From: arianadii	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:14 am (UTC)		(Link)

Considering the crimes! Jeez. Why were these monsters even out on the street. They should have been lifers...at the very least!

	From: stephbairey	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:27 am (UTC)		(Link)

Have to disagree. I get what you're saying, of course, but I just don't think killing is justified. Too slippery a slope.

	From: tviokh	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:31 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'd rather remove the trash permenantly.
Less expensive that way.

	From: stephbairey	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:52 am (UTC)		(Link)

But, you know that it isn't cheaper, right? Maybe this guy, who killed two and so we only have to pay for one criminal instead of three.. but still, it ain't right. :) It's cheaper to put someone in jail for life than to do the appeal process and eventual execution.

I just have a problem with killing someone because they killed. It's not morally defensible. You screwed up, so we screw up too.

My MAIN problem, though, is the slippery slope. Oregon voters approved an assisted suicide bill when I lived there. I am 100% opposed to it. Not to the killing, which I think is a mercy in most of the circs. It's the beauracracy. I've been a part of beauracracies, which is trying to have a rule for every possible permutation of any situation. They ALL fail at some point. As an atheist, I don't go for afterlife. I think that you only exist while your brain is functioning. To stop a brain is to take all existance away. It's too big for other people to have a say in.

I'm not anti-death.. death happens and is natural. I just dislike people taking death upon themselves. It's too important, and people are natural fuck ups. :)

	From: stephbairey	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:53 am (UTC)		(Link)

'Bureaucracy' etc. Fuck.

	From: tviokh	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:13 am (UTC)		(Link)

You screwed up, so we screw up too.

There's a difference between accidental killing (say, in a car accident or something similar) and planning out an actual killing.

That's not a "screw up" that's a "you lose your right to live with civilized people" situation.

It's cheaper to put someone in jail for life than to do the appeal process and eventual execution.

This guy didn't seem to have cost issues when he offed those two pieces of human trash.
Bullets are cheap.
Generally courtrooms have bailiffs who carry loaded guns.
Fuck 'eventual'; you get 24 hours if you're lucky.

To stop a brain is to take all existance away. It's too big for other people to have a say in.

Sex offenders don't deserve the luxury of existence. They're mistakes and should not be tolerated; mistakes of that nature and of that magnitude need to be thoroughly erased.

	From: stephbairey	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:34 am (UTC)		(Link)

Sex offenders don't deserve the luxury of existence.

That's where I have to disagree. I don't think I am good enough to say that, and I SURE don't think society as a whole is. I accept the death penalty, and that some people kill suffering family members to stop the pain. I just think there needs to be societal consequences for them, same as for anyone. Serious think-about-this-one-real-hard consequences. You know how most people are. :) Little deep thought, little research if any, etc. I don't want someone deciding to kill because they've concluded that it's the right thing to do, because people's conclusions usually suck. :) I know you weren't going for philosophical debate here, I just wanted to say that EVERY killing needs to be examined as to merit, and to start with the premise that life is better.

This guy killing predators is CLOSER to right, but I still don't see it as RIGHT. :)

	From: chaos_rose	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:36 am (UTC)		(Link)

Word.

In my zip code, according my my state's Megan's Law database there are 42 paroled sex offenders almost all of them are listed as "molest/annoy children" or "lewd acts w/ under 14" - while a few have such lovely histories as forcible rape/sodomy, and "continuous sexual abuse of a child" followed by "possession for sale/distribution of child pornography."

The worold would be a better place without the this kind of walking garbage.

	From: lilibat	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:49 am (UTC)		(Link)

/agree

	From: zannechaos	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:15 am (UTC)		(Link)

Heh. If I ever meet that guy, I'm shaking his hand and thanking him like he ought to be thanked. The only thing he did wrong, IMHO, is get caught. Really, if you're going to go all Punisher-vigilante, one should plan far enough ahead to figure out how to avoid detection.

