posted on February 4, 2004 12:19:38 AM new
Frankly, I'd just as soon kill them all, but I'm not "in charge", alas...
Some concerned citizens have a nationwide campaign underway aimed at getting a federal law enacted that would put away pedophiles for life after their first conviction.
Here's the text of the petition they are circulating:
Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.
- Benjamin Franklin
FEDERAL PETITION TO CONGRESS
This petition is in direct response to the outraged citizens of The United States of America regarding violent sex offenders.
We, the undersigned, want a new law for our precious children called :
JORDAN’S ONE STRIKE LAW
A Federal Lifetime Imprisonment Law with NO eligibility of parole for Convicted Child rapists, murderers, molesters, and kidnappers.
Let’s show these predators that our children come FIRST ! Don’t let a predator do this to ANOTHER child and ruin the second child’s life too. Mandatory sentencing of these Predators is the ONLY solution. It is time to give America’s parents and children the PEACE OF MIND they are looking for. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW !
We URGE our Federal Government officials to enact a law NOW. Every day that this law is not enacted, many children have already become victims.
posted on February 4, 2004 04:39:03 AM new
On this one, I have to agree. I cringe whenever we get a notice that a sexual preditor has moved into our neighborhood. Granted, they never stay here long, but it's still disturbing. As most of you know, I live in the inner city and my neighborhood is full of children. The street I live on is very family oriented. This I can say: If one of these preditors that moves into this neighborhood steps out of line and so much as talks to one of the children here, they will find a shotgun up their backside. We protect our own here. We have to, there aren't many police left in Cleveland.
Why crowd the prisons? Take a deserted island somewhere and drop them off Survivor style. Airdrop supplies every now and again. Let them enjoy each other's company. It would save the taxpayers a lot of money. But then, do we really want to do that to the environment?
posted on February 4, 2004 05:21:28 AM new
I can't support mandatory sentencing. I think the punishment should be decided on what exactly happened on a case by case basis. I trust a jury can certainly be outraged enough by the facts of a pedophile rape/kidnap/murder case to impose a life sentence.
What if a statutory rape case comes before the court? It's a sex crime, rape, and the victim is, under the law, a child. Even if the parties were 17 and 18 and the sex was consensual, the 18 year old could be sentenced to life in prison, under mandatory sentencing law.
My objection is to mandatory sentencing. This article states better than I can word it some of the problems I see with mandatory sentencing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A bit OT, Pat, but you might enjoy this article on the "war" between Ahscroft and the federal judiciary over sentencing guidelines.
posted on February 4, 2004 07:02:04 AM new What if a statutory rape case comes before the court? It's a sex crime, rape, and the victim is, under the law, a child. Even if the parties were 17 and 18 and the sex was consensual, the 18 year old could be sentenced to life in prison, under mandatory sentencing law.
I don't believe in mandatory sentencing. There are too many variables involved in every crime situation. Here is a current example of the case type mentioned by Snowyegret.
posted on February 4, 2004 07:18:06 AM new
That link above is a little slow so I'll post the article.
ATLANTA (NNPA) -- The 10-year sentence a high school football player
received for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old classmate was so excessive
that it was "cruel and unusual," his attorneys argued to the Georgia Supreme Court.
But prosecutors say the mandatory prison term is exactly what the law intended
for someone who has sex with a minor and causes an injury.
Marcus Dixon, who was 18 last February when he had sex with the girl, was found
innocent of rape charges but is serving 10 years because he was found guilty of
aggravated child molestation.
Unless the state's high court overturns the sentence, any teenager who has sex
could potentially face prison time, said defense attorney David Balser.
"The 10-year sentence imposed on Marcus Dixon so deviates from society's view
of sexual conduct that it shocks the conscience," Balser said. Prosecutor
John McClellan maintained that a jury found Dixon guilty of aggravated child molestation,
and he's serving his sentence as specified by Georgia's laws.
"Certain crimes are punishable with certain sentences," McClellan said.
"It is the job of the legislature and not the courts to define crimes and their penalties."
Dozens of people packed the courtroom to hear Dixon's case, which has become
controversial because he is Black and the girl is White. Protesters have said Dixon
wouldn't have received such a long sentence if not for his race.
The court is expected to rule in the next few months, possibly between March and June.
The justices will consider several issues: whether the mandatory sentence is cruel and
unusual punishment, whether Dixon should have been charged with only misdemeanor
statutory rape and if the court should intervene on the Legislature's sentencing laws.
