* on their actions as far as dispatching thier victims to aviod detection. whether it's death or incarceration...both are equally bad to the perp as they stop him from engaging in his sickness.

[icy manipulator]

revenge is decapitating your enemy and sawing off the top of their skull to use as a wine glass. well that was attilla the hun's version of revenge

[wanton wench]

ace42
to guarantee guilt you would have to be there to see the crime. so the victim(a very honest victim) is (almost)the only one to say who is guilty.

repeat offenders should be the one's killed off. first timers should be given a chance.

yes, i agree the lady killed him in a very brutal way. he didnt need to suffer that much he just needed to die.

i do believe in the goodness of people(that doesnt make me stupid) i dont ignore the past. you have to take that into consideration when you are trying to determin the character of a person. (i'm a scorpio though, you lie to me once and i will always remember and not really trust you anymore)

i dont know if i think she should be released. i'm torn on that one! i understand why she did what she did, but it was still wrong! before she did it she should have accepted the fact that she might sit in jail for a long time. see i dont think he was worth that. cause then she cant be there for her daughter. maybe if she could have put her emotions aside long enough to think about it she could have planned her revenge a little better. like for instance, making his life hell. making sure everyone in his life knew what he did. ya know haunt him with it.

1. i dont gender descriminate, but the world does. yes you are more likely to get your ass brutally kicked but i'm more likely to get raped. whats the difference?? they are both horrible crimes.

2. the procedures for parole do need to be updated. i know a few people who can lie really well. i've seen it! they can make almost anyone believe what they say and do.

3. i can only believe half of what i read. and i think there are 3 sides to every story. the victim's side the criminal's side and the person on the outside's side.

4. if its guaranteed he wont commit this crime again then he deserves a second chance. if it was a loved one, say my brother who raped this girl i would want him in jail. being my brother doesnt make the crime ok. i have a daughter and i wouldnt be able to trust him around her.

of course there is skepticism in the invisible. not everyone believes in god! but go back to #2(no not shit) i know some really good liers.

the double standard lies with the people, and most people dont think very clearly. but really this is two different things. the dr. pronounces the patient cured but then the patient goes on to die, if its a criminal they go on to kill other people. not themselves. maybe thats why people call it quackery! the dr.'s are making judgements on whether this person will hurt other people and when they are wrong its hard for other people to accept.

[Echewta]

I have nothing to add.

[wanton wench]

I have nothing to add.
i wish i could be more like you! ;)

[Echewta]

Its easy!

[wanton wench]

Its easy!
tell me how!
instruct me o wise echewta! ;)

[Echewta]

Post about 80 percent babble mixed with 80s trivia with a dash of ;) and a splash of sarcasm and 20 percent to the point. Now you know!

[zorra_chiflada]

so what's your option?

rehabilitation for repeat sex offenders ends in failure virtually every time. what's the differance between life inprisonment and death? (assuming that the convicting evidence was secure and substantial)

if you kill them, that's less victims they can leave with mental scars for the future.

more support and counselling for victims of sexual abuse while they are still young
counselling and therapy 20 years after the fact is not as effective, and that's why the abused go on to abuse.

and even if you kill a rapist after he has abused one person rather than ten, that's still one person too many. still one person who may abuse others in the future.
help the abused before they become the abuser.

[Ace42]

would it be an INCITER to further their crime by killing the victims to aviod detection? (seeing as how a rape and a killing would be the same in the eyes of the law)....eh...i dunno. i don't really think so.
i mean, i really don't know enough about the nature of these crimes and thier perpatrators.

While I am by no means an expert, I do know that many psychopaths, by virtue of their illness, can be as intelligent as anyone else. Apart from being amoral, they can often be slightly smarter than average in key cognitive functions, much in the way idiot-savants are capable of advanced numeracy, etc without having basic social skills. Because they are "driven" and do not have the social inhibitions normal people do, they are often capable of incredibly contrived schemes. This sort of person would be much more likely to contrive a complicated "disposal" plan, and would have no qualms at all killing the victim for the reasons outlined above.

repeat offenders should be the one's killed off.

Going slightly off topic, most repeat offenders (not of sex-crimes, sex-criminals are actually a substantial minority) re-offend crimes because prison actually makes it harder for them to escape these harmful (and self-destructive) behaviour patterns. I assume you would not extend this "stricter punishment for repeat offenders" to other crimes?

1. i dont gender descriminate, but the world does. yes you are more likely to get your ass brutally kicked but i'm more likely to get raped. whats the difference?? they are both horrible crimes.

I concur - however the person responsible for the beating would be more likely to get off, less likely to spend (as much) jail time, and less likely to cause a "burn him to death" mob outrage.

If, instead of raping a little girl, this guy beat up a male kid, and the kid's parent burned the guy to death - would there be as much support for this retribution? While many people would no doubt say (especially now I have posed it in this way) "of course not, both crimes are equally bad and deserve the same thing." - I am positive that many nameless posters here would not instinctively go "Hell yeah, he deserves to be burned!" just because, irrespective of the damage done, it is not a sex offence and it was not perpetrated against a girl.

2. the procedures for parole do need to be updated. i know a few people who can lie really well. i've seen it! they can make almost anyone believe what they say and do.

Check out some of the tricks Derren Brown can do - by correctly (notice stres on *correctly*) applying psychological principles, these things can be avoided. While the validity of polygraph testing is dubious, a trained individual can tell when a stranger is lying based solely on physical reactions, discounting the main human failing - "trust."

but really this is two different things. the dr. pronounces the patient cured but then the patient goes on to die, if its a criminal they go on to kill other people. not themselves. maybe thats why people call it quackery! the dr.'s are making judgements on whether this person will hurt other people and when they are wrong its hard for other people to accept.

It's just strange that people can accept the efficacy of medical treatments on themselves and people they care about, but regard them as "unreliable" when used on someone else. Personally I think it is prejudice. People are unwilling to believe that "bad" people deserve to be cured, and that "good people" will often not be cured. Creating an unrealistic picture of the reliability of the treatments.

I mean, really we could start (voluntarily) euthanising people who are very ill, on the grounds that "the risk of suffering outweighs the probability of a cure."

Something that would have the "right to lifers" jumping up and down.