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.
There have been several proposals on this board that after these types of criminals serve 5, 10 years, whatever, they have served their time. In addition, they currently ARE walking free - I have two sex offenders (rapists of children) in my immediate neighborhood. They are free, not in prison. That is the way the system is working right now.
And men who beat their children (and their wives and their girlfriends and their dates) black and blue and break their bones, and fracture their skulls, its perfectly OK for them to walk free, because their offense was not sexual. Right?
Which is worse? Guy #1 strokes his daughter in a way that is sexually exploratory. Guy #2 beats his daughter with a blunt instrument because she cries at night, and does permanent organ damage. Which one has done more harm? Which one should never be released from prison?
no
people sellin weed or simply bein in possession of weed get throwin into jail. cant remember where exactly i read that the penalty for havin coke is less than the penalty for havin weed
sex offenders, especially those that mess with kids, need to be abu ghraib'd
And men who beat their children (and their wives and their girlfriends and their dates) black and blue and break their bones, and fracture their skulls, its perfectly OK for them to walk free, because their offense was not sexual. Right?
Which is worse? Guy #1 strokes his daughter in a way that is sexually exploratory. Guy #2 beats his daughter with a blunt instrument because she cries at night, and does permanent organ damage. Which one has done more harm? Which one should never be released from prison?
The issue here is sex offenders. Don't try and confuse it with comparing one despicable crime with another. I'm not going to get into the "what's worse" argument because we are not debating sex offense crimes vs other crimes. If you want to do that, start another thread.
Now, do you have anything to say about the fact that adult people who have sexually harmed young children are currently walking the streets?
The issue here is sex offenders. Don't try and confuse it with comparing one despicable crime with another. I'm not going to get into the "what's worse" argument because we are not debating sex offense crimes vs other crimes. If you want to do that, start another thread.
Now, do you have anything to say about the fact that adult people who have sexually harmed young children are currently walking the streets?
It is you who have singled out sex crimes as being "different" from all other classes of crimes, no matter how brutal. It is you that have declared that the mere presence of sex in a motivation for crime places a victim in a special category of permanent life destruction.
You are declaring that all crimes that involve sex are in a special class by themselves, requiring that every offender be incarcerated forever. I'm challenging you to explain that distinction.
Either that, or disavow your distinction and agree that all crimes, whether or not sex is involved, regardless of level of severity, should be responded to with a life sentence, and the criminal never walk free. Are all criminals to be subject to the same criteria, and if not, defend your statement that sex criminals require special treatment. Which can only be done by contrasting sex criminals with others, which you refuse to do, and therefore, lose the argument by default.
You cannot deny posters the right to challenge logically flawed remarks merely on the basis that the challenge is "not about" the original topic.
And, yes I do have something to say about your question. Adults who have sexually harmed 60-million young children are currently walking the streets. How do you round them all up and imprison them all forever?
It is you who have singled out sex crimes as being "different" from all other classes of crimes, no matter how brutal.
You are declaring that all crimes that involve sex are in a special class by themselves, requiring that every offender be incarcerated forever. I'm challenging you to explain that distinction.
I am not the OP, nor have I offered a specific solution. You want to get into a comparison debate, which I will not. You also seem to be interested in being soft on these criminals because you do not judge their crime as being as bad as some other crime, and I disagree with you.
You still have not responded to the fact that known child rapists walk the streets, so I will opine that you either cannot come up with a good reason for it, or are only interested in debating something else.
I am not the OP, nor have I offered a specific solution. You want to get into a comparison debate, which I will not. You also seem to be interested in being soft on these criminals because you do not judge their crime as being as bad as some other crime, and I disagree with you.
You still have not responded to the fact that known child rapists walk the streets, so I will opine that you either cannot come up with a good reason for it, or are only interested in debating something else.
There. You just agreed to enter the debate by making the comparison, and your position is that sex crimes are worse than non-sex crimes, which is what I challenge. It is the position of many other posters that ALL persons found guilty of ANY sex crimes should never be allowed to freely walk the streets. A condition that does not apply to non-sex crimes. Which is exactly the comparison that the OP asked for.
You have misstated my position. My position is that a sex crime IS as bad as some other crime---but not worse. Your position is that it IS worse, by some astouinding order of magnitude, for no other reason than because there is some sexual motivation. Defend your position.
Convince me that, if it were your child, you would rather have a butcher knife plunged into her, than a penis.
There. You just agreed to enter the debate by making the comparison, and your position is that sex crimes are worse than non-sex crimes, which is what I challenge. It is the position of many other posters that ALL persons found guilty of ANY sex crimes should never be allowed to freely walk the streets. A condition that does not apply to non-sex crimes. Which is exactly the comparison that the OP asked for.
You have misstated my position. My position is that a sex crime IS as bad as some other crime---but not worse. Your position is that it IS worse, by some astouinding order of magnitude, for no other reason than because there is some sexual motivation. Defend your position.
Convince me that, if it were your child, you would rather have a butcher knife plunged into her, than a penis.
You went back and edited the original post that I responded to in order to make it look like you said a bunch of stuff that you didn't and that you DID respond to what I said, which you originally did not. In addition, you are attributing a whole lot of stances to me when I have not specifically stated one or another - I said that the way the system is working now is that convicted sex offenders are walking free.
The final sentence of your quote is nothing but an attempt to get me all riled up and yell about my kids, which I'm not going to do. I'm not going to compare murder and rape. And in general, if a person plunges a knife into another person with the intent to kill them, they aren't out on the street 3 years later. In general. Your comparison is deliberately obtuse.
I'm done having this discussion with you because it is neither discussion nor debate, it is a bunch of people going off on a bunch of tangents and then accusing them of saying things that other people said.
To the OP, no I don't think we are too hard on sex offenders. I think the different degrees of sex offenses need clarification and the worst offenders - those who repeat their crimes and/or cause deliberate sexual harm to children - should stay in prison.
Are we too hard on sex offenders? Relative to other crimes, some would argue that sex offenders get the short end of the stick, while thieves, vandals, and murders are let off rather easily. Do you agree?
I tried to get you back on-on topic, but you refuse.
Bye now.
PS. The part that you quoted in your reply remains exactly unchanged. I edited other parts for clarity.
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.