If Dixon had been convicted solely of statutory rape, he would have faced no more than
one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Dixon said he had expected community service or probation.
Balser claimed the aggravated child molestation and statutory rape laws overlap,
and that the lesser of the two crimes should have been used.
"The General Assembly has made clear that it is a misdemeanor," Balser said.
"Otherwise, every act of sexual intercourse between teenagers would be an act
of aggravated child molestation."
McClellan countered that argument, saying the aggravated child molestation conviction
means there was an injury, and there was evidence of vaginal bruising and tearing during sex.
"This condition clearly falls within the definition of aggravated child molestation," he said.
At the time of his arrest, Dixon was a senior football player with a 3.96-grade point average
and a scholarship to attend Vanderbilt University. Dixon's scholarship was later rescinded.
Dixon was enrolled in a home economics class with the girl. He said he met her after school
and arranged to visit her in a trailer containing classrooms, where she was working as a student
custodian. She told school counselors about the incident, and they contacted police.
A jury last May acquitted him of rape, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and sexual battery
but convicted him of aggravated child molestation and statutory rape
posted on February 4, 2004 07:41:13 AM new
1) This is totally stupid. Zero-Tolerance laws and mandatory sentencing should be outlawed. Decide every case individually.
2) But I'm also partly against the whole idea of "statutory rape". If you are talking about 12 and 13 years olds, certainly. Lock them up and throw away the key.
But 16 and 17 year olds know what they are doing and are completely aware of what is happening. If it's consenual, then let it go. It's the parents responsibility, not the courts. If the 16 year old is unwilling to have sex and is forced or somehow coerced into having sex, then charge the adult with regular rape.
3) You know what I just cannot figure out? We've got a city near here, Xenia, Ohio. They apparently has a taskforce of officers set up to pretend to be children on the internet. Every week, we hear on the news where some man has flown into town from Timbuktu to have sex with what they think is a 14 year old. The man goes to a restaraunt or somewhere to meet the child and is arrested and charged. They pretty much ALWAYS get jail time.
What I want to know is how can the police do this? Technically the potential pedophile hasn't actually done anything, as all they have done is shown up for a meeting. There isn't even a real child involved, so there was no actual crime committed. Now when an undercover cop acts like a prostitute or drug dealer and catches you handing over money, then sure I get that. But these potential pedophiles haven't actually DONE anything. I'm sure they intend to do something, but last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to THINK bad thoughts.
In a LEGAL sense, how does this work?
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on February 4, 2004 10:00:37 AM new
Replay - They don't get busted for the act they intended to do. They get busted for the acts they commited before they got there. Depends on the state bust some of the recent charges that these stings have resulted in are Indecent Solicitation and
Attempted Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors in the First Degree.
One of the articles I was reading gives three basic defenses that pedophiles use and talks about how officers make sure they are diffused.
1) I didn't know they were underage (killed when decoy gives and suspect acknowledges age)
2) It was not me on the computer (killed when they send a picture of themselves)
2) It-was-just-an-Internet-fantasy (killed when they show up for a meet)
Check out Westchester County New York and their department - 50 arrestd, 44 convictions - 6 still pending. They have busted 6 teachers, a priest, a kids, a sports director... 25% of their busts have been with people who have regular contact with kids.
Helen - I saw an interview with the parents of the girl who once they learned wht the sentence for the boy was going to be said they regretted ever going to the police.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 4, 2004 10:37:09 AM new
I wasn't referring to 15 or 16 year olds who know what it is they do. I'm referring to children, tots, babies whatever you choose to call a very young child. Even at 12, a lot of girls and boys are sexually active. When you get to 5 or 6 year olds or even 8 or 9, that's a different story. Or those teens taken by force as is the recent case that was captured on video.
Where do you draw the line? A girl who has been dating a boy and having sex doesn't count a pedophile behavior in my book. Just teens being stupid and their parents being in denial. There is no excuse for sexually abusing a young child. None whatsoever. If anyone ever laid a hand on my 5 year old granddaughter, you'd be reading about my prison sentence.
