After watching the Garrido case unfold in Antioch, CA this past week, I am struck by how we could prevent many such sexual crimes by recidivist criminals by making rape and other such monstrous acts capital crimes once again. After the first kidnapping and rape of that woman decades ago in Reno, NV, this particular case would never have happened if Garrido had been hung at dawn the following morning after his conviction until he was dead, dead, dead.
Judge Roy Bean would have approved.
We grown too soft on criminals in this country. And now that the budget crisis is in full bloom we are thinking of releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets, many of whom will commit crimes almost immediately upon freedom.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Is it time we made sex crimes a capital offense once again?
Is it time we made sex crimes a capital offense once again?Follow
Totem wrote:
I am struck by how we could prevent many such sexual crimes by recidivist criminals by making rape and other such monstrous acts capital crimes once again.
Or we'd raise the burden of evidence so high by making sex crime punishable by death that guilty criminals would squeak out a "not guilty" verdict by juries unwilling to sentence death based on the available evidence.
So I guess it'd be win-win for both you and the rapists!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Or... and this is my personal favorite... we'd send the message to rapists that they'd better kill the ***** too.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Why not just kill everyone and invade Poland?
Quote:
We grown too soft on criminals in this country. And now that the budget crisis is in full bloom we are thinking of releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets, many of whom will commit crimes almost immediately upon freedom
How about we use convicts for our military force. It's cheaper than jail, even if we pay them. Good plan, right?
Edited, Sep 4th 2009 3:11pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Totem wrote:
After watching the Garrido case unfold in Antioch, CA this past week, I am struck by how we could prevent many such sexual crimes by recidivist criminals by making rape and other such monstrous acts capital crimes once again. After the first kidnapping and rape of that woman decades ago in Reno, NV, this particular case would never have happened if Garrido had been hung at dawn the following morning after his conviction until he was dead, dead, dead.
Judge Roy Bean would have approved.
We grown too soft on criminals in this country. And now that the budget crisis is in full bloom we are thinking of releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets, many of whom will commit crimes almost immediately upon freedom.
Totem
Judge Roy Bean would have approved.
We grown too soft on criminals in this country. And now that the budget crisis is in full bloom we are thinking of releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets, many of whom will commit crimes almost immediately upon freedom.
Totem
Personally, if it can be proven without doubt, I say cut off his dangly bits . It's often hard to prove something without doubt though (this case seems pretty cut and dried- although what do you then do with Garridos wife, who was in on the act too!).
Quote:
Personally, if it can be proven without doubt, I say cut off his dangly bits . It's often hard to prove something without doubt though (this case seems pretty cut and dried- although what do you then do with Garridos wife, who was in on the act too!).
Well, again, if it's a choice between killing some woman he just raped or potentially being castrated, the average rapist probably isn't going to hesitate to do away with the witness. So depending on what our goal is, draconian punishments are not necessarily more effective.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Personally, if it can be proven without doubt, I say cut off his dangly bits . It's often hard to prove something without doubt though (this case seems pretty cut and dried- although what do you then do with Garridos wife, who was in on the act too!).
Well, again, if it's a choice between killing some woman he just raped or potentially being castrated, the average rapist probably isn't going to hesitate to do away with the witness. So depending on what our goal is, draconian punishments are not necessarily more effective.
I'm pretty much an eye for an eye kind of person, so if it could be proven he killed her, then sure, snuff him. Save a fortune on the annual prison spending. My logic only works in cases where there is no doubt - for example, witnesses or evidence that can't be disputed.
I think prison in general is too cushy (In the UK, I don't know much about USA prisons). Why should people who are a menace to society have free TV, while I have to pay for a TV licence every year . Why should they have access to a gym, while I can't afford to join one, so instead excerise merely by running, walking, or the occasional drunken weightlifting with baked bean cans .
Why should they have access to free education, when I, a busy mother, have to turn down a college place because I simply can't afford the travel costs and additional childcare costs.
In the UK, we've actually had people admit to re-offending so they could get back into prison where life was easier. At least in the UK, something needs to be done to make prison a truly awful place to be, as it stands, it's really not much of a deterrent.
I don't know much about prisons in the states . From what I've seen on some TV programmes, they seem to be a lot more basic, and a lot tougher.
Yeah, you're missing the point but I suspect you don't care.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Yeah, you're missing the point but I suspect you don't care.
Actually, I think you misunderstand my point . IF when Garrido was previously jailed, prison had been a lot tougher on him, he might have been deterred from his latest activities . Hell, ' 'Garrido was sentenced to up to 50 years in federal prison and received a concurrent 5 to life term on state charges.'
