Sick Bastard...

[hvp05]

But killing a child in cold blood, to feed your sick, twisted definition of power and control and domination - just because you can - merits your loss of your right to live.

Again, we agree. But who was killed (in the original article)? What am I missing?

I fail to see why this simple and effective solution can't be applied to rabid humans as well.

Did you read the second part of that post? I agree that they should be done away with. In the part you quoted I was making the point towards Penn's statement, in which he appeared to be of the mind that enacting the DP would aid the inhibition of future acts.

 

[Pandora]

I have always supported GPS tracking for "low-level" criminals. So that's good to know about O'Malley. However, if someone is a more active offender this may well not be good enough. By the time the parole officer is alerted, notifies authorities and the officers arrive wherever the criminal is... imagine how much damage could be done.

Yes, I am very fearful of the damage that could be done, more than you can imagine.

 

[BadGirl]

Reading this made my heart hurt for all the children he abused.

 

[Pandora]

We are in agreement... aren't we?

Yes, I was just reinforcing what you already posted. :shrug:

I hope this guy serves only one 4-year term. I am fearful how much further he would limit punishments if given more time.

I want a reasonable explanation as to WHY he feels that eliminating the DP is so cost effective.

I think that, as a governor, I shouldn't just have to accept what he says because he "says so." I want to see WHY? If that is his only basis, prove it.

 

[Penn]

Okay but, as Bruzilla's SIL so brilliantly put it, you don't put down a rabid dog to teach other dogs a lesson; you put it down because it's a danger.

So would we incarcerate a rabid dog or beat it or whatever? No - we simply put it down and be done with it. I fail to see why this simple and effective solution can't be applied to rabid humans as well.

I must agree with your analogy. Something like "culling the herd", maybe.

What's so hard, so confounding, is that I can't even mentally understand how, or why a person could be driven to commit such an act. I suppose it's true, as hvp05 put it, that maybe some of these people are reliving the pain and anguish, borne from abuse during their own childhoods. But where, or how does that connect with the notion that kidnapping and abuse, or worse - of a complete stranger's child, feed that kind of person's ego?

Is that what it is - a release of emotions?

 

[Azzy]

Have you guys ever heard of a "canned hunt?" I think they should take all of these POS' and stick them on a canned hunt type reservation with NO way of escape and no weapons If the dangerous wild beasts don't get them, then we let hunters in to get them. I love that idea! NO killing the animals though

 

[hvp05]

I want a reasonable explanation as to WHY he feels that eliminating the DP is so cost effective.

I appreciate his fiscal frugality... but at the risk of harming kids, his position is highly questionable.

 

[Pandora]

I must agree with your analogy. Something like "culling the herd", maybe.

What's so hard, so confounding, is that I can't even mentally understand how, or why a person could be driven to commit such an act. I suppose it's true, as hvp05 put it, that maybe some of these people are reliving the pain and anguish, borne from abuse during their own childhoods. But where, or how does that connect with the notion that kidnapping and abuse, or worse - of a complete stranger's child, feed that kind of person's ego?

Is that what it is - a release of emotions?

You want me to clear up a common mis-conception? (I just had this cleared up for me not long ago) Not many of these child abusers were molested as children. It is a lot less than we've been lead to believe over the years. But, what they are finding is that there was a very dominating and abusive female in the life of the male sex offender.

I have an incredible website written down at work on a piece of paper. I know, a lot of good that does now, but if I remember, I will post it for reading next week for those interested. It goes into a great deal of the studies done on these types of sex offenders.

 

[Dougstermd]

I don’t want to start another thread and it seems this thread is about sex offenders and the death penalty :shrug:, but I was wondering what people’s opinions were about this......

Under pressure to keep off the streets violent sexual predators who are likely to strike again, several states have authorized "civil commitments," the confinement of sex offenders to mental health facilities after they've completed their prison sentences. The Supreme Court has upheld civil commitments, yet they remain controversial. The ACLU says such confinement violates an offender's civil rights. Others say it's a bad idea to mix violent sexual predators with people who have severe mental disorders. Many law enforcement officials say civil commitments are better than taking a chance on repeat offenses, which can run as high as 70 percent and sometimes results in murder.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202874,00.html

Are civil commitments okay if they're shown to protect society?

