Quote:
Originally Posted by srmom
Sometimes WAY too short as in the above mentioned case in Mass. where the guy got out after 4 years and then raped a 6 year old in a library bathroom.
|
I'm not sure how that argues for mandatory minimum sentences, though. Just based on the quote you offered earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by srmom
Quote:
The reason many convicted sex offenders go out and molest more children, say sociologists and criminologists, is similar to why alcoholics continue to drink.
“Their sexual preference is for children. They have a compulsion to molest children,” said Keith F. Durkin, a criminologist at Ohio Northern University (search) and an expert in the study of pedophilia. “Many, if not all, will molest children until the day they die. They’re dangerous and they’re going to reoffend.”
|
|
no sentence will be long enough except for a life sentence, where they are kept away from children altogether.
Say the guy you're talking about had been held for 20 rather than 4 years. While the specific 6-year-old might have been spared this horrible thing, you can't assume that the longer sentence would keep the offender from raping some other child when he finally got out.
I agree completely that the rape of or sexual assault on a child is utterly reprehensible. But I think there is some validity to the argument that mandatory minimum sentences won't address the problem -- that they are a band aid solution for a problem requiring surgery.
Threaded Mode
