Moderators dtel's wife Posted March 1, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 1, 2007 Child abusers get special treatment in prison! Not "special" enough. I can think of some pretty mean things to punish child molesters and being raped daily is probably one of the nicest that come to my mind. No matter what the manner of rape is...it's still too good for a child molester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me Loves Khorns Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.4knee Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 First the Principal who did this defies any thought process I can recognize. Now regarding child molestors. Send them to Ad Seg in a max security prison with a tattoo on their forhead that says I _____ kids. yep that'll do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 First the Principal who did this defies any thought process I can recognize. Now regarding child molestors. Send them to Ad Seg in a max security prison with a tattoo on their forhead that says I _____ kids. yep that'll do it. Solving the principal's thought process is simple, and can be summed up with a single word, Greed "$$$$". Understanding how his mind works would be a whole other subject. But you can bet someone out there will feel sorry for him and blame it on his upbringing, and want to give him a 2nd chance. But that same person wont want to give him a 2nd chance in their neighborhood.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Relative to other countries, prison in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US is a joke. No, I'm not saying it's the Hilton Head, but relative to the way other countries incarcerate and treat their dregs, the justice system in this country is way too soft on hard core criminals. What's your opinion on this subject Travis? What did your professors say? Did you ever have a professor say something profound and logical that stuck in your head . I hope this does not offend you Travis, but IMHO, I think there far too many lawyers in positions of making laws, and far too few people with logical minds. During my first engineering ethics course (had two total, but only 1 required), my professor, who was a Civil Engineering PHD with 10yrs+ experience, changed careers and got his JD. I shall never forget him, Dr. William Salomone. He made a statement (many actually) that has never left my mind, and has always left me in awe. He said that GREATER than 95% of the WORLDS attorneys are right here in the US. I did not question this, and I believe him to be a very good man. His classes were always the first to get filled, and it was with good reason. Dr. Salomone's course was also the reason I perused an additional ethic's course. The 2nd. course emphasizing on Mediation as a means to resolve construction disputes. Dr. Salomone authored and has written a few books. A favorite of mine was a book titled "Earth and It's People, How Can We Prosper", in his book he slams vice president Al Gore and his BS ideas on Global Warming repeatedly. He literally rips Al Gore to shreds with undeniable logic and fact, showing ole Al for the opportunistic assshole that he is. He was one of the handful of professors that I can honestly say, I loved that man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 some further details to the original story http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/03/john_accera_is.html EPA what's next for Al Gore, maybe http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1623952.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 It's no worse than the Cocaine Glut of the 80's...........every where you turned Coke......Gold razor blades, rolled up 100 bills, couldn't buy pot, but Coke every where.............Did you think those Lines in the Mirror that the Eagles sang about were wrinkles ???? NOT...................... At college coke is the new weed..... Although I do not do drugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul now now...... Remember the laws in america are made to protect the minorities against the majority and vice versa..... The laws are there to protect everyone equally in case one day that you may be arrested. It is a slippery slope if we allow a certain group to be punished much more then what the law states.... It wouldn't be nice to allow the police to beat you up for say a traffic violation as it would not be fair for someone to be killed because the wardened allowed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted March 2, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 2, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul now now...... Remember the laws in america are made to protect the minorities against the majority and vice versa..... The laws are there to protect everyone equally in case one day that you may be arrested. It is a slippery slope if we allow a certain group to be punished much more then what the law states.... It wouldn't be nice to allow the police to beat you up for say a traffic violation as it would not be fair for someone to be killed because the wardened allowed it. That right there is funny...I don't care who you are! Jay, you can't possibly be serious?[*-)] If so, I am sadly disappointed in you, not that my opinion matters.[:S] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted March 2, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 2, 2007 some further details to the original story http://willdo.philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/2007/03/john_accera_is.html I wonder if his sexual preferences were limited to mature men? If in fact, it does include young boys maybe you now get the point about "prison happenings" being to good for child molesters? I am sorry, if there is undisputable evidence of the crime of molestation there are very few options. Even if his sexual preferences do not include young boys he's still a perverted idiot for selling this **ap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul now now...... Remember the laws in america are made to protect the minorities against the majority and vice versa..... The laws are there to protect everyone equally in case one day that you may be arrested. It is a slippery slope if we allow a certain group to be punished much more then what the law states.... It wouldn't be nice to allow the police to beat you up for say a traffic violation as it would not be fair for someone to be killed because the wardened allowed it. That right there is funny...I don't care who you are! Jay, you can't possibly be serious?[*-)] If so, I am sadly disappointed in you, not that my opinion matters.[:S] Its how the laws should work. It just doesn't work like that all the time. Christie, I think it would be better if I just umm err rather speak in person maybe at Indy as opposed to typing here as I usually get flamed for speaking about how the system and laws in America work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 That right there is funny...I don't care who you are! Jay, you can't possibly be serious?[*-)] If so, I am sadly disappointed in you, not that my opinion matters.[:S] Calm down there, you have to put things into there proper perspective. . . This is Shinola... and you know how the rest of the saying goes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted March 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2007 Gilbert, believe it or not...this is calm for me when it comes to this subject. However, I did enjoy your last post immensely, made me stop and think "some people just aint right". Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted March 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul now now...... Remember the laws in america are made to protect the minorities against the majority and vice versa..... The laws are there to protect everyone equally in case one day that you may be arrested. It is a slippery slope if we allow a certain group to be punished much more then what the law states.... It wouldn't be nice to allow the police to beat you up for say a traffic violation as it would not be fair for someone to be killed because the wardened allowed it. What Jay has said, in large part, is true. It is painted with some broad strokes, but this is our constitutional foundation. Criminal law is, in large part, is constitutionaly based, and it is has to work from top to bottom. In other words, the same protections, defenses, rules have to apply to a charge whether it is possession of marijuana, distribution of cocaine, murder, or even sexual assault of a child. The same works for punishment, someone who goes to prison for child molestation has the same right to be free from "Cruel and unusual punishment" as someone convicted of Possession of Marijuana, or bank fraud, or not paying taxes. It is up to the legislature to establish punishment ranges, minimum terms, etc., which is a matter of policy. If you think child molesters in your state have it too easy then that is not the fault of the "criminal justice system" then that is your legislators' fault . A man a lot more eloquent and smarter then me once said: "The true measure of a civilized society is how it treats people accused of crimes." - Winston Churchill I believe that the same can be said oh how a society treats people convicted of crimes. (I am not making any comment one way or the other on the death penalty, I am not even going there). Travis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 slippery slope indeed Court Won't Review 200-year Sentence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel's wife Posted March 3, 2007 Moderators Share Posted March 3, 2007 slippery slope indeed Court Won't Review 200-year Sentence "The jury heard testimony that Berger had downloaded child pornography on his computer from 1996 to 2002. He was convicted on 20 separate counts. The trial judge gave him the required minimum sentence of 200 years in prison -- 10 years for each count -- and rejected the prosecutor's request for a 340-year sentence." "at the time of his arrest.....2002 was a married, 52-year-old high school teacher with no prior criminal record" From the article cited above. IMO, that says it all. It wasn't a one time thing...he had daily contact with children....multiple counts...conviction on each count..200 years... Sorry to see the judge didn't see eye to eye with the prosecutor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Unfortunately, most child rapists are put in protective isolation in jail. Absolutely not fair. The child they messed with did not get the benefit of protective isolation. I say put them in general population. Make sure the really bad dudes know exactly what they did. They have daughters too. This would thin out the jail population, save taxpayers money for trials, etc. Paul now now...... Remember the laws in america are made to protect the minorities against the majority and vice versa..... The laws are there to protect everyone equally in case one day that you may be arrested. It is a slippery slope if we allow a certain group to be punished much more then what the law states.... It wouldn't be nice to allow the police to beat you up for say a traffic violation as it would not be fair for someone to be killed because the wardened allowed it. What Jay has said, in large part, is true. It is painted with some broad strokes, but this is our constitutional foundation. Criminal law is, in large part, is constitutionaly based, and it is has to work from top to bottom. In other words, the same protections, defenses, rules have to apply to a charge whether it is possession of marijuana, distribution of cocaine, murder, or even sexual assault of a child. The same works for punishment, someone who goes to prison for child molestation has the same right to be free from "Cruel and unusual punishment" as someone convicted of Possession of Marijuana, or bank fraud, or not paying taxes. It is up to the legislature to establish punishment ranges, minimum terms, etc., which is a matter of policy. If you think child molesters in your state have it too easy then that is not the fault of the "criminal justice system" then that is your legislators' fault . A man a lot more eloquent and smarter then me once said: "The true measure of a civilized