JMO!



if you are unfit to return to society then hang the bassards.

nothing will fix those types.

I work with several ex felons.

2 have commited murder/ self defense and one was a drug dealer. Two of them have turned their lives around and are impressive to work with. the other works very hard but he is still doing unlawful things.

 

[hvp05]

(I just had this cleared up for me not long ago) Not many of these child abusers were molested as children.

That is interesting to know.

 

[Penn]

You want me to clear up a common mis-conception? (I just had this cleared up for me not long ago) Not many of these child abusers were molested as children. It is a lot less than we've been lead to believe over the years. But, what they are finding is that there was a very dominating and abusive female in the life of the male sex offender.

I have an incredible website written down at work on a piece of paper. I know, a lot of good that does now, but if I remember, I will post it for reading next week for those interested. It goes into a great deal of the studies done on these types of sex offenders.

I'd like to see that.

Like I said, it's just really hard for me to understand how/why these types of criminals can justify that kind of act. Hey, everybody feels anger now and then; we get aggressive and want to vent somehow, someway.

Some people punch holes in a wall; some get drunk and fall down, while still others turn inwards, and inflict wounds on themselves. Messing up a child's life, who hasn't done a damn thing to you, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[MysticalMom]

This thread make me Sick bastards is right. My brain just can't (doesn't want to) comprehend how on Earth or why on Earth people would do something like this to children? Babies? :shakinghead:

I read an article just the other day about a guy in Canada who went into a school, grabbed a 7 year old girl and raped her in the bathroom.

What is this world coming too?

Poor babies.

 

[hvp05]

Messing up a child's life, who hasn't done a damn thing to you, just doesn't make sense to me.

You keep saying that. And I keep thinking this is a good thing, for if the acts did begin to make sense then you should be worried.

 

[ylexot]

BTW, O'Reilly had some woman on a few nights ago discussing "Jessica's Law" (which O'Reilly is a huge supporter of). She was saying that making the punishment tougher (aka mandatory) would somehow force the problem underground and police/prosecutors/judges would be less willing to prosecute/convict offenders. I admit, this is possible in some cases, but if it happens, the public needs to start going after the police/prosecutors/judges that are unwilling to uphold the law (which is their job). She also said that we need to concentrate on prevention...O'Reilly responded asking how to prevent the crime. *crickets*

 

[ylexot]

Just found this:
Jessica's Law Map

Notice MD..."heading in the wrong direction". You can also click on MD to send an email to the Governor...but it needs to be updated to O'Malley.

 

[vraiblonde]

She was saying that making the punishment tougher (aka mandatory) would somehow force the problem underground and police/prosecutors/judges would be less willing to prosecute/convict offenders.

What a crock of ####

I don't believe that for one second.

 

[ylexot]

What a crock of ####

I don't believe that for one second.

Actually, I do. Look at the judges that O'Reilly goes after because they hand out weak sentences against convicted child abusers. I think those judges are f'd in the head, but it still happens :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

Actually, I do. Look at the judges that O'Reilly goes after because they hand out weak sentences against convicted child abusers. I think those judges are f'd in the head, but it still happens :shrug:

Judges, maybe, but definitely not cops and prosecutors.

How does that work, anyway? Wouldn't it go to a jury trial and the judge wouldn't have anything to do with the sentence? When does the judge set the punishment? I mean, I know they *do, I'm just curious under what circumstances.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

BTW, O'Reilly had some woman on a few nights ago discussing "Jessica's Law" (which O'Reilly is a huge supporter of). She was saying that making the punishment tougher (aka mandatory) would somehow force the problem underground and police/prosecutors/judges would be less willing to prosecute/convict offenders. I admit, this is possible in some cases, but if it happens, the public needs to start going after the police/prosecutors/judges that are unwilling to uphold the law (which is their job). She also said that we need to concentrate on prevention...O'Reilly responded asking how to prevent the crime. *crickets*

O'Reilly seems to think it's OK to molest kids though.

From the January 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: The kidnapping of those two boys should be front-page news in your house if you have kids. I actually hope I'm wrong about Shawn Hornbeck. I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because Devlin made things easy for him. No school, play all day long.