And I've had an RP character for the last 5 years who does the same work, although mostly it's geared toward getting kids out of abusive households.

Nevermind that the bulk of released and "rehabilitated" sex offenders aren't, and commit crimes again.

That's exactly why I think sex offenders - whether they prey on kids or adults - should get the chair. Or better yet, just a rope. Why waste the electricity? Once a rapist, always a rapist, and my tax dollars are better spent on things other than putting food in their bellies and a roof over their heads.

	From: evilcresyluna	Date: October 30th, 2005 06:11 am (UTC)		(Link)

>Really, if you're going to go all Punisher-vigilante, one should plan far >enough ahead to figure out how to avoid detection.

Like not posting it on your AOL journal! Stupid. *SIGH*

	From: zannechaos	Date: October 30th, 2005 06:23 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yessss... that's... special. Right there. ::headdesk::

	From: teratologist	Date: October 30th, 2005 07:12 am (UTC)		(Link)

My main objection is that you have to be right every time. Who doesn't eventually make a mistake?

	From: blunder_buss	Date: October 30th, 2005 07:20 am (UTC)		(Link)

I hope he gets away with manslaughter at worst.

Really, this stuff makes me eyeroll. What, sex offenders are being harassed by neighbourhoods that don't want him there? Well BOO FUCKING HOO.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 12:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Insert standard disclaimer about how not all the people on the sex offender list were violent crimainals or child molesters. Renumerate examples, possibly including anecdotal evidence, of harmless people on the list such as old men that have tumescence problems, gay people caught and listed under buggery laws, and 18 year olds that banged a 17 year old and got caught by VERY angry, influential parents. Continue with how even some people charged with raped were innocent and how some women suck because of this.

Disgorge afterbirth of general agreement with concept of caring lavishly for people that will statistically commit crimes again, and suggest desert land-fill work as ways to offset cost while continuing to make life miserable.

	From: ginmar	Date: October 30th, 2005 01:49 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Continue with how even some people charged with raped were innocent and how some women suck because of this.

Continue with how some assholes love to bitch about women lying about rape even though what's likelier to happen is that they never get believed and in fact there are unconvicted rapists walking around free. Contineue with how people who casually label rape victims liars as if it's common have just revealed how ignorant and hateful they are.

Gee, women lie about rape. Rapists never do.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 01:59 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Reminder of how original comment never said "all" women lie nor how "all" rapes are fake. Further reminder that comment never said nor implied that even "most" was the subject word. Insert admonishment of overreaction and points back to the topic at hand, which is "should people on sex-offender list be summarily put todeath" and original comment's counter point of "no, because no everyone deserves to be there."

	From: ginmar	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Sorry, but drop the condescension. The bit about 'over-reaction'? Classic.

The FBI estimates that no more than eight percent of all reported rapes are unfounded. That figure includes rapes which lacked enough evidence to secure a conviction. Citing such a small figure is revealing. Statistically speaking, it has no real effect on convictions. Mistaken identity is far more of a factor in rapes than is malice. But you didn't cite that, did you ? You wanted to talk about lies.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:10 pm (UTC)		(Link)

(you ARE overreacting, a bit.)

You're also missing my point in an attempt to..., well, i don't know what. my point is simply that not everyone on the list belongs there and therefore killing them all is a great injustice.

Trying desperately to read anything else into that is just flame-mongering.

	From: ginmar	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Uh, sweetie? You're not very well-informed and you're not entitled to adopt that lecturing tone with me. You revealed how ignorant you are on the subject of rape reportage with your first comment and now you're getting defensive. Don't want to get nailed for ignorance? Do some studying. But don't bitch when you get nailed for accepting common stereotypes.

You can persist if you want, but it was pretty much over for me when you got high-handed about your own lack of knowledge. Go read up on the subject.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:30 pm (UTC)		(Link)

My original comment did not need numbers cited for its point (which is "not all sex-offenders deserve to be on the list") to remain intact.

