posted
Thank you, CT. I can't read the article in the link and would appreciate the email. My address is in my profile.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think justice can ever be done in this case. The just thing would be that the child was never hurt. But that can't be undone. While I like the idea of the rapist having to pay for her counseling, I wonder how the girl and her family would feel about it. I imagine that if it was me or mine, I wouldn't want the rapist involved in our lives in any way.
Well, I agree that in as much as the act which has been done can never be undone, there can never be perfect justice. Outside of revenge, however, paying to improve the life of the girl he has so terribly wronged is the best I can come up with. I don't think he should ever be allowed within ten miles of the girl outside of a courtroom, but I think garnishing a portion of his wages as part of his parole (not that I think there's any sort of legal process in place to do so) would be something. When she passes the age of majority, she could choose if she wishes to continue to receive that money or wants it donated to a victims' organization or what have you.
quote:In my opinion, no one should go to jail simply for owning a photograph, no matter what that photograph may show. It is a matter of principle, and I take principles very seriously.
I agree with you... Sort of.
Posessing imagery of that sort might be the release for someone who isn't fulfilling their sexual preferences, and perhaps keep them from doing so. However, to *deal* in such imagery, if it is real photographic imagery (as opposed to manufactured imagery not involving real models), even if one is not an active participant in its creation, is supporting a market that brings harm to children.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's what it will do better: It will provide an additional 5940 days in which this man will not rape a child.
That's assuming this person will rape someone again if they are allowed to be free. I don't believe it is right for the government to make such an assumption, given this is the first conviction and that he seems to have a genuine desire to alter his behavior. The government (at least in a free society) does have a responsibility to protect the innocent, but it also has a responsibility to not write off its citizens without it being absolutely necessary to. Former criminals who are put "back out on the streets" quickly often do revert back to criminal ways, and this is not a good thing, but it is worth that price to avoid throwing away the lives of those who do reform themselves - for the same reason that it is better to let several guilty parties go free than to execute one innocent person. That's what a free society should be about - taking on the risk that people will harm you, in exchange for the promise that the government will intervene in your life only when absolutely necessary, not just because it feels you are high risk.
Perhaps a better punishment would be to tie the time he spends in jail to the success of his counseling program. Professionals probably can't say whether he will or will not commit the crime again, but they can probably give a better idea of when this individual has progressed enough to be considered a safe member of society. One way or another, though, I think his punishment should allow for a clear path to reform, and should not add on excessive jail time just for the sake of making this person suffer for his crimes. I'm not sure this judge picked exactly the right way to do this, but I don't think it is an outrageous sentiment to have or to use to guide sentencing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe it is right for the government to make such an assumption
I don't believe it is right for the government to NOT make such an assumption, especially when the remorse only occurs post-detection.
quote:That's what a free society should be about - taking on the risk that people will harm you, in exchange for the promise that the government will intervene in your life only when absolutely necessary, not just because it feels you are high risk.
No, a free society is about a mutual agreement not to harm others, and the understanding that when one does, the government will punish them and the perpetrator will forfeit some of the benefits of the agreement he has violated.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's what it will do better: It will provide an additional 5940 days in which this man will not rape a child.
That's assuming this person will rape someone again if they are allowed to be free.
I'm assuming no such thing! Regardless, if he's in jail, he's not raping kids.
quote:Former criminals who are put "back out on the streets" quickly often do revert back to criminal ways, and this is not a good thing, but it is worth that price to avoid throwing away the lives of those who do reform themselves - for the same reason that it is better to let several guilty parties go free than to execute one innocent person.
I could not disagree more emphatically. This is nothing like the sentiment that "it is better to let several guilty parties go free than to execute one innocent person." This guy is already known to be guilty. He has shown no remorse until it was convenient for him to do so. He made no effort to get counseling from the time this girl was seven until she was 10. The sentiment you alluded to is about not accidentally punishing the innocent. In no way is this man innocent! You are broadening that sentiment way beyond its scope.
We pay to support the government and accept some limitations on our rights because we believe that in exchange for this, it will protect our rights (and lives) better than we could individually. It is inevitable that when this contract stops being upheld on the government's side, it will break down. The price of this judgment is a little more lawlessness all around.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can't read the article in the link and would appreciate the email. My address is in my profile.
