Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Bill O'reilly's Crusade to have States inact 25 to life mandatory for Pedophiles. (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Bill O'reilly's Crusade to have States inact 25 to life mandatory for Pedophiles.
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I don't like mandatory sentences, but is it worse than having people get slapped on the wrist by spineless judges?

In the same way that it's presumably better to let the guilty go free than jail an innocent, yes.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the same way that it's presumably better to let the guilty go free than jail an innocent, yes.
Isn't it always a question of where to draw the line? You could use the above quote to conclude that we shouldn't have (or at least enforce) ANY laws for fear of jailing an innocent. Nobody I know would support that. Nobody I know would support jailing anybody and everybody on little to no evidence, either.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa M.
Member
Member # 2398

 - posted      Profile for Lisa M.   Email Lisa M.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
I repeat, I don't think that promiscuous and careless sex with "Barely legal" teens is such a social good, that we need to withdraw protections from vulnerable adolescents just to accomodate that hobby.
My point is that the actions of the girl in the story were such that an ability to consent (and certainly a desire to do the same) could very easily be inferred from her actions. She showed up at a college party wearing a college tee-shirt, presumably to create the illusion that she was a college student. She approached my character, invited him upstairs, and was at every turn the one "driving" the action. In such cases, can it reasonably be said that the other party "raped" her when he was in fact the one deceived?
As for you story... in New York, you cannot consent to sex if you are legally intoxicated. So, really, you were both statutory rape victims.

I have no idea what they do in those cases in which both participants are legally unable to give consent. I just know that it happens.

Posts: 845 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't like mandatory sentences, but is it worse than having people get slapped on the wrist by spineless judges?
Depends. When most of those sentenced actually pose a danger to the public or to children particularly, the wrist-slap is worse. When it's just a question of punishment or making an example out of someone, far far better to err on the side of leniency.


quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In the same way that it's presumably better to let the guilty go free than jail an innocent, yes.

No, not in the same way. Unnecessarily harsh sentences are NOT usually analogous to jailing an innocent person. Tom seems to confuse innocence with severity. They are entirely different questions.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa M.:
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
I repeat, I don't think that promiscuous and careless sex with "Barely legal" teens is such a social good, that we need to withdraw protections from vulnerable adolescents just to accomodate that hobby.
My point is that the actions of the girl in the story were such that an ability to consent (and certainly a desire to do the same) could very easily be inferred from her actions. She showed up at a college party wearing a college tee-shirt, presumably to create the illusion that she was a college student. She approached my character, invited him upstairs, and was at every turn the one "driving" the action. In such cases, can it reasonably be said that the other party "raped" her when he was in fact the one deceived?
As for you story... in New York, you cannot consent to sex if you are legally intoxicated. So, really, you were both statutory rape victims.

I have no idea what they do in those cases in which both participants are legally unable to give consent. I just know that it happens.

The general rule is that when you are charged with a crime, you can't argue intoxication as a defense. For example, the perps who murdered Matt Sheppard weren't allowed to introduce the fact that they were wasted on booze and meth, in order to dispute Prosecution's argument that they had premeditated the murder as a hate crime. Judge would not let the jury hear the evidence of intoxication; it's a common rule of evidence.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's only a mandatory sentence if you are convicte of the crime. Don't like it. Don't molest children. These men need to be so afraid of the consequences that they restrain or kill themselves.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good for O'rielly.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't like mandatory sentences, but is it worse than having people get slapped on the wrist by spineless judges?
quote:
In the same way that it's presumably better to let the guilty go free than jail an innocent, yes.
That's what I thought of too, but it doesn't follow, because these folks are actually guilty, the only question is how much they should be punished.

I should rephrase my earlier statement though: I don't like mandatory sentences for lesser crimes, because there's more chance of extenuating circumstances.