I didn't say murder the guy you were talking about. I was talking specifically about my 5-year old granddaughter. What would you do if someone molested one of your own? I may not actually commit a crime, but I sure as heck would be thinking about it. I said put the guilty ones on a deserted island somewhere. A shotgun up the butt, is just that - a shotgun up the butt. I never said anything about firing it. Yuk! Yes, we have a shotgun in the house. No, we do not have bullets. Ken once thought he heard someone trying to break into the house in the wee morning hours. He stumbled out of bed, grabbed the shotgun and tried to load it as he ran down the stairs. All be got was a box of bullets flying everywhere. Thankfully so. The noise at the front door was the paperboy. My hero! I picked the bullets up and they're now gone. Took them to the local mini-station. He's still not aware that we now have a bullet-less rifle.
In my neighborhood we watch out for one another because there is no one else to. We watch each other's children and each other's homes. There are some that will shoot you if you break into their homes while they are there. Our alarm went off in our home about a month ago. The alarm company called me around 11:00 a.m. at work (I can't remember the exact time anymore). The police arrived at the house a couple hours later. By then, we were all dead and all our belongings were gone. Get the mental picture? Of course, we weren't home, but what if we had been? Sure would not have happened in the more affluent neighborhoods of Cleveland.
posted on February 4, 2004 01:36:54 PM newSnowy, I've read both the articles you linked (thank you, by the way) and I want to make as reasoned a reply to their various points -- as well as the issue of statutory rape -- as I can, knowing in advance that we are on opposite sides of nearly all the subjects at hand. With that said, I don't want to write a thesis (heh) so I will make just a few remarks about each.
Mandatory sentences in general: It is my opinion that leaving sentencing to the sole discretion of judges got us into our reactionary mandatory minimums stance. Had there not been a widespread perception that criminals saw the justice system as nothing more than a tedious revolving door which always spilled them back out onto the streets, no matter how long their rap-sheets, Americans would have faith in their judges' abilities to serve the best interests of their communities. Judges were handed sentencing guidelines because their "discretion" often proved fallible -- and deadly.
Mandatory LWOP for Pedophiles: It is the failure of both judges and lawmakers to take seriously the heinousness of crimes against children. Parole boards also have blood on their hands. There is no excuse for allowing pedophiles to become repeat offenders, nor can there ever be any justification for releasing them once they've been convicted.
Statutory rape: I understand that when omnibus laws are enacted, particularly at the federal level, many hidden "riders" tag along. So, for instance, the Representatives from Texas might not sign a law loosely aimed at getting pedophiles off our streets unless a rider was added stipulating that no minors may have sex under any circumstances. I do see the danger; I also think that JORDAN'S ONE STRIKE LAW is poorly worded and is just vague enough to allow several unpalatable riders to hop on. I'd much prefer that it be one clearly-stated goal, similar to Megan's Law, which was passed without too much difficulty and very little "fat".
John Ashcroft's monitoring of federal judges: Yes, clearly he is attempting to intimidate them, and they're already smarting from a loss of autonomy. Personally, I think our Attorney General is a fascist of the first water, and while I find this latest proof highly offensive (and frightening) , I'm not in favor of citing this gross abuse of power as a means or reason to remove all mandatory sentencing guidelines (as the article suggests) and restore powers to judges who lost them through "discretionary abuses" of them in the past.
posted on February 4, 2004 04:51:20 PM new
OK, Pat, I have a few minutes.
I don't know much about law, first off, so questions. (See, I'd read the thesis.)
How many judges have been handing down inappropriately light sentences in specifically pedophile rape/kidnap/murder cases? Is it such a number that the legislature needs to control this through federal law, or can the judges that are using their discretion to hand down light sentences for such offenses have their judgements reviewed (an evaluation process of some sort)?
What is the average sentence for these crimes?
Is there a judicial review process for judges something on the order of surgeons? (If a certain # of people die on the table, they go before a review.)
I don't think what is happening in the case Helen posted is just, and I think quite a few laws, for example, what age does one become an adult, would have to be rewritten and rethought to ensure that that wouldn't happen.
I see exactly what CBlev says, and then I see the case Helen posted.
LWOP: What if an effective treatment proven to reduce the rate of pedophile behaviour is developed? (At present, there is no effective treatment, and pedophiles have an incredibly high rate of recidivism.)
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 4, 2004 07:45:03 PM new
Snowy, I don't know much about the law, either! My father taught Constitutional law (and was an expert witness at the Watergate Hearings, testifying about the powers of the president as defined in the Constitution -- when it was suspected by the Senate that Nixon just might can the whole show! ). He also taught environmental and administrative law, and heaps of political science. What I know about law, I learned from him. Mostly the principles upon which laws are founded. Quite honestly, he'd roll over in his grave to read some of the opinions I have because they fly in the face of reason.