But to just chalk this up to brainwashing and walk away is turning away from the true danger of child molesters and abductors. All American children must be taught survival skills, must be prepared to face crisis situations. That is the lesson of the Shawn Hornbeck story. And that's the "Memo."

​

From the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, the disturbing case of the two kidnapped boys in Missouri. As you know, police found 15-year-old Shawn Hornbeck in an apartment of 41-year-old Michael Devlin last week, along with 13-year-old Ben Ownby. Both boys allegedly had been kidnapped by Devlin, who ran a pizza place in the town of Kirkwood. Shawn had been missing for four years.

And the question is, why didn't he escape when he could have? There are all kinds of theories about that. Joining us now from Washington, Greta Van Susteren, who has been out to Missouri reporting on the case.

All right, you know, the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it. I've never bought it. I didn't think it happened in the Patty Hearst case. I don't think it happened here.


[...]

O'REILLY: I'm not buying this. If you're 11 years old or 12 years old, 13, and you have a strong bond with your family, OK, even if the guy threatens you, this and that, you're riding your bike around, you got friends. The kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff. If you can get away, you get away. All right? If you're 11.

[...]

O'REILLY: This is what I believe happened in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life. She was a child of privilege. All of a sudden, she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs, and she enjoyed it. The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted.


VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.

O'REILLY: What?

VAN SUSTEREN: Some kids like school.

O'REILLY: Well, I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down, what's going to happen is, there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances.


[...]

VAN SUSTEREN: So you're playing that same sort of thinking to this 11-year-old to 15-year-old. You're thinking logically. You think to yourself, "Why didn't he leave?" That's what most people think. Frankly, I had that thought as well.

But I think you've got to remember that this is a child. He doesn't -- you know, for whatever reason, he may have, you know, wanted to be with his kidnapper. Maybe his kidnapper turned out to be, quote, "a nice guy" or whatever. But this is a kid, Bill. And I think we've got to wait till we get all the facts.

O'REILLY: All right.

VAN SUSTEREN: It may turn out -- you may turn out to be right. I don't know.


O'REILLY: I usually do. I usually -- that usually is what happens.


VAN SUSTEREN: Especially when you're the jury.

O'REILLY: If I'm wrong, Greta, I'll -- you know, we'll play this tape and you'll get your points.

VAN SUSTEREN: At this point, I simply don't know. But I'll wait for the facts.

O'REILLY: All right. Greta will have more, On the Record, 10 Eastern. Thanks, Greta, as always.
​

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701170009

BTW, Media Matters is just as critical of MSNBC and CNN as they are on FOX.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

From the January 24 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: That's what they want to do in Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, unlike Kuwait. All right. There are Muslims there, too. Unlike the Kurds in the north -- they're Muslims too -- the Sunni and Shia want to kill each other. They want to blow each other up. They want to torture each other. They have fun. This is -- they like this. This is what Allah tells them to do, and that's what they do.

All right. So, now we're standing there, going, "Where did this -- how did this happen?" That's the essential mistake of the war. That we didn't think these people would act like savages, and they are.

[...]

O'REILLY: Yeah. I mean, look, I think [Rep. Anthony] Weiner [D-NY] had a good point. Those of us who really understand the world -- and believe me, I made a mistake with Iraq, too. I did not think the Iraqi people were going to act like savages in the aftermath of Saddam. I had -- you know, I said, "Look, the Afghanis are cooperating. The Kuwaitis cooperated with us." And I didn't think they would.

But, now, Iran, we know they're savages. But it's interesting to see how the left is positioning. If you read the LA Times this week, "Oh, they're not so bad over there." Oh, no, they deny the Holocaust. "Ah, it's not -- " They want to kill Israel? "Ah, you know." They want to get a nuke. "Ah, you know." That's how the left is positioned. "Not so bad." You know, "We're overhyping the danger."

And I'm saying to myself, "Even if we are overhyping the danger, these people look to me to be Nazis." You know, that's exactly what they said about Hitler in the 1930s. "Ah, he's not that bad. He's just bluster. He's just a bluster guy." Oh, man. Said that about Mao, said it about Stalin. "We can work with Stalin. Yeah, he's not so bad."

​

O'Reilly is a sick bastard.