Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So are you suggesting we just kill every sociopath and narcissist, even if they haven't committed a crime? I would hate to live in such a smug world.
Going back to the topic, I would be happy with either 10 years or the original sentence for the guy who raped the 3 year old. I trust the judgment of the jury, but 10 years in a US prison is a pretty damn big punishment too. I do think the very worst offenders should get life though. Like that guy from Lostprophets, Ian Watkins, he isn't remorseful at all and he gloated about what he did so IMO he cannot be reformed. He also abused MANY people. So I do agree with the sentiment of punishment in extreme cases, but people are so overzealous and angry in general it just bothers me.
Holy crap!!!! Is this a typo!!! 3 years for somebody who commits sodomy on a three year old!!! Are you part of the problem or part of the solution. I wonder why, out of all the people you are offended at the sentencing, you choose pedophiles to be concerned about. WOW!!!
But I'm not going to speculate on whether 10 years is long enough or if 25 is too long. What I do know is that he will probably be in solitary confinement for his own protection. Other inmates are quick to mete out their own brand of justice on offenders who have harmed children.
Sociopathy and narcissism are mental illnesses. And if you've ever watched To Catch a Predator you'd probably come to the conclusion many of these people are borderline retarded.
They're personality disorders and people are generally not exonerated or institutionalized on the basis that they are a narcissist or sociopath. And those two disorders are generally not ones that can be corrected - something most shrinks would tell you. So putting them in jail and then letting them out isn't going to fix them.
I have some experience with narcissists. And sociopaths, too, come to think of it. They're basically going to try to get away with whatever they can whenever they see an opening. They need constant boundaries. And the thing about them is THEY KNOW that what they're doing is morally/legally wrong before they do it - the narcissist will tell themselves a story to convince themselves they're in the right and the sociopath won't even bother with that fiction. But it's definitely a choice. It's very different from a schizophrenic's reasoning and motivations.
I don't think we do enough to support the mentally ill in our legal system - far too many people are denied treatment or sentenced improperly. But once you cross over into harming children in a calculated and deliberate manner, as the man in this case did, there really isn't a place for you in society. He put a hand over the kid's mouth when her mother came looking, he locked the door, he stopped and then resumed the abuse. And he made sure it was done in secret because he fully understood it was wrong.
As for people being borderline mentally handicapped, well, it's still sketchy to have them among the rest of the public once they've crossed certain lines. And an argument I've heard from an awful lot of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people is that just because they have that disability doesn't mean they don't have a moral compass - sometimes someone can be mentally handicapped or mentally ill and STILL be a bad person.
And generally if the guy had some sort of disability of significance, that would be mentioned in an article, but it wasn't in this case. They noted that the judge only said he had low self-esteem, a dysfunctional upbringing and was "timid" and "immature." That could describe a large swathe of the population.
Holy crap!!!! Is this a typo!!! 3 years for somebody who commits sodomy on a three year old!!! Are you part of the problem or part of the solution. I wonder why, out of all the people you are offended at the sentencing, you choose pedophiles to be concerned about. WOW!!!
You're reading that wrong. I said I would have been either fine with the original 25 to life sentence, though it is a little bit harsh for a crime that's not murder, or the 10 year sentence. 3 years is definitely too short to rehabilitate somebody like that. I probably would have sentenced him to 10 to life myself.
I think child molestation and all kinds of abuse is HORRIBLE. I'm a victim of child abuse myself. But I think murder is even more horrible and people forget what a huge deal it is to take somebody's life. This child hopefully will find the guidance to get past what happened to her and live a happy life. A murder victim doesn't have that opportunity. That's why I think the punishment should not be the same as the punishment for murder.
They're personality disorders and people are generally not exonerated or institutionalized on the basis that they are a narcissist or sociopath. And those two disorders are generally not ones that can be corrected - something most shrinks would tell you. So putting them in jail and then letting them out isn't going to fix them.
