Are you suggesting castration?

Now, that would be a draconian punishment;) totally kidding, so don't jump on me!

Am I mistaken? I thought that once you were convicted of a felony, you lost the right to vote, so this would be moot.

Just checked, it's a state by state thing. In Illinois, you are disenfranchised until after your incarceration is over, then you regain the right to vote in the state.

Interesting what can be learned by googling (for an old lady, who used to have to do research in the library with a card catalog and the dewey decimal system, it is downright amazing:) Sorry for the diversion, but it is CRAZY what these computers will do!!!;))

He's a defense attorney. This doesn't necessarily conflict with the law or professional ethics, just personal ethics. If he goes too far, the prosecution can "object."

His personal opinion and morals are distinct from his job.

Interesting discussion. I now see the point Rep. Fagan was trying to make. Thank you to those of you who helped clarify it.

I'm curious, though, why most of the men posting in this thread seem so determined to hammer home this idea of the "invented" victim.

Yes, child abuse cases, as well as rape cases involving adults, are often hard to prove. Child rape cases, however, are far more clear and less likely to be invented.



But he would have had 16 years of fewer opportunities and victims.

I don't mean this in a dick way, but you missed his point entirely.

The point is more likely that if recidivism is such a problem, then locking them up for a mandatory 20 year sentence doesn't SOLVE that problem - in effect, a mandatory sentence is a cop out, because they'll still afterward. Regardless of whether you side with theories of prisons as rehabilitative devices or punitive devices, this mandatory sentence serves neither purpose effectively if the guy relapses afterward.

Viewed in that light, it becomes a quandary - do you lock everyone up for an extended and mandatory period of time, even though some won't perform the act again, and the ones who do won't be fixed (effectively solving nothing but literally "buying time")? Or do you leave it to the judicial system's authority, allowing a few egregious mistakes as noted in this thread?

The answer isn't mandatory sentencing, it's figuring out a better way to diagnose and classify defenders and prevent them from relapsing - and that way is NOT "living >2,000 feet from a church or school"

It's probably mostly men because for whatever reason, men are more likely to be defense attorneys. Men are also more likely to be accused of a sex crime.

Really? What are you basing that on? Read this article (scroll down to the "scandal" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan,_Minnesota

This one is interesting too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clevela..._abuse_scandal

Children are HIGHLY suggestible.

Yeah, it's state by state and also depends on the offense. Jessica's Law in some states is messing this up pretty badly with the sex offenders. In Massachusetts I believe you can vote as soon as you've exited prison - so including time you're on probation and parole.

I don't mean this in a bitchy way, but I think you missed my point entirely.

I wasn't suggesting that mandatory sentences solve the problem. I'm actually not in favor or mandatory sentences at all.

Way to avoid the main point of my post though. My comment to MC was just an afterthought.


18 years of study plus some common sense.

The Jordan article actually does not deal with rape at all (which is the topic of this thread and the topic of my post.) Rape and molestation, within this context, are not one and the same.

All I said was simply that child rape is easier to prove than molestation and other types of abuse. Why? Due to the difference between rape and other types of abuse some very obvious physical evidence makes it easier to prove. Do I really have to spell it out in graphic detail?

Yes, children are highly suggestible. I am NOT in any way suggesting that false accusations do not occur.


** Points that will inevitibly be ignored or twisted are in bold.

You are being an extreme bitch. What field do you study this in? I worked in the county where the Jordan issues occurred (obviously much later because in 1984 I was kind of busy learning how to crawl) and people were saying "My daddy raped me!" right along with "Random dude down the street who dresses in black touches my naughty bits. This all turned out to be FALSE. There's a book called Nightmares and Secrets by Tom Dubbe that's on the same issue if you'd like to read more about it, but one would think that somewhere in your 18 years of study plus common sense you would have already heard about this. You might also want to look further into the Cleveland scandal.

OK - then what was your point?

Ditto, because not meaning to be dense about it, but I read your comment the same way KSig RC did, and I'm not really seeing any other way to read it.

I do, however, see your point about the physical injuries that often would be associated with the rape of a child making such cases a little more clear cut than sexual assault or molestation cases.

Wow, where'd that come from? Yikes:confused:

This is an interesting discussion and can be done without any namecalling.

Besides, I think she was referencing Ksig's assertion - not to be a d**k about this, but...

She wasn't directing anything at Geeky Penguin (funny name:p).

Back to the discussion.

I don't know if mandatory sentencing is right or wrong. What I do feel is that getting and keeping known molestors off the streets, so that they cannot hurt another child, even if it is only for X number of years, will affect the kids who could have been the victims during that period.

I bet if you asked the mom of the 6 year old who was raped in the library if she wished the rapist had been in prison that day, she'd say an extremely emotional, "YES".

I wish there was a switch that could be flipped in the mind of a pedophile to turn the urges off (I bet they, in their hearts, wish there was a switch too), but until they figure it out, taking them out of the community is the only way to keep potential victims safe.

I'll be the completely cynical b*tch here and note that if the mother of that 6-year-old had been paying attention to and keeping track of her very young child in a large public library rather than being completely absorbed on the library's free computers, perhaps her child would not have been so accessible and vulnerable to that monster. Just saying.

Not sure what you're implying here...but, at least from my point of view, the discussion seemed to be turning towards a "guilty until proven innocent" angle, which I think is an extremely dangerous way to proceed, no matter what the accusation. We do live in a society where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, which people seem to forget when heinous crimes are involved.

Also, it seemed from your previous posts that you were for mandatory sentences. If not that, then what would be your solution to the issue? Tougher probation guidelines? More post-release programs?

Also, can you cite any literature/etc. on why child rape cases would be easier to prove than other rapes? I mean, maybe the statement makes sense on its own for someone more familiar with studying such things, but I'd never heard that before.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that mindset is what drives prosecutors, sometimes, to put anyone in jail, to get some closure. I don't have the exact numbers, and I know that's not how it always turns out, but it happens.

Hey, I totally get what your saying!! I don't think my kids went into a potty alone until they finally said, "MOM, I cannot go in the ladies room!!!" At that point, I walked them to the men's room and then waited outside the door, periodically cracking it and yelling, "Hey, what's taking you so long?" I'm sure that alarmed the men standing at the urinals!

But, still, the guy is a pedophile and if it hadn't been that boy, it would be someone else.

Sorry, but our court system isn't about emotion...which is the point here. You CANNOT just say that everyone accused in a sex crime case is guilty until proven innocent - this idea is prevalent in our society nowadays and is the reason why many young men every year are accused of rape by women who simply had the "next day regrets". Are you aware that this sort of idea can ruin someone's life forever?

I bet you would change your tune here if it was YOUR son or daughter being accused of rape or child molestation. In that case, I'm sure you would completely agree that he or she is innocent until proven guilty. Why not these other people?


This is where the big decision comes in - what is more important? Keeping an innocent man out of jail or letting a guilty man go free? I personally think that keeping an innocent man out of jail is what is most important. If a man is really guilty, he will commit a crime again...and he won't get away with it a second time. But in my opinion, to ruin an innocent person's life is a heinous crime in itself.