For some crimes I absolutely believe in mandatory sentencing. The death penalty for violent rape, for example, because there can't possibly be any extenuating circumstances.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And if we switched it to TEN, like a very powerful and influential group behind the Model Penal Code wants us to do in the USA, guys would be saying that to excuse screwing eight year olds.
Ok Pete, I'll bite. In what state are they contemplating lowering the age of consent to 10? Are you saying that it will be ok for, say, a 40 year old to have sex with a ten year old? What "influential" group is behind such a measure? You'll forgive my skepticism [Smile]
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Loki
Member
Member # 2312

 - posted      Profile for Loki   Email Loki   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The general rule is that when you are charged with a crime, you can't argue intoxication as a defense. For example, the perps who murdered Matt Sheppard weren't allowed to introduce the fact that they were wasted on booze and meth, in order to dispute Prosecution's argument that they had premeditated the murder as a hate crime. Judge would not let the jury hear the evidence of intoxication; it's a common rule of evidence.
This doesn't make sense to me, You can't argue intoxication in defense but prosecution can use it on the offensive. Those kids are still guilty of murder, no doubt about that, but saying that them being on alcohol and meth didn't have anything to do with it, is like saying a drunk drivers driving wasn't impaired by alcohol. At least that's what it seems like to me.

It's not an excuse to be drunk, but it definitely is a factor.

Posts: 311 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Model Penal Code is put out by a very respected group called the American Legal Institute, ALI. Much of their stuff is quite good, and almost every state has adopted some portion of the Model Penal Code.

OTOH, many critics find some serious flaws in the MPC with regard to mens rea; it's too squishy and subjective.

And fortunately NO state as far as I know is even considering adopting the MPC recommendations on the age of consent.

But it bothers me that such a respected and influential group is pressing for such an atrocity. Their discussion of child sexual abuse is INCREDIBLY reductive, talking as if the ONLY concern was that a child's BODY wasn't prepared for reproduction. (!!!) They dismiss social concerns about sex between adults and kids 11 and older as based merely in social views of morality.

Very poorly thought out. If this was just about sexual morality, then the law would make sex between adolescents a crime as well.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Loki:
quote:
The general rule is that when you are charged with a crime, you can't argue intoxication as a defense. For example, the perps who murdered Matt Sheppard weren't allowed to introduce the fact that they were wasted on booze and meth, in order to dispute Prosecution's argument that they had premeditated the murder as a hate crime. Judge would not let the jury hear the evidence of intoxication; it's a common rule of evidence.
This doesn't make sense to me, You can't argue intoxication in defense but prosecution can use it on the offensive. Those kids are still guilty of murder, no doubt about that, but saying that them being on alcohol and meth didn't have anything to do with it, is like saying a drunk drivers driving wasn't impaired by alcohol. At least that's what it seems like to me.

It's not an excuse to be drunk, but it definitely is a factor.

Agreed. This policy bothered me when I took Torts, it bothered me again when I took Criminal Law. But that's the law, whether I like it or not. And it's not the only evidence law that stacks the deck in favor of the prosecution.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I still argue that the life of a child or rape victim is more important than punishment of rapists. The higher the price put upon the sex, the more likely the victim will be silenced with death.

I am also in favor of mandatory sentences, however; I've known a couple of judges. I don't approve of changing the rules in relation to children, I do not approve of changing the rules at any time. A crime should have a specific well known punishment. Law ought not be malleable, justice ought not be negotiable.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just the fear of exposure gives more motivation to kill, than any prison stretch. Can you show me a study that correlates sentence length to number of molestation victims killed?

Seems to me that a molester who's done a stretch in prison and is back out again is more likely to kill than one who doesn't know what hell awaits him.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's only a mandatory sentence if you are convicte of the crime. Don't like it. Don't molest children. These men need to be so afraid of the consequences that they restrain or kill themselves.
Having to work (professionally) with the consequences of child victimization, I can say unequivocably that it is a horrible crime which we absolutely have a duty to prevent. This attitude (above), however, won't do that. Furthermore, its barbarously inhumane, and no better than the attitude that its okay to victimize a child to satisfy my own desires. If someone has a physical, sexual inclination towards children, then that person should be forced into suicide? I like you KE but reading that literally chilled my blood. These people should be safely removed from access to children and given HELP. If they have acted on these desires they need to face consequences. Trying to force potential pedophiles to kill themselves is a cowardly way to address the problem.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uncomfortable truth time.

There is absolutely nothing, at all, unhealthy (in a biological sense) about a man having a sexual physiological response to a post pubscent female who is not of legal age of consent, or a woman having a sexual physiological response to a post pubscent boy who is not of legal age of consent.

Absolutely nothing.

There is also absolutely nothing biologically wrong with an individual who finds their spouse in the act of mating with another and feels a powerful urge to kill them.

Absolutely nothing.

However, IMO, an atraction to pre-pubescents is indicative of serious mis-wiring (I don't claim to know how this occurs) as is a pathological desire to commit murder for the sheer joy of it.

I think most would agree that if the person in my second example killed their spouse and their spouses lover in the heat of the momment, they probably should "pay their debt" and be released at some point in the future.

It's hard for me to make a concise or clear point here, because my own feelings on the matter are still a muddled, but...an adult who engages with intercourse with a child, a person who would universally be considered a child in the overwhelming majority of human cultures that have ever existed if not all, is engaging in sociopathic behavior and the possibility of them repeating their offence is so horrible that they must be removed from society permenantly.

However, a person who has such urges and restrains themselves, with or without profesional help, doesn't deserve any sort of punishment. At all. We don't yet punish people for crimes they haven't committed.

eh, well, I know it's a garble, I just can't get my thoughts on this together conscisely.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, a person who has such urges and restrains themselves, with or without profesional help, doesn't deserve any sort of punishment. At all. We don't yet punish people for crimes they haven't committed.
Agreed. That would be unconstitutional, a violation of due process. I don't think the state has the power (i.e. the right to even make law) to regulate thought.

The state can make certain actions criminal or not criminal based on mental elements (such as deliberation and premeditation, hate crime motives, etc.) But there has to be an act for there to be a crime.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem remains, what is a child?

Just the misconceptions of classical pederasty here suggest to me that Americans don't know what a 'child' is. A teenager is not a child, and to think so is childish.

Just what is it that allows 13-y-o's to marry but rape of 13-y-o's is "pedophilia"? I find the inconsistency confusing.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is it?

It's called consent, Richard.

A minor that marries is effectively emancipated in many respects. No longer in the custody of his or her parents or guardian.

Being in custody, places limits on your ability to really consent to anything.

Remember the case I posted here about the old bastard in his sixties who waited until the girl in his custody turned 14, and then blackmailed her into letting him screw her, threatening to send her back to juevenile detention if she didn't just lie there, cry, and take it?

The Pennsylvania law makes her "age of consent" at age 14, and blitheringly ignores the fact that SHE WAS IN HIS CUSTODY.

When someone else has the legal right to determine where you live, you aren't really in a position to consent as an adult to something like sex.

The old sod should have gone down for rape.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A child is a person without the legal rights of an adult.

If our society didn't force 13 year olds to live with their parents, if we let them drive, vote, form contracts, work the hours of their chosing, and otherwise function as INDEPENDENT CITIZENS, then in our society, they would be adults, and could meaningfully consent about sex.

For the same reason, I think that it's loathesome that most states allow so-called "consensual" sex between prison guards, and convicts in their custody. She's in chains, he's got a gun and the power of the state behind him, and it's consensual? Fat chance. I don't care how old she is there; if she's in custody, she can't meaningfully consent to the guard who can give the word and have her thrown in solitary.