If you'd slapped him with the full 50 years, and stuck to it, he wouldn't have been able to do this to his daughter, or to father those children with her . He'd probably have died in prison, and that would be no bad thing .
Tougher prisons and tougher sentances could have very easily prevented this .
Okay, if he hadn't been paroled early (and I have no idea how he was, in fact), he couldn't have committed this crime.
What does that have to do with capital punishment for rapists?
What does that have to do with capital punishment for rapists?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The Death Penalty just isn't a deterrant like it's supposed to be. That's the main problem with it, aside from any moral objection. I'm not necessarily against the Death Penalty in and of itself, especially for really heinous crimes, but it just doesn't deter murder, so there's probably no point in having it. It's also more costly, so from a pragmatic point of view, I'm against it; it costs me more money and doesn't do what it's supposed to, so why have it?
fatalillusiontw wrote:
IF when Garrido was previously jailed, prison had been a lot tougher on him, he might have been deterred from his latest activities .
Please elaborate on what the prison could have or should have done to "deter him" from sex crimes. Remember that you are within budget constraints.
CBD wrote:
fatalillusiontw wrote:
IF when Garrido was previously jailed, prison had been a lot tougher on him, he might have been deterred from his latest activities .
Please elaborate on what the prison could have or should have done to "deter him" from sex crimes. Remember that you are within budget constraints.
He would still have been locked up. Granted, he could have committed rape in prison; but no one cares about that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
CBD wrote:
fatalillusiontw wrote:
IF when Garrido was previously jailed, prison had been a lot tougher on him, he might have been deterred from his latest activities .
Please elaborate on what the prison could have or should have done to "deter him" from sex crimes. Remember that you are within budget constraints.
As I've already admitted, I don't know an awful lot about prisons in the USA, and so , regarding prison toughness, the only firm knowledge I have is from the UK side . Regarding my comments about UK prisons, here is an article that illustrates my point . I've already admitted that my viewpoint on USA prisonsis not particularly well informed
From all I have seen of prisons in the USA, they are much tougher than in the UK, but with so many people re-offending, they cannot be said to be an effective deterrant (I probably spelt that wrong, I'm not sure) . Sure, furnishing are a deal more practical and a great deal less comfortable.The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 . I also know that 97% of all inmates are in prison for non violent crimes.
Clearly, the dangerous prisoners are drastically in the minority - so why would it not make more sense to give them longer sentances, and offer the petty offenders avenues other than prison to improve their lives and make the most of themselves . By not feeding and housing these non violent inmates, and instead making them attend compulsory counselling/probation appointments, your country could save a huge amount, and keep the criminals that ARE a danger under lock and key for a much longer time period .
After reading purely the title and no details whatsoever: No, it is not time.
After reading the details: No, it is not time.
Your answer is to take away the stuff that criminals have rather than make things like education free for all, as they should be anyway?
Edited, Sep 4th 2009 5:50pm by Pensive
After reading the details: No, it is not time.
fatalillusion wrote:
Why should they have access to free education, when I, a busy mother, have to turn down a college place because I simply can't afford the travel costs and additional childcare costs.
Your answer is to take away the stuff that criminals have rather than make things like education free for all, as they should be anyway?
Edited, Sep 4th 2009 5:50pm by Pensive
Samira wrote:
He would still have been locked up. Granted, he could have committed rape in prison; but no one cares about that.
Right, but that's more of a preventive tool than a deterrent. It'll stop any sexual offender for as long as they are in jail, but it doesn't really address any future problems.
fatalillusiontw wrote:
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 . I also know that 97% of all inmates are in prison for non violent crimes.
I'd like to see a cite on that second number. It's not completely unbelievable, but it seems a little extreme. I also believe (I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that the majority of inmates come from harsh drug enforcement laws. Not sure on that.
Quote:
Actually, I think you misunderstand my point . IF when Garrido was previously jailed, prison had been a lot tougher on him, he might have been deterred from his latest activities . Hell, ' 'Garrido was sentenced to up to 50 years in federal prison and received a concurrent 5 to life term on state charges.'
If you'd slapped him with the full 50 years, and stuck to it, he wouldn't have been able to do this to his daughter, or to father those children with her . He'd probably have died in prison, and that would be no bad thing .
Tougher prisons and tougher sentances could have very easily prevented this .
If you'd slapped him with the full 50 years, and stuck to it, he wouldn't have been able to do this to his daughter, or to father those children with her . He'd probably have died in prison, and that would be no bad thing .
Tougher prisons and tougher sentances could have very easily prevented this .