I have some experience with narcissists. And sociopaths, too, come to think of it. They're basically going to try to get away with whatever they can whenever they see an opening. They need constant boundaries. And the thing about them is THEY KNOW that what they're doing is morally/legally wrong before they do it - the narcissist will tell themselves a story to convince themselves they're in the right and the sociopath won't even bother with that fiction. But it's definitely a choice. It's very different from a schizophrenic's reasoning and motivations.
I don't think we do enough to support the mentally ill in our legal system - far too many people are denied treatment or sentenced improperly. But once you cross over into harming children in a calculated and deliberate manner, as the man in this case did, there really isn't a place for you in society. He put a hand over the kid's mouth when her mother came looking, he locked the door, he stopped and then resumed the abuse. And he made sure it was done in secret because he fully understood it was wrong.
As for people being borderline mentally handicapped, well, it's still sketchy to have them among the rest of the public once they've crossed certain lines. And an argument I've heard from an awful lot of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people is that just because they have that disability doesn't mean they don't have a moral compass - sometimes someone can be mentally handicapped or mentally ill and STILL be a bad person.
And generally if the guy had some sort of disability of significance, that would be mentioned in an article, but it wasn't in this case. They noted that the judge only said he had low self-esteem, a dysfunctional upbringing and was "timid" and "immature." That could describe a large swathe of the population.
I don't know, call me an idealist but I'm not willing to believe anyone is pure evil and beyond hope. I think everyone is a mix of both good and evil. I also think that people want to view those who do monstrous things as being monsters and not flawed humans like themselves.
I don't think being mentally ill negates the badness of what they did, but I do think it can be a factor in some situations and should be considered when deciding the proper penalty. Especially if they are mentally retarded because that makes them more or less like children themselves. It's not that the mentally handicapped are incapable of having a moral compass, it's that their psychological immaturity is a good reason to be more merciful than you would be otherwise. Of course, I'm saying this living in a country that sentences children to go to jail with violent adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redgrasshat
Yeah, but then we would have had to pay for your prison stay.
I wonder if people like him would cease to love their child if they were "tarnished" by a pervert. It seems like that's true if they were willing to throw away their own lives just to get the satisfaction of revenge, and abandon their child. Do they view their child the same way as damaged property?
They're personality disorders and people are generally not exonerated or institutionalized on the basis that they are a narcissist or sociopath. And those two disorders are generally not ones that can be corrected - something most shrinks would tell you. So putting them in jail and then letting them out isn't going to fix them.
I have some experience with narcissists. And sociopaths, too, come to think of it. They're basically going to try to get away with whatever they can whenever they see an opening. They need constant boundaries. And the thing about them is THEY KNOW that what they're doing is morally/legally wrong before they do it - the narcissist will tell themselves a story to convince themselves they're in the right and the sociopath won't even bother with that fiction. But it's definitely a choice. It's very different from a schizophrenic's reasoning and motivations.
I don't think we do enough to support the mentally ill in our legal system - far too many people are denied treatment or sentenced improperly. But once you cross over into harming children in a calculated and deliberate manner, as the man in this case did, there really isn't a place for you in society. He put a hand over the kid's mouth when her mother came looking, he locked the door, he stopped and then resumed the abuse. And he made sure it was done in secret because he fully understood it was wrong.
As for people being borderline mentally handicapped, well, it's still sketchy to have them among the rest of the public once they've crossed certain lines. And an argument I've heard from an awful lot of mentally ill and mentally handicapped people is that just because they have that disability doesn't mean they don't have a moral compass - sometimes someone can be mentally handicapped or mentally ill and STILL be a bad person.
And generally if the guy had some sort of disability of significance, that would be mentioned in an article, but it wasn't in this case. They noted that the judge only said he had low self-esteem, a dysfunctional upbringing and was "timid" and "immature." That could describe a large swathe of the population.
I agree with your post, but if he was found to use force or violence he could be considered an MDSO. The advantage is that he would be subject to being returned to custody if his psychiatrist found that he posed a threat, or if he failed to participate in therapy. Without that once he's off parole we would have to wait for him to harm another child to get him off the streets.
I think you're right. The idea that a child's innocence is worth more than their life itself is a Victorian concept that was revived some time around 1985 or so, I think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