Unless I do a lengthy search at FindLaw.com or some judicial oversight webspot, I won't be able to answer your questions with anything more than personal experience, so, indulge me, and read on...
Item: In the 1980's, I worked at a University. The Science Department secretary ( -a divorced mother with two young girls) was widely known to be dating an employee in Plant Operations. She found out he'd been molesting her daughters and filed charges. The man was arrested, brought to trial, and sentenced to three years in prison. He was out in less than two years and came gunning for her upon his release.
Item: I lived in an ashram for many years, as some of you know. One of the key people at the ashram was charged with raping a girl there. (Testimony was given at the time of his trial that he'd assaulted many other girls -- all of it was subsequently thrown out as "earlier/similar" and not admissable because those cases weren't in evidence. ) He plead down to statutory rape and was given a suspended sentence.
Item: When my friend Judy was told by her five-year-old daughter that "Grandpa makes me do nasty things" Judy sought an injunction forbidding her Dad to see her daughter. She was laughed -- literally -- out of court. Judy did her damnedest from then on to see to it that her father was never alone with her daughter again, but her own mother lied to her one day ( - "I won't bring Hank with me. You go ahead and do your shopping and I'll look after Mia" ) and spirited the child away on a camping odyssey with her husband. Mia was molested on that trip and Judy filed charges against both her parents, charges that included kidnapping and sexual assault on a minor. At trial, she was made the villain, the divorced single mom who drank too much and therefore obviously had no interest in the welfare of her child. Her parents were convicted on the kidnapping charge and plead down to "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" on the sexual assault charges. They were both given suspended sentences, since they had no criminal records...
Let me make a couple of points here before I go on:
1) I could probably go out tonight and rob three 7-ELEVENS without getting caught. If I never robbed another store, I'd be free and clear. No criminal record. One has to consider that most crimes do go unpunished, and that it is only those who repeatedly commit them who are eventually caught. (Unless they're incredibly inept at what they do.) When one applies this reasoning to pedophiles, the possibilities are ominous. How many children has the person harmed before? Can we really afford to say that, because an initial arrest is the first known incident, it's the only incident? Beyond that, hasn't it been sadly affirmed time and again that pedophiles don't stop?
I say, by the time our law enforcement agencies catch up with them, they've got a hidden history of abuses against children and that once we have them in custody we should never let them go.
2) I'm not terribly familiar with the judicial review process (yes, there is one, but it is as "old boy" a network as the AMA, and only the most egregious smatterings from one's bench get a judge "reprimanded" -- see "censure" heh. )
3) Drugs like Depo Provera, or even the threat of physical castration, have not proven effective, as you mentioned. A sex crime is a sex crime; many rapists can't have an erection and use other implements to violate their victims. We still have much to learn in the area of so-called "sex" crimes; are they violence-driven or gratification-driven? And who's to say what constitutes "gratification" for someone sick enough to attack a child?
4) I agree that the case Helen posted is unjust. Statutory rape cases are usually difficult to prosecute and extremely painful for the "victim". And, they're usually pled-out.
As I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, I'm well aware of the possibility of non-crime "crimes" being tacked onto a law requiring life sentences for pedophiles. I would like to think that our lawmakers would listen to an interested populace on this issue, and seek to narrow such a law so that its intended target (convicted pedophiles) would be the only ones affected by it.
5) A child is missing in Florida right now, and a nationwide alert is on to find her. How many more times do we need to hear these tragic stories of kids snatched off our streets before we stand up and say, "Enough is enough!" ? If you followed the Elizabeth Smart saga (and I know most of you did) don't just sit there typing on this iceberg of a chatboard. Write to your representatives in Washington and demand that they legislate the severest punishment for the fiends who harm our kids. Write to them every couple of weeks, asking what they've done about your concerns. I promise you, there is nothing more devastating/motivating to a politician than a voter (or a group of voters) who care -- about anything ...
Well, Snowy, it's taken me a long time to write this and I've hardly answered your questions. I'm sorry. If I'd gone into law as my Dad desired, I might be more equipped to reply to your specific concerns. Probably, though, if I'd gone that route, I wouldn't be posting here at Vendio, and I would've missed meeting you. Something my Guardian Angel just couldn't countenance, heh...
