[Michaelnewerb]

The radio stations and several TV stations (in my area anyway) are going nuts over the idea that some convicted sex offenders of various stripes, will be released back into the community when their sentences are served; and that they might wind up near schools, Toys R Us stores, etc. Much discussion is being aired over whether they should be monitored, banned from certain areas, required to check in to parole-style officers, their names published in a public database so people will know if one moves into their neighborhoods, and on and on.

Why on earth do we owe these people so much of our resources, concerns, effort etc.? We already have an excellent means for protecting society against people who have (a) already shown they will offend at least once, and (b) have the potential to do it again. It's called "JAIL". Why are we letting them out of it, when the threat they pose is clearly not over?

The purpose of jail is twofold: to persuade convicted criminals (regarless of what offense they committed) not to do it any more, and (b) to keep them from committing those or any other crimes until the "persuasion" has taken hold. That "persuasion", of course, is PUNISHMENT. Jail punishes them for what they have done, and keeps up the punishment to the extent needed to make them change their ways; and it protects the rest of us from them until we can be sure enough, that they have changed and will no longer commit their crimes.

It's true that the amount of punishment needed to make them change, will vary from person to person. Some people might never change, and others might be ready and able to live a crime-free life as soon as the punish-for-what-they-did phase is over. It's impossible, of course, to gauge in advance how much punishment will persuade "Crusher" McGee not to rape any more adult female performers in strip bars; or to persuade "Mikey" McJackson not to pork any more 9-year-old boys in the Catholic school where he (used to) work.

But nowadays, the evidence seems overwhelming that sex offenders aren't getting persuaded. The very fact that most people think additional monitoring, counselling, and etc. is needed for these offenders after they get out, is stark evidence that they haven't been "cured" by any means. Their high recidivism rates add even more weight, of course.

JAIL is meant to remove any need for such programs. You get out of jail when you have been punished AND when you aren't going to do it any more. Bitter experience has shown us that many of these offenders ARE going to keep doing it after they get out - simply because so many of them do! What more evidence do we need, that their jail sentences aren't long enough or punishment severe enough???

Seting up these after-jail programs to monitor, permit, ban, and counsel these convicted offenders is a ridiculous waste of time, especially when a far more effective program exists: KEEP THEM IN JAIL. Which means of course, give them longer sentences when they are convicted. Maybe some sex offenders just can't change their ways no matter how much they are punished. For them, which is the better course? Give them back their freedom while they still have the drive to molest children, and virtually guarantee that a certain number of our children will be abducted and raped? Or deny them their freedom, perhaps even permanently, and so prevent the rapes they would have committed?

The idea that monitoring or counselling programs after they get out, are anywhere near as effective a crime-preventative measure as imply keeping them IN jail, is ludicrous. Every bit of evidence shows otherwise. And if they simply can't change their dreadful ways, do we owe them the huge expenditure of resources to chase them around... plus our own fear, read, and pain of actually becoming their victims after they get out? Or do we owe OURSELVES effective protection against these people?

We are not the ones who deserve punishment. They are. We deserve protection, of our rights and our persons. They do not - our laws say their right to liberty etc. can be taken away when they are convicted of their crimes. Why on earth do we restore their rights when it is so clear that they will offend again, thus inevitably dooming some innocents among us to lose theirs? Especially when a means to protect ourselves and prevent the sex offenders' crimes, is so readily at hand?

Longer jail sentences for rapists, child molestors, and other such sex offenders. It's not just a good idea. It's common sense. And people who don't show that common sense, should certainly not be the ones deciding jail sentences - either by pronouncing the sentences in a court, or by sitting in a legislature making the laws that specify what the maximum sentences are.

[KernJetenue]

Sex offenders - the VAST majority of whom are males - should be castrated upon their first conviction. IF there is a second conviction (which is unlikely), they should be executed.

Castration can be a surgical procedure - not something brutal.
Counseling and rehabilitation almost never works.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - has the right to sexually violate somebody in a violent manner. Period.


It's time to put a stop to this crap.

[Kimaamighed]

Sex offenders - the VAST majority of whom are males - should be castrated upon their first conviction. IF there is a second conviction (which is unlikely), they should be executed. Unless there are much stronger restrictions on convictions, not unlike those for capital punishment, I think I'd make that 2nd and 3rd rather than 1st and 2nd, just in case there Is a mistake or rehabilitation, but overall not a bad idea.

[Mqcawkzd]

It is perhaps the only set of crimes for which once you have been punished and served your time, that you are free. My question is, if these people are so much of a threat to society that they need to be monitored etc, why do we let them out in the first place? Once convicted murderers are released from prison and their parole is up, they are no longer monitored. Why is someone who killed another person considered less of a threat than a pervert?

[Appeselve]

Jessica's law - your state needs to get on the wagon and pass it.
25 years to life - 1st offense. No exceptions. 2nd offense - life, no exceptions.

100% guaranteed no future children hurt/murdered.
end of story

[zlopikanikanzax]

Why is someone who killed another person considered less of a threat than a pervert? Rescidivism. Many killers are one-time offenders who realize the gravity of their crime, are remorseful about their action, are grateful for a second chance, and become model citizens once released. Sex offenders are notorious for having a high percentage of repeat offenders, even after a previous conviction.