Longer, tougher sentences might serve as a better deterrent - although deterrents aren't especially useful at deterring hot blooded crime - but they're also likely to make it harder for criminals to readjust to the outside world, which also makes them more likely to re-offend.
Quote:
Clearly, the dangerous prisoners are drastically in the minority - so why would it not make more sense to give them longer sentances, and offer the petty offenders avenues other than prison to improve their lives and make the most of themselves . By not feeding and housing these non violent inmates, and instead making them attend compulsory counselling/probation appointments, your country could save a huge amount, and keep the criminals that ARE a danger under lock and key for a much longer time period .
All violent crime, huh? I think there's a big difference between punching someone and rape. Or GBH, come to that.
CBD wrote:
fatalillusiontw wrote:
The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 738 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 . I also know that 97% of all inmates are in prison for non violent crimes.
I'd like to see a cite on that second number. It's not completely unbelievable, but it seems a little extreme. I also believe (I'm too lazy to look it up right now) that the majority of inmates come from harsh drug enforcement laws. Not sure on that.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf
Appendix table 12.
Number of sentenced prisoners in federal prison,
by most serious offense, 2000, 2006, and 2007
2007 total sentenced: 179,204
2007 violent criminals: 15,647
The percent of non-violent prison sentences is actually around 92% rounded up, but that number only includes people in federal jurisdiction. If you look at the total numbers for state jurisdiction (appendix 10 and 11), we arrive at 53% detained for violent offenses - a significant jump.
Edit: Also, if you look at the very first page, the imprisonment rate as of 2007 is actually 506 for every 100,000, not 738. Fatal needs to stop parroting numbers she's heard from third parties.
Edited, Sep 4th 2009 7:50pm by BrownDuck
Edited, Sep 4th 2009 7:53pm by BrownDuck
I'm more of the mind that the process of multiple appeals, injunctions, and counter lawsuits to foul up and slow the entire judicial system down is messed up. For instance, frivolous lawsuits should incur a substantial penalty to the person suing. Or if you plead not guilty but are found guilty it costs you more in either money, time, or conditions in prison.
Capital cases should have a year and then the punishment should be carried out on day #366.
Streamline the process, increase the number of capital cases, exchange the minor prison sentences for canings ala Singapore.
Boom, justice is done.
Totem
Capital cases should have a year and then the punishment should be carried out on day #366.
Streamline the process, increase the number of capital cases, exchange the minor prison sentences for canings ala Singapore.
Boom, justice is done.
Totem
Totem wrote:
Or if you plead not guilty but are found guilty it costs you more in either money, time, or conditions in prison.
Isn't that the way it usually is though? When you plead guilty, aren't you usually making a deal with the prosecution?
(in before lolTNTLawDegree)
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
If I remember correctly, it's still a capital crime in Texas if it's a second offence and the victim(s) were under 14.
Now, what we need to ask ourselves is should we really be using Texas as our model?
I swear. Sometimes I think you're a time traveler from the 19th century. Your opinions on justice often seem to skip over about a century of judicial development.
Edited, Sep 5th 2009 3:10am by zepoodle
Now, what we need to ask ourselves is should we really be using Texas as our model?
Totem wrote:
I'm more of the mind that the process of multiple appeals, injunctions, and counter lawsuits to foul up and slow the entire judicial system down is messed up. For instance, frivolous lawsuits should incur a substantial penalty to the person suing. Or if you plead not guilty but are found guilty it costs you more in either money, time, or conditions in prison.
Capital cases should have a year and then the punishment should be carried out on day #366.
Streamline the process, increase the number of capital cases, exchange the minor prison sentences for canings ala Singapore.
Boom, justice is done.
Capital cases should have a year and then the punishment should be carried out on day #366.
Streamline the process, increase the number of capital cases, exchange the minor prison sentences for canings ala Singapore.
Boom, justice is done.
I swear. Sometimes I think you're a time traveler from the 19th century. Your opinions on justice often seem to skip over about a century of judicial development.
Edited, Sep 5th 2009 3:10am by zepoodle
Quote:
Boom, justice is done raped, hard and unendingly.
The fact that we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the industrialized world is not enough for many people. Maybe we should put our thinking caps together and realize that our solutions involving jailing more and more people and practicing capital punishment is ineffective, though it does make the reactive asshole feel better.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Totem wrote:
Capital cases should have a year and then the punishment should be carried out on day #366.
Given the potential for error and the stakes involved, capital cases should be the most exhaustive of all cases taking however long they need to take.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
we are thinking of releasing thousands of criminals onto the streets, many of whom will commit crimes almost immediately upon freedom.
Totem
Totem
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Recent Visitors: 333
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (333)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Is it time we made sex crimes a capital offense once again?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC