Hundreds of molesters freed by Supreme Court...

[Bose]

Link...

Hear me out before taking to me with the pitchforks...

I'm with the Supreme Court on this one. The idea that a legislature can arbitrarily decide when to bring some one to trial, as Breyer writes, "risks both arbitrary and potentially vindicate legislation." I'd want to read the whole decision to be sure, but I suspect it only applies to those cases which occured before the law was passed -- that's what ex post facto means.

Seperate in your mind the crime, however heinious and what the constitution rightly allows. No Laws should be able to be passed retroactively, talk about your tools for fascism...

Yeah these people are absolute scum of the earth, but previous to 1994 they had unfortunelty got away with it.

Do you really want the state to retroactively be able to change laws and penalties? Got any problem with the state deceiding to change the penalty for speeding to $1000 and 6 month licence suspension? This is exactly the issue at stake...

 

[YNCS]

Before I get flamed, I would say that I am against child molestation.

One of the problems with "rule of law" is striking a balance between "punishing the bad guys" and "it is better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent man be punished." Every so often legislatures push the bounds of legality and the courts rein them in. That's what happened in this case. You may not like it, I definitely don't like it, however, in the long run it's both better and fairer.

 

[Bose]

Originally posted by YNCS
Before I get flamed, I would say that I am against child molestation.

I think it goes without saying that everyone here feels strongly the same. This is not being questioned of anyone here.

 

[Stapel]

What exactly is the problem here?

Wasn't child molesting a crime before 1994? Or is it about a 1994 decision (turned back now) that child molesting is a crime that cannot expire the charge-filing deadline.

The second I guess!

We may like it or not, but charge filling deadlines are there for a reason. It is impossible for a judge or jury to decide on a criminal act that happened, say 30 years ago. A 1973 crime should be trialed by 1973 laws, 1973 judges and 1973 juries.

Personally I think exclusions should be made for the worst atrocities committed: genocide and serious child molestation.

So, if this is about rape, as in anal/oral/vaginal penetration, the crime should not expire.
If it is about "just" touching / showing genitals, how discusting this may be, I think it should be treated as other crimes and thus expire after some period.

 

[Stapel]

When changing laws afterwards, we should seperate two things IMHO:
1. Of course it is impossible to punish some one for a crime which was not a crime when he committed it.

2. But, if the crime was a crime back then, but at that time the crime had some expirations date, it should be possible to change the expiration date afterwards.

I don't think a juridical system is hurt by such rules!

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I can understand both sides of the case, as YCNS illustrated.
A balance needs to be struck, but there needs to be room for discretion in some cases and some crimes.
And retrospective punishment for child molestation is fine in my book. Fine indeed, and I dare say that it would not represent a slippery slope to retrospective hanging for outstanding parking tickets.

 

[Greadius]

When the resident patron of evil calls balance something must be wrong with the issue


I don't understand why there was a deadline to file charges on child molestation in the first place. I hope they past the law as quickly as possible so if this happens another 30 years from now it'll no longer be an issue.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Greadius
I don't understand why there was a deadline to file charges on child molestation in the first place. I hope they past the law as quickly as possible so if this happens another 30 years from now it'll no longer be an issue.

Most crimes 'simply' have deadlines to file charges. The idea of making exclusions for some very horrible crimes, is fairly new afaik.

IIRC, we don't have such exclusions at all in NL. I know Germany has them for WWII crimes only.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Two things I never understood regarding laws passed with regard to the sexual abuse of children.

It seems to me that the law in most countires, at least in my country, punish this more severely than rape of adults. Why should an adult be less entitled to protection by the law than a child. Is there any proof that a child is more vulnerable psychologically than an adult. Then the argument would be that the child is less capable of defending his or hers integrity, but if a man is bent on raping a woman it is simply a matter of applying more force. The lack of knowledge on things sexual on behalf of the child vis a vis the experience of the average woman would mean that children are more in danger of being seduced and is unable to detect danger signals which would be apparent to most adults. But what if the woman is drunk or drugged or otherwise impaired as is sometimes the case? In my opinion there is to much populism in the debate. Too much chest-beating.

Secondly it seems hypocritical that ever more severe laws should be passed on paedophiles who indulge in their mental malignancy at home, while seemingly nothing substantial is being done about the trade of children for sex in the Third World. This is catastrophic because it seems to me that domestic paedophiles are often mental basketcases who plans less but are often opportunistic, while those who travel abroad to places where the law is non-existent or severely corrupt, clearly have a planned intent in their mind, and maybe feel it is not as bad because the crime is more or less 'institutionalized' in its practice.

 

[Stapel]

DrDrDr:
I can explain I think.

The difference is in the rape: If a man seduces a 25 year old woman to go to bed with him, all is fine.

If a man seduces a 13 year old boy to do "some games", all is wrong! Especially when the man in question some one 'important', like a priest or so, it can be very easy to cnvince a young boy that there is no harm, or that it is good.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Greadius
I don't understand why there was a deadline to file charges on child molestation in the first place.

The likelyhood of wronful conviction, particularly with emotionaly chargeed case and most particualalry with child or then child witnesses increses rapidly with the passage of time.

 

[Richard III]

Dr. Dr. Dr.: Stapel is bang on; a kid is in a vulnerable position; often, molesters are in or deliberately seek positions of authority or trust over kids (priests, coaches, teachers), so it's huge breach of trust in addition to the act itself. Not that raping an adult is any less so, but I don't think the social convention of protecting kids more than adults is necessarily a terrible thing.

If you're saying we should punish adult rape more harshly, hear hear, I agree. But if you're saying we should punish child molestation less harshly to bring it into line with adult punishments, uh, nope, I'm not sure I'm on board with that reasoning.

R.III

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Stapel
DrDrDr:
I can explain I think.

The difference is in the rape: If a man seduces a 25 year old woman to go to bed with him, all is fine.

But that does not explain, how the legal authorities should react if the woman was drunk or drugged, and she afterwards, when sober, or indeed during the act itself, comes to regret the lack of resistance to a more or less forceful advance.

Should the law react more severely or less?

If a man seduces a 13 year old boy to do "some games", all is wrong! Especially when the man in question some one 'important', like a priest or so, it can be very easy to convince a young boy that there is no harm, or that it is good.

I think that in most countries there is a legal age. Here it is 15. If below that, it is not considered to be consentual - so it is a criminal act by the adult. What if the boy was fifteen then? Would the authorities have no grounds for prosecution? Children today reaches puberty faster than merely 30 years ago due to more nutritious food. I agree if the perpetrator is in a position of authority the prosecution should be more severe. For instance in many countries (Latin America and the Arabian countries) it is still the norm to have housemaids. Is not a sexual advance on a housemaid by the pater familias an abuse of authority too?

Naturally there is great interest in cases where priests or school teachers have raped children, but I doubt if those cases make up the majority.

Originally posted by Richard III

Dr. Dr. Dr.: Stapel is bang on; a kid is in a vulnerable position; often, molesters are in or deliberately seek positions of authority or trust over kids (priests, coaches, teachers), so it's huge breach of trust in addition to the act itself. Not that raping an adult is any less so, but I don't think the social convention of protecting kids more than adults is necessarily a terrible thing.

Are you seriously saying that a person would go through severeal years of priestly education just for the reason to have an opportunity to rape altar boys? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. I thought that the main problem was that Catholic priests are not allowed to have sex at all - hence all manner of weird emotions are allowed to fester in the those who are weak. This does not explain for teachers and coaches though. However in all cases is it not the fact that there is opportunity, hence they transgress, and the fact that such cases get more media attention.

The social convention of protecting kids is a good convention, and is used in all areas of life from acces to media to traffic safety

If you're saying we should punish adult rape more harshly, hear hear, I agree. But if you're saying we should punish child molestation less harshly to bring it into line with adult punishments, uh, nope, I'm not sure I'm on board with that reasoning.

I don't know if punishing rape or child abuse more severely would help. It seems to me that in countries where the laws are very strict the level of crime has not gone down. I don't see how exacting revenge would really solve anything but the immediate rest and ease of the family and loved ones. It is a neverending cycle which would in the end lead to public executions. Actually I think it is perhaps more a problem that needs to be treated by psychologists and the psychiatric sector in severe cases. Now, for instance drugs can be used that completely shuts down the sexual drive. The patients are subsequently monitored. It has side effects, but these are no more severe than many other drug treatments. Maybe often the perpetrators have themselves been raped when they were children, so mental therapy is perhaps helpful.

 

[Richard III]

Perhaps mental therapy would be helpful, but, as Tony Blair so helpfully put it early in his career, while he wanted to be tough on crime AND tough on the causes of crime, "the place for these people is out of society," because they are too much of a threat to it whether treatment is needed or not.

And one way to achieve that separation is with a long sentence. Also, frankly, people have to be responsible for their actions, even if they are sick in the head; take a tour through the sex crimes pages of whatever newspaper of record and you will see that many of the perps are perfectly intelligent people who should be capable of choosing to respect society's rules if they wanted to. I've had the urge to shoot a person now and again - an immoral and illegal act. Have I done it? Nope. My choice.

Oh, and I'm quite certain that pedophiles have been known to design their entire lifestyles and careers around getting predatory access to and authority over kids, even going so far as to structure their marriage around getting that access in some cases. Take my word for it, I'm not exagerrating in the slightest.

(Although it would be a mistake to take my comments as suggesting that priests, for example, are even mostly pedophiles - which is why I find your suggestion that pedophilia and molestation can be blamed on "chastity" to be absurd, it's bizarre to think that a normal person who is simply sexually frustrated is going to decide that the best place to start is a 10 year old boy, or whatever...)

R.III

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
It seems to me that in countries where the laws are very strict the level of crime has not gone down.

Singapore? There are many others. It is not just a matter of having strict laws, but on how society is ordered and run, and what values are cultivated. This runs over into education and many other areas.

And, on a connected note, Arthur Frederick Goode III.

 

[Mojotronica]

It's a lot more important to uphold due process than to prosecute these criminals.

If the office of the DA can't get the conviction w/in the letter of the law, the conviction is no good, no matter what crime was committed.

The DA figured it would be easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission to prosecute these people after the statute of limitations had expired. That's BS. Seriously. It might work on an interpersonal level, but it's no way to run a legal system.

Bottom line: the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Mojotronica]

The same thing happened in WA state last year -- a similar dodgy prosecution technique was overturned by the state court...

http://www.komotv.com/news/story.asp?ID=21028

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

I don't care what Tony Blair has said, says now, or will say for the forseeable future. Surely in the litterature like Vladimir Nabokovs Lolita, there is a case of a man who seems so obsessed that he even marries the mother of his object of desire. But that is fictional litterature.

About this Goode III character I was only able to this (warning. not for the fainthearted).

James T. Reese relates the following.

"In 1980, I traveled to Jacksonville, Florida with another agent to teach an advanced criminology school. During the week we were there, we arranged to interview Arthur Frederick Goode, III. Goode was a convicted child abductor / killer who was incarcerated at Raiford State Prison in Starke, Florida awaiting execution. We interviewed him for six hours about his homosexual, homicidal behaviors with his victims. He would kidnap young, 12 years old or so, force them to engage in sexual behaviors and then murder them. He world then write disgustingly descriptive letters to their parents, describing what he did their children. We were talking to him to try to learn more about men who do these types of crimes. While I didn't expect to see any remorse, what I did see surprised me. A cold, calculated response to even the most sensitive questions regarding the murders. Upon leaving the cell, Goode reinforced what we knew about psychopathic behavior. In an effort t to assert his ego and recapture control at the last minute, he asked us (with a grin on his face) as we left death row, "Do you have any little boys at home?" In law enforcement, sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing. Contrary to the thoughts that were running through my head at the time, all I could do was leave. That is the type of stress you take home with you."

Another website suggested he was innocent, but did not expand on it.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

That type of behaviour is further expounded upon in a nice tome about Death Row in Florida, and no, he wasn't innocent, as he admitted to it all, and made a confession of sorts before being cooked in the chair.
And his victims were younger than 12 - 7 or 8.
All day in his cell, he would stand at the bars and give a running monologue on the wonders of pederastry, and how he fancied Ricky Schroeder, among other things.

That is the type of behaviour that execution cures. That is the kind of constant disease that must be expunged.

 

[CurtSibling]

We should not entertain sub-human animals who prey on kids, fry the scum, every last one!