society is how it treats people accused of crimes." - Winston Churchill I believe that the same can be said oh how a society treats people convicted of crimes. (I am not making any comment one way or the other on the death penalty, I am not even going there). Travis Thanks DWILawyer.... I wanted not to feel alone.... I was going to say that DWILawyer was going to go with me on this one..... Atleast I guess my college education is worth the money?..... But anyways, Christy I did not mean to say bad on anything. Hey if the guy is guilty let a jury of his/her peers convict or admonish his crime. Also what DWI Lawyer said with the legislature is wholely true... If you want to law to change to sentence a pedophile or even a drug offender, elect or write to your congressman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sputnik Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 slippery slope indeed Court Won't Review 200-year Sentence "The jury heard testimony that Berger had downloaded child pornography on his computer from 1996 to 2002. He was convicted on 20 separate counts. The trial judge gave him the required minimum sentence of 200 years in prison -- 10 years for each count -- and rejected the prosecutor's request for a 340-year sentence." "at the time of his arrest.....2002 was a married, 52-year-old high school teacher with no prior criminal record" From the article cited above. IMO, that says it all. It wasn't a one time thing...he had daily contact with children....multiple counts...conviction on each count..200 years... Sorry to see the judge didn't see eye to eye with the prosecutor. That is truely unf_ckingbelievable! The guy would have received a lighter sentence had he actually raped a child. Looks like what he did was download the worst kind of dirty pictures on his computer and the legal system was used not to administer proportional justice but to allow society to express moral outrage and enforce a draconian law. In a free society, should the government have the power to destroy someone's life just because their behavior makes us feel icky? Certainly, these were terrible and sickening images of young children victimized in sex acts with adults and other children and even bestiality, but the guy did not produce, purchase, or distribute the images. He had no contact with the victims. He had no criminal record. It sounds like it even wouldn't matter if the pictures were 100 years old and the victims had died before the guy was born - it was about the possesion of these images. He is obviously a twisted freak but he did no direct harm and yet he's senteced to live out the rest of his life and die in prison. Apparently, the scum that produced the porn got lighter sentences. He only downloaded the images on his computer in the privacy of his own home. Shouldn't this worry any good conservative or libertarian concerned about overreaching government power? I could support removing him from his job and even tracking him as a sex offender because his behavior indicates that he is a potential threat to children but this sentence and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case should scare anyone who cares about civil liberty and justice. Here is an insightful view of the case that I found. http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/207 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/207''>http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/207' mce_href="http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/207"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay481985 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I am very scared Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipsch Employees Trey Cannon Posted March 9, 2007 Klipsch Employees Share Posted March 9, 2007 I deleted this until I had time to change the subject name. DON'T USE NAMES LIKE WERE USE HERE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The inability of a system to rid itself of it's worst parts is constipation. There are societies in the world that have no tolerance for crime, and virtually no crime. When I was a child I thought all criminals that did what we call misdemeanors went to prison and all that did what we call felonys were executed. Apparently this is not the case. Compare the number of convictions meriting the death penalty with the number of executions. Shouldn't these rates be about equal? Maybe there is a way to address all these problems: prevention of horrible crimes, what to do with extremely offensive criminals, prison over crowding, prisoner misbehavior, and the behavior of ex-cons after release. How about this? 1] Each state decides what capacity of prison population they want to hold as a fixed amont. For example, 10,000 inmates. 2] Each inmate in each state is ranked for how bad he is. The lower the number, the worse. Ranks are updated as needed. 3] As new bad guys are sent to prison they are ranked as well. 4] At the point that the 10,001st bad guy goes to prison, the one ranked #1 is executed - like a first in first out (FIFO) inventory system, except here it is worst in, first out (WIFO). Benefits: Prison population is stable. Prisoners have a strong incentive to behave themselves and keep high up in the rank away from the threat of execution. The worse ones dissappear regularly based on the quantity of misbehavior and incarceration of new bad guys from the outside. Bad guys on the outside will think twice before commiting crimes that put them on the inside where their presence threatens those below them in the rank who all get pushed closer to the #1 spot. For repeat offenders, this counts against them and lowers them in the rank, more so each time. Those inmates in the bottom of the rank (close to execution) have a strong incentive to prevent more outsiders from coming in to the system - their influence on those outside might work to prevent crime. Their life depends on the overall population getting down well below the highwater mark of 10,000. Of course no one has the guts to consider this as a serious system - crime still pays well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.