It is hardly "ignorant" to stand by the idea of "not all sex-offenders deserve to be on the list," which is my only intended contibution to this conversation.

If you want to bluster on about how it's RARE that some women lie about being raped (i didn't say it was all of them, or common, just that it happens, with the underscore of how those men don't deserve to be on the list) or that it's RARE that rapists are caught in the first place (which isn't even a part of my point, since i'm only dealing with the people convicted and on the list), continue on elsewhere, because i haven't yet argued with you on that topic. i don't need to or intend to as it hasn't to do with my point which is (let's say this AGAIN)"not all sex-offenders deserve to be on the list".

If you would like to discuss how all sex-offenders DO deserve to be on the list, and therefore killed (as is Tviokh's implied desire), we can continue on with each other. Anything else is off-topic for me, and outside my realm of immediate interest.

(furthermore you seem to have misread the format of the first couple of comments. i was playing with the style used in the community "eternal flame war" [efw]. no need to take any of this so damned seriously.)

And if you want me to be polite to you, i request the same - you started out being abrasive, rude, and assumptive.

	From: hikahi	Date: October 30th, 2005 08:58 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Anecdotally, my brother was maliciously and untruthfully accused of rape by a woman he was seeing. He spent three months in jail before she was caught in a lie in one of her statements. When they confronted her she confessed that she had made it up, and he was released.

Statistically, yes, most rape reports are quite valid and true, but malicious lies do happen, and the government will still prosecute solely on the womens word, even when there is no physical evidence of any wrong doing.

	From: taffyduck	Date: October 31st, 2005 12:40 am (UTC)		(Link)

Women like that infuriates me.

It takes away from the real victims, makes it just that harder to report a rape.

From: sourberry	Date: November 2nd, 2005 04:31 am (UTC)		(Link)

The plural of anecdote is not data!

Or: your personal second-hand experiences are not relevant enough to keep you from looking idiotic for mentioning them.

From: jenny_islander	Date: October 30th, 2005 01:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Had one of those habitual won't-stops as a parent and I am grateful to God for striking him down when I was still little (literally striking him down--he dropped dead of a massive stroke), but I still have to agree. The case that turned me against broad draconian measures was in the news a few years ago. It went something like this:

18-year-old boy, 16-year-old girl, back seat of car, oooopsie.

Boy cashes his reality check. He identifies himself as the father to both families, gets a job, writes regular checks to his girlfriend's family (she's still living at home), and takes a parenting class.

Somebody at the parenting class reports him as a child molester. Technically, due to the age difference, he did break the law.

Boy is put in jail with hardcore offenders, naturally loses his job, can't support his kid anymore, is branded for life . . . that ain't justice.

	From: ginmar	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:09 pm (UTC)		(Link)

That ain't common, either. What's common is molesters getting away with it.

Huh. All of a sudden there's a bunch of people who want to talk about atypical cases, in effect changing the subject from adult men who molest little kids to victims of injustice.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:39 pm (UTC)		(Link)

You're being assumptive with my character, which i'm beginning to find that to be personally insulting.

If the guy is a PREDATOR...not a "whoopsie" or a old man with tumescence problems or the unlucky half of a consensual pairing...yes, it is VERY likely that he WILL act again, and he should be confined in uncomfortable situations for the rest of his life, hopefully with hard, useful labor. Maybe death, depending on his crime.

Not ONE of us is arguing that "child molestation is okay" or "rape isn't that bad." We're only saying "you can't kill them ALL, because there may be a few innocents in there."

	From: tviokh	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:50 pm (UTC)		(Link)

We're only saying "you can't kill them ALL, because there may be a few innocents in there."

I am SO resisting the urge to be a complete Star Trek nerd and quote Spock here...

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:52 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Hee. Please, go ahead, because i don't know the quote.

