Hang in there long enough and one can always find common ground. One crime of this nature and  the perpetrator should be locked up for life~ period.

AMEN!

I do feel that a child molester is the lowest of the low. I am done with the slap on the hand. I agree we should lock them up and throw away the key. Children are innocent and child molesters prey on innocent children...This just makes me sick to my stomach even thinking about it. What happen to the pervert in Las Vegas on the tape?

What state did the above example come from?

I completely agree, Alice--with one caveat.  If our government can't protect us, then we have to protect ourselves.  I'm not talking about vigilante justice or anything.  I'm just saying that we can implement some sort of neighborhood watch-type program wherein the child molesters in our neighborhoods are known to the entire community (via the Megan's Law website) and...well, watched.  The problem with the Megan's Law website, though, is that it is based on information given by the sex registrant.  Most sex registrants are required to register (and update their addresses) for life, but that only works for the ones who are already trying to follow the rules.  The really dangerous ones (repeat-offenders) aren't likely to follow the rules in the first place.  Plus, the website is only updated when the reporting law enforcement agency sends in the info to DOJ, which isn't instantaneous. 

Still, it's more than we had 10 years ago, and if neighborhoods gathered together and report on their local sex registrants if they get out of compliance (are living in a house with children or near a park, are chatting too frequently with neighborhood kids, etc) we can nip any aberrant behavior in the bud before it spirals into dangerous actions.

sagefever:  The only thing that will work with these creatures is imprisonment for life.  There is no "rehab."  Rehab is a joke perpetrated by psychologists who can make a few bucks on the premise that there is redemption for these people -- chance for real change.  There's one psychologist who has been on TV a few times, and he seems almost to have convinced himself that rehab is for real.  What a travesty.  Getting out feet first -- that's the ticket. 

Sam - that's a short agreement.  And no qualification, either?  Such as "extenuating circumstances," etc.?  Of course, there are none.  As I said to Sagefever, feet first, that's the way to go. 

timec:  A child molester is, indeed, the lowest of the low, as most of them will discover if they're ever put in general population.  One of the problems is such different laws -- I believe different laws for every state in the Union.  That's why we need to federalize the laws for child molesters/perverts/predators, etc.  Agreed:  no more slaps on the hand, although depending on the judge, that's exactly what can happen.  I believe that in many states judges can make decisions concerning sentencing, and in my opinion that's wrong.  There should be blanket laws.  The primary one should be one-strike-and-you're-out.  Children are much too precious to leave to chance. 

OldBlue56:  If you take a look at my "avatar," you'll know that the state to which I refer with respect to this particular criminal is far from sunny California.  And it's far from a description of "sunny."  For safety's sake it would be preferable for me just to say it's not California.  I appreciate your interest, however -- and I am working with my state legislators to at least create laws with some teeth in them.  Or fangs, which would be preferable. 

CatherineBaker:  Your ideas are excellent.  There are the sex offender registries, which it would be wise for people, especially those with children, to check frequently for new residents.  I have noticed that they (the offenders who register) tend to bunch together.  This is easily seen on a map.  Whether this is because the location is not near schools, etc., or whether it's a case of "birds of a feather," I don't know.  Maybe both.  If I had small children, you can be sure I'd find out.

Concerning vigilante justice, I don't know what you think of the Second Amendment, but I like it.  Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and those for whom they're responsible.  That would apply to children or even older, frail adults who may not be able to fend for themselves.  Of course, 911 is best, but in a real emergency, where seconds count, it is not for nothing that a weapon is called the great equalizer.  I would not hesitate to protect myself or any of my family if the real need arose. 

I believe, however, that law enforcement is best.  The problems of attempting to protect oneself are manifold, and one runs the risk that prosecutors may not see circumstances as seen through victims' eyes. 

If one has small children, one must be ever vigilant.  Just the slightest lapse in watchfulness can have unfortunate results.

Tell me about it, Alice.  I have a three-year-old and a five-month-old.  I get to look forward to years of nervousness.

timec:  I have heard nothing re the Las Vegas video pervert.  Just a suggestion:  Hemmer and Kelly, on a news show on Fox News, have a segment called "BYA" (Because You Asked).  Although I've never availed myself of the opportunity, it is my understanding that they dig up obscure answers to questions relating to news gone stale.  That would fit perfectly.  You might send an e-mail to them.  And you might get an answer.  Nothing ventured .....

http://www.csom.org/pubs/re... It is a complicated issue,apparently many factors contribute to repeat offenders. But one child is one child too many. 

dgrealish:  Three percent recidivism rate is startling.  I'd be interested to know how many years the potential recidivists were followed to result in this very low figure.  Also, I'd be interested to know the size of the pool studied.

I will not dispute your facts; however, as mentioned, I would have questions about the length of time used in the study. 

