Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Hey, everyone knows that if they go to prison, they'll get raped. This guy took that risk...he deserves to get the same punishment as every other molester. What if a molester was really, really attractive? He'd probably get passed around more, should he get probation for the same crime that uglier men go to prison for? Where do the excuses end? < I am 100% with Mele on this one -- let me ask you this RT, if the rape victim was your daughter, would you still have the same sympathy for this piece of garbage ? I know I wouldn't care if he was 4'1" or 8'1" - - the mental pain and truama caused to the victim isn;t worth as much in penalties because he was short. I am sure that will be great comfort to her. I could care less at that point if he has special challenges in prison, he had the option at one time, the victim did not.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <It is the governments responcibility to make sure that any prisoner is safe while in jail. The "government" is legally responcible for the inmates welfare while the inmate is incarcerated. The fact that the inmate is short is a moot point. I think its rather telling when a judge believes that there are certain groups of people who are at greater risk of violence while incarcerated. Just plain stupid to me.< Trippy, I must admit after reading two of your posts I am not sure now what side you are on, maybe I misread the one -- possible.....I now think you are saying what I am saying, but I didnt get that from the first post -- sorry if I misread. But again, short , tall, fat , skinny -- if you did the crime - you do the time -- period....we have far too many 'judges' taking the law into their own hands and this is one example...and while I agree that the prisons should be as safe as they can be for everyone -- they are filled with criminals -- stuff is going to happen, that is why these people are not walking around any more. We are FAR too concerned about the criminals rights an not nearly enough on the victims rights.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I am 100% with Mele on this one -- let me ask you this RT, if the rape victim was your daughter, would you still have the same sympathy for this piece of garbage ? >> Probably not. But that is why we have guilt and sentences determined by judges and juries, not those with an emotional involvement in the crime. Remember, I was not for letting the guy loose, and think the fact that the judge put him on probation is ridiculous. But I do think that incarceration at a facility where he would be lees likely to be attacked would be a reasonable alternative. As KT points out, it is ridiculous that this is even an issue. The government should be able to insure an inmate’s safety and they obviously can't. Or won't, which I think is more likely.
Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon This is a classic example of why there should be mandatory sentencing guidlines when it comes to sexual predators. Liberal Judges are out of control in this country. When Judge Edward Cashman from Vermont sentenced Mark Hulett, 34, to 60 days in prison for sexually abusing a child, he said he wanted to make sure the man got treatment that would be available while he was behind bars. Prosecutor Robert Simpson argued in court papers that a 60-day jail term wasn't nearly enough. "This court's sentence must consider and include punishment for the defendant's action in repeatedly sexually assaulting this child," Simpson said. Hulett had pleaded guilty to charges that he had sexual contact with a girl during a four-year period beginning when she was 6. At his first sentencing, Cashman said the best way to ensure public safety was to get Hulett out of prison so he could receive sex offender treatment. Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn't likely to reoffend, he wouldn't be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he reached the end of his jail term. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,182869,00.html pathetic
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Because the Corrections Department concluded that Hulett wasn't likely to reoffend, he wouldn't be eligible to receive sex-offender treatment until he reached the end of his jail term.>> THAT is what is pathetic; more so than the judge. Stupid bureaucratic regulations that keep sex-offenders from receiving the treatment they need. Because lets face it... almost all will be out in society again some time. Do you want them coming out just like they went in? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes, why in the world aren't sex offenders allowed to receive treatment in prison? That makes no sense to me. Short sentence or long, eventually they all get out.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Treatments for sex offenders don't work. They should NOT be let out, repeat offenders that is. My wife thinks they should be castrated and I agree. I don't want treatment for sexual predators. I want justice> not revenge just plain and simple justice. The way to insure justice is to get rid of the Judge Cashmans of the world.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My wife thinks they should be castrated and I agree.>> I would agree if that would work. But it won't. Sexual predators are not interested primarily in sex. They are interested in domination, humiliation and violence. You often see elderly women (I'm talking 65+ here) being raped by young men. Are you going to tell me that granny made junior so danged hot that he couldn't control himself? Of course not. His crime was more about domination and humiliation and violence than it was about sex. You take sex away from him with castration and he will satisfy the same desires by cutting up her face with a knife. He will be just as violent as before. Perhaps more so since now he feels he has been violated by society by being castrated. Don't get me wrong. I am completely and totally disgusted by sexual predators. I know the horror they can cause. My first wife (while I was married to her) and my youngest sister have both been victims of stranger rape. I just can't see pursuing policies that would not really solve the problem. So often actions that would perhaps make us feel better don't really do squat about preventing future crime. Yes, revenge would be nice. Preventing future crimes by these sadists would be even nicer, and castration won't do it.
Originally Posted By mele Yeah, I don't agree that castration will work either. Too many sexual crimes are committed with other objects or parts of the body. I don't hate or fear sexual offenders for their sickening desires, it's the fact that they feel they have the right to give into them that scares me. That's the real problem, they feed their desires and feel they can indulge in them. That's not going to change with chemical or physical castration. I wonder if the medical community is searching for answers, for a cure? I hope they are but can only imagine what kind of experiments they'd have to do...
Originally Posted By mele (And I'm so sorry to hear about your former wife and sisters experiences, RT.)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<(And I'm so sorry to hear about your former wife and sisters experiences, RT.)>> Thank you. My sister seems to have recovered as well as anyone could. I doubt that my former wife has. It's not that we weren't without problems before her rape, and for a while it even seemed to bring us closer together (in a completely non-physical way). She was desperate for my protection and I desperately wanted to protect her. But over the long term, the experience left her with a distrust for men that she could not overcome and undoubtedly was a factor in our divorce. Even with significant counseling and the passage of several years she could not become sexual again, and I was not willing to give it up. She was the one to file for divorce, feeling the marriage could not survive and that she was tired of trying to make me happy with something she could not do. I would probably have never filed, but it is likely best that she did. She has never remarried. I've been married to my present wife for 27 years and I cannot imagine a marriage happier than the one we have. I feel very sad about my first marriage though. She was really my first love and it hurt more than anything else I've ever experienced to lose her. Well, probably too much information. I just have more of an acquaintance with the topic than I ever wanted to have.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Actaully statictically speaking castration ( both physical and chemical ) has the highest success rate as a form of therapy for sexual preditors. The US to my knowledge does not do physical castration. However, certain countries around the world still practice this. I'm trying to be careful in what I say. But there is a relationship between the male hormone ( testosterone ) and violence. I don't want this to sound like potentially speaking all males have the capability to rape, since this is not true. Its just that all rapist have a high male hormonal level. Sorry I did my graduate school thesis on the recitivism rate of male sexual preditors. Therapist agree that the best form of counseling for sexual preditors is both chemical as well as theraputic. Recent studys indicate that group therapy does not work for sexaul preditors since most sexual preditors have also been sexual abuse victims as well. Group therapy is pretty much the norm in prison settings as its much more money savings. Male are less likely to state that they have been abused in any group setting.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Back to the topic. The real issue here is that society is unable to "protect" anyone who is in prison. This is a big problem. You want to keep in mind that there are several functions of "prison". One being to protect society. Another is theraputic. Prisoners should not be just warehoused for a certain amount of time. Therapy is an intrical part of criminal rehabilitation.