	From: tviokh	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:55 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Oh, it's from Star Trek 2.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

	From: lesleykajira	Date: October 30th, 2005 02:34 pm (UTC)		(Link)

That sucks to be that person. It seems some people have forgotten the lesson of the Salem Witch Trials. "It's better that 10 accused witches go free than 1 innocent woman should lose her life."

Yes, the idea SUCKS that the a goodly number of these people who are on the list both deserve to be there AND are likely to hurt people again, but no, killing them all is not a good answer.

Yes, the cases of innocents being convicted are rare(ly reported/discovered), but the fact that they exist at ALL is enough to stay the hand of slaugher.

	From: ginmar	Date: October 30th, 2005 01:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Don't go to this one website I used to go to, then. Child sexual assault victims have a much lower rate of reporting than do adults and by the time they report there's no evidence. The people at this site act completely unaware of that becuase you can't quantify it---so, to them, this proves that pedophiles have a lower recidivism rate than do other crooks. Follow that? Because it's not on paper, that means these guys aren't offending, and that they're poor innocent widdle victims of that feminazi conspiracy.

	From: keleri	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:12 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Burn them all, kthx.

	From: taffyduck	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:28 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I agree completely with you.

This is also why I got into an argument with some friends at school the day after there was a big fuss on the news about a radio show who called Karla Homolka and made fun of her on the radio. The fuss was that most people thought that she had a right to be left alone and to make a new life for herself because she had paid her due to society.

Yes... she did what 12 years for raping, torturing and murdering a couple of underaged girls with her then husband... TO WHOM SHE OFFERED HER SISTER TO RAPE AND KILL WHILE SHE WATCHED!!!!!! Yes she does deserv a new life, free of pain and all.

I say use a single bullet and display her corpse on the public place as a warning to deviant people.

	From: hexennacht	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:47 pm (UTC)		(Link)

She didn't offer her sister to kill. That's what wound up happening, though.

	From: taffyduck	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:27 pm (UTC)		(Link)

She still doesn't have the right to make a new life for herself. I still can't believe that people found it in themselves to feel sorry for her... it's not like she was an innocent by stander, she did participate in the acts and all...

Anyways.

	From: hexennacht	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:48 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I don't disagree. (=

	From: ladyturwaithiel	Date: November 2nd, 2005 02:30 am (UTC)		(Link)

Yeah, I think she deserves to be nailed to a wall and be used for target practice.
It would be nice if all rapist/molesters were struck by lightning or something equally painful. It would save society a lot of hassle.

	From: dawning_star	Date: October 30th, 2005 04:50 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I agree completely. We need more people like him. His only mistake is in getting caught since our legal code insists on still classifying such monsters as human.

	From: gmonkey42	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:16 pm (UTC)		(Link)

People can be put on the sex offender list for things that shouldn't be crimes though. I'm pretty sure the "Romeo and Juliet" laws don't exist in all states yet. Therefore an 18-year-old could be put on the list for sleeping with her 17-year-old boyfriend. She doesn't deserve to be murdered for that.

	From: gmonkey42	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:21 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	And

I knew there was another good example I couldn't remember at first:

That teenage girl who gave nude pictures of herself to other teenagers: last I heard, she was going to be put on the sex offenders list for child pornography.

I'm not saying actual rapists are blameless but there are serious problems with the criteria for putting someone on the registered sex offenders list.

	From: tviokh	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:24 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Those are much rare exceptions to the rule.
Most people on those lists deserve to be there, and don't deserve to be out in society for any reason other than maybe a public execution.

	From: hayet	Date: October 30th, 2005 05:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)

In principle, I don't feel a lot of pity for the dead guys. Good riddance.

But Vigilanteeism (sp?) bothers me, because next some loony is going to start picking off members of some other group on the basis of their own warped internal sense of justice. Just can't condone it. We have a justice system. It sucks sometimes, it gets the wrong people sometimes, it is a morass of stupidity and beaurocracy, but that's what we've got. Work to change that, if we're not satisfied with it, but don't encourage vigilante behavior.

My $0.02...