In addition, it is my firm belief based upon years of observation and study of the subject that the leopard cannot change its spots, and that if the opportunity arose, a child pervert would re-offend in a New York minute.  It would be good if I'm wrong. 

sagefever:  Right you are.  One child is just one child too many.  I'll check out your link. 

CatherineBaker:  Raising children today seems much more difficult than it was when I was raising my own daughter.  One felt somehow safer then, but that feeling was misplaced.  We learned, after our daughter was already grown up, that our neighbor across the street from us, who was married and had children of his own, was molesting one or two (the detail escapes me) of the neighbor's children next door to him.  It was a hideous, sickening revelation.  Of course the marriage disintegrated, and dominoes fell, as they will. 

I never knew details, nor did I wish to learn them.  The bare fact was enough.  The idea that one must suspect nearly everybody is one that in my opinion is very difficult to deal with.  One wants so badly to trust.  We thought we knew our neighbor.  We did not.

 Here's a link for Timec about the Las Vagas case http://www.boston.com/news/...

That's actually true, Alice.  I don't know the figures, but the vast majority of child molestation cases occur WITHIN the family.  Most of the rest occur with trusted friends/neighbors.  The "lurking behind the bushes" child molester is actually rare.

Sagefever:  thanks for another link. 

There was a show on TV about John Stoll two weeks ago on how he has tried to have some semblance of a life after his conviction was overturned.

CatherineBaker:  Whether they're within the family, with trusted friends/neighbors, or lurking behind the bushes, it is my wish that they could all be placed in prison where they cannot molest or murder children anymore.  They wreak havoc on children's lives for all their days.  It is impossible, I know, but I still wish we could round all of them up and send them to prison.  And it is more frightful simply because they have no horns or cloven feet or forked tongues.  They just look like -- well, just like anybody else in the neighborhood. 

Yoo're probably right, DG.  Still, in my circumstances, I have to be wary of EVERYBODY--uncles, cousins, neighbors, etc.  Who can I trust?

Uh, whatever you say, DG.

Uh, whatever you say, DG.

CatherineBaker:  I do understand your concerns.  The best thing you can arm yourself with is knowledge and information and your own instincts.  Always listen to that little voice telling you something isn't right.  You'll be fine, and you'll enjoy your family.  We can't let fear run our lives; we simply must be aware.

This is just a subject that I believe needs to be elevated to the degree of importance it truly holds, and I have determined to do what I can to change laws.  After all, the laws are ours, aren't they?

Thanks, Alice.  I don't worry about it too much, but I'm always aware.  You never know what could happen.

lanabuford:  Your opinion was my opinion for years and years.  I have since given it some more thought and concluded that locking them away for life, while too expensive to suit me, would give them time enough to think of what could have been if they hadn't been such vile creatures who set out to harm children.  There's always the punishment to be meted out by their "peers," too.  Every day would be spent in fear of what someone bigger and stronger might do to them -- perhaps something like the fear experienced by their own victims. 

Deleting reasonable rebuttals is a good way to control the flavor of your blog, ALICEN.

I've saved you the trouble by deleting the rest of my responses.

ALICEN,

I totally concur with what you are saying and agree to punishment you have indentified.  But what is the solution?  Law is.  We must vote to change the law.  In the mean time, I believe a vigilante maybe needed to go and seek these criminals and pose justice.  Now the next issue would be; Who? 

Lana, you are correct:  death is the only cure.  You'll note I said cure.  Otherwise there is no cure.  One of these criminals can be sorry for what he has done, and promise never again to do it.  However, as I said in an earlier comment that was pretty well ridiculed, a leopard cannot change its spots.  Once a child molester, always a child molester.  It does not mean, of course, that every child molester will molest again; however, if the circumstances are such that the molester can do what he does as easily as breathing, he will do it.  

I can't understand women who live with these people, either.  And, while it could be that a woman is ignorant of what may be going on under her own roof, at least temporarily, it's difficult for me to believe that the ignorance is continued indefinitely.  And there have to be changes in the child or children, too, that should be like flags to a watchful mother. 

Also, forgiveness is the baliwick of the victim.  Forgiveness cannot be drummed into victims by outsiders.  Forgiveness is a personal thing between her, her God and her attacker, rather than by some interested bystander, no matter how interested he or she may be. 

I do resist the idea of a molester being anywhere except in general population.  If they cannot make it in general population, well, isn't that just too bad?  I also resent the idea of educating these creatures.  For what?  If they're in prison for the rest of their miserable lives as they should be, they have no need of a further education. 

I am as vehement about this as you.  Judges too often seem to take a rather lackadaisical attitude toward these criminals, and that bothers me a lot.  Parole in particular bothers me, and I always take the position that the criminal needs to be put in the care, under the watchful eye, of the judge, his or her spouse, if any, and any children he or she may have.  They do have better sense than that, however.  They may be stupid, but they are not that stupid. 

galvander:  The laws need to be changed.  Absolutely.  In the meantime, it seems a good time to work on the lawmakers.  Not with force.  That won't do.  The Second Amendment should be put into play for protection, not vigilantism.  

alice, maybe the judges follow the laws when they sentence certain people. They have to be impartial, not blinded by hatred.

OldB:  Letting a child murderer off on parole with just an ankle bracelet is hardly what I'd call impartial.  Perhaps blinded by empathy?  Letting any murderer off on parole with just an ankle bracelet is hardly what I'd call impartial.  Blinded by stupidity, perhaps?  Or just blind?  Justice should be blind; the judge shouldn't.

Yes alice, please give some details. Then maybe your comments will make more sense.

When and where did this happen? What was the relationship between the suspect and the child? How old were they? Why was the murder committed? How was the murder committed? What was the offenders sentence?

Thanks OB, I asked the same thing, but she keeps deleting my posts.  Don't be too reasonable, she will delete you too.

Calm down lana. I would like to know the details about the crime to better understand what happened.

And you think that if a 17 year old male, who has been in and out of juvenile correctional facilities for years and is now serving a life sentence in a state adult prison for 1st degree murder, is a "child?" 

And you can be a convicted child molester without rape even being involved.

If a 19 year old sleeps with (rapes) a 17 year old should they be killed as well?

I guess the reason they are kepted around is the law does not allow the death penalty for sex crimes. Now if we lived in an uncivilized nation, where anyone could do whatever they wanted, I might entertain your suggestion. But that's not the case.

If a 19 year old woman sleeps with(rapes) a 17 year old boy, should she be killed, too? Btw, I believe sexual consent is at 16 years of age in Indiana. In theory, one could be facing serious jail time if they happen to have sex within the wrong borders and be doing something legal in another state.

jfrancais, perhaps that's the law that should be changed.  Lower the age of consent to 16 and the number of sex offenders would reduce considerably. 

I was remembering a case -- and I think it was in Minnesota -- where a short little creep (an adult) raped a child under 10 years of age.  He did not murder her.  That is, he left her living.  While the little creep was tried and found guilty of the crime, the judge decided he was too short for prison and probably wouldn't make it in there.  Therefore she (the judge) put the little creep on parole, but the poor little thing was going to have to wear an ankle bracelet. 

There was enormous flak over this case, and it was so well known and so talked about, and it enraged so many people (rightly so, I might add). 

Many asked the question if there were a minimum height for prison.  One of my own questions was whether anyone asked how tall the victim was, and if there were a minimum height to be victimized.  I decided the minimum height to be a child rape victim was about 7'4" for a 3-year-old, decreasing by about a quarter of an inch or so for every year until the age of around 18. 

I also wondered if the judge would take the little creep in and let him stay with her.  After all, he was short.  I also wondered if she would worry over the chafing of the ankle bracelet on the little creep's ankle and would rub it with lotion to cut down on any discomfort he might experience.  Tea and sympathy and crumpets -- that's what he needed!

I have not followed up on this case and have heard nothing of it.  It could be that the judge was thrown out for lack of any measurable brain matter whatsoever, and it could be that the sentence was overturned and the little creep was thrown in prison where he would have to take his chances with people taller than himself.  Could anyone see the justice in that? 

It could be that the little creep is dead.  I have no idea. 

So, it was not murder I remembered; it was simply, simply, the rape of a child under 10 by an adult male who should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, given a fair trial and, if it had been back in the days of the Wild West, hanged by the neck until dead. 

I am not advocating hanging by the neck until dead.  That's too good for these cretins.  Now, that judge?  That may be a different matter altogether. 

Lana -- It will take a lot of people who can get angry enough about this matter to make changes in the laws -- and I still believe the laws should be consistent, and they should be federal -- not a mishmash of a bunch of different state laws.  Get the phone number of your state senator and representative, or find out the address, do the same with your U.S. representative and senators, and start writing letters.  Write letters to the editor, continue to blog or comment, and one day you may begin to see a turning in the tide from coddling these cretins to actually meting out justice to them.  (Hope springs eternal.)  As you can see, this subject captures the attention of a lot of people.  The same would hold true for your elected officials.  Good luck. 

'Concerned citizen':  "Yes, Mr. Senator could you please introduce a bill that kills all sexual offenders?"

Senator: "Umm...I'll see what I can do" (leans over to secretary) "Quit giving me these stupid letters/phone calls! I have real work to do like getting reelected".

Lana - There's one point I forgot to make.  That is that it's impossible to have a civil "conversation" with some persons who frequent the blog "pages."  I try very hard to be civil and polite to everyone, but sometimes it is with the greatest difficulty. 

Not everyone looks at what is said under "Leave a Comment."  It clearly states "No profanity or personal attacks.  Please comment on the subject of the post itself....Please keep it civil."  Many ignore that altogether, thinking, one imagines, that it doesn't apply to them.