You can't have consensual sex between non-equals.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Agreed. That would be unconstitutional, a violation of due process. I don't think the state has the power (i.e. the right to even make law) to regulate thought.
True, but IMO it needs to go beyond the merely legal argument, and be about social attitudes. If a person finds pedophilic desires within himself, can acknowledge that and seek help to avoid even the potential of ever hurting a child, that person is a hero in some sense. Having a mechanism for that to happen, combined with consequences for people who do victimize children, is really the only way we can ever effectively protect our children. But that doesn't happen, and in the current climate it won't. How many of the irate "protectors of children" would look at the person in the scenario above and think "kill the sicko, just to be safe". When we project that attitude all the other "sickos" are just going to deny their problem, even to themselves. Repress until the urge becomes so extreme that the unthinkable happens. Ultimately this attitude will lead to more victimized children. [Frown]
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete at Home -

I am surprised that the person you speak of was not charged with rape simply due to a power imbalance.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete At Home said:
quote:
For the same reason, I think that it's loathesome that most states allow so-called "consensual" sex between prison guards, and convicts in their custody. She's in chains, he's got a gun and the power of the state behind him, and it's consensual? Fat chance. I don't care how old she is there; if she's in custody, she can't meaningfully consent to the guard who can give the word and have her thrown in solitary.

You can't have consensual sex between non-equals.

...like what you'd mentioned here. What States allow this?

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Weeder
Member
Member # 1046

 - posted      Profile for Weeder     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While everyone is going around saying "I advocate this or that for sexual predators but not for consensual statutory rape", the truth of the matter is that the bills that wind up being introduced usually not only include satutory rape but also broaden the definition of that might be considered statutory rape. I'm taking my cue from a referendum question in the California 2004 ballot, where the fins print said that the manadatory sentencing woudl apply to someone having consensual sex with a partner more than two years younger (if memory serves).


I really think that the authors of these bills want to ban all premarital sex and are willing to use our aversion to violent, coerced, or child sex to get us to blindly vote for their agenda.

[ October 19, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Weeder ]

Posts: 270 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Weeder,
my take on O'Reilly's campaing is similar to yours: I think O'Reilly found the most socially reprehensible crime and is using it to re-enforce the (false) notion that the single answer to the problem of crime is throwing incarceration at the problem. Its admirable that people want to protect children, but our anger alone won't accomplish that worthy goal. We need to look at the problem with reason and pragmatism.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Koner
Member
Member # 1390

 - posted      Profile for Koner   Email Koner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For the same reason, I think that it's loathesome that most states allow so-called "consensual" sex between prison guards, and convicts in their custody. She's in chains, he's got a gun and the power of the state behind him, and it's consensual? Fat chance. I don't care how old she is there; if she's in custody, she can't meaningfully consent to the guard who can give the word and have her thrown in solitary.
There are three major industries in the part of Michigan where I live. 1. lumber/paper (LOTS of trees here, 2. Iron mining, and 3. Prisons (LOTS of prisons.

I know a lot of prison guards. In fact my next door neighbor is a prison guard at a level 5 facility about 12 miles from my house. I talked to him about this "sex between prisoner and guard" thing. I don't know what its like in other states but at least here it is NOT legal for a guard to EVER have sex with a prisoner. It is grounds for immediate dismisal and disciplinary action against the guard.

I can't imagine that its any different anywhere else.

Posts: 754 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-

Most states don't allow minors to consent to sex with a person in a position of authority over them. Are you certain PA's does? Also, is this "power imabalnce" argument sufficient in other instances as well? Can an employee consent to sex with her employer, for example?

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Employer/Employee creates power imbalance problems, but those aren't *legal* civil rights, Paladine. I'm talking about living in someone else's custody. That's a HUGE legal power discrepancy.

quote:
Most states don't allow minors to consent to sex with a person in a position of authority over them.
Even if that were true (and according to the article I read, it wasn't), it would not solve the problem, since you can also look at something like the Kingston case, where daddy flogs his girl for refusing to have sex with his brother, her uncle. Now in the Kingston case, the daughter was "married" to the brother according to the rules of their cult, but LEGALLY, there was no marriage, so she was still in Poppa Kingston's custody.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1