View Full Version : Child Rapist Sues for getting raped in jail
I guess he didn't read the fine print about how inmates view and treat child molesters and rapists in prison before he decided to be one. Sadly, he could actually win. :fie:
A convicted child molester and rapist has filed a civil rights lawsuit against a Washington state county claiming they failed to protect him from being forcibly raped by another inmate while in Garfield County jail.
The plaintiff, who remains unnamed by the Union Bulletin due to a policy of not naming victims of sexual assault, was held in a cell with inmate John Markwell in August 2011.
Markwell was abusive and intimidating towards him, and he informed jail personnel that he feared for his safety, according to the complaint filed in Walla Walla County Superior Court.
The complaint states that beginning on August 20, 2011, Markwell forcibly raped the unnamed plaintiff at least three times.
On May 9, 2012, Markwell was convicted on three counts of forcible rape by a jury. He was sentenced to life without parole.
The plaintiff claims in the lawsuit that he has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, including nightmares and anxiety, because of the jail rapes.
“People who are incarcerated are extremely vulnerable. Prison rape and jail rape are huge problem,” Lee Rousso, the plainiff’s attorney, said. “From my perspective these are extremely serious allegations, and I hope that Garfield County will take them seriously.”
The amount of money the plaintiff seeks as damages will be determined at trial, reports kirotv.
The plaintiff was in jail on charges of rape of a child and child molestation. He pleaded guilty to both and is currently serving a 10 years to life sentence at Monroe Corrections Center.
- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/child-molester-sues-county-over-being-raped-jail#sthash.RGgBiVKq.dpuf
Moose-Knuckle
08-30-14, 14:54
I hope the judge throws out the frivolous lawsuit, and the pedophile gets thrown into the punk tank with the posse.
MountainRaven
08-30-14, 15:08
"They failed to protect him".
Hmm.
If cops aren't legally bound to protect us, are prison guards legally bound to protect their prisoners?
Averageman
08-30-14, 16:06
Instant Kharma.
I hope the judge throws out the frivolous lawsuit, and the pedophile gets thrown into the punk tank with the posse.
It won't, he actually has a legitimate claim. Don't know what he would do with the money though...
"They failed to protect him".
Hmm.
If cops aren't legally bound to protect us, are prison guards legally bound to protect their prisoners?
Yes, prisoners are under the care and custody of the prison. People are not under the care and custody of the police. The rule for cops is a public policy law that prevents law enforcement from lawsuit in the event of a failure to to act, while most situations it would seem common sense, the idea is to prevent people form judging a LEOs actions after an event.
TriviaMonster
08-30-14, 16:34
So it cost everyone who lives there a few bucks there for a chomo to get raped? Win.
MountainRaven
08-30-14, 16:40
It won't, he actually has a legitimate claim. Don't know what he would do with the money though...
Probably start a child pornography ring.
Yes, prisoners are under the care and custody of the prison. People are not under the care and custody of the police. The rule for cops is a public policy law that prevents law enforcement from lawsuit in the event of a failure to to act, while most situations it would seem common sense, the idea is to prevent people form judging a LEOs actions after an event.
So does every prison keep a slush fund with which to pay the families of inmates who are assaulted, murdered, and raped by other inmates (to say nothing of the prison guards themselves)?
Probably start a child pornography ring.
So does every prison keep a slush fund with which to pay the families of inmates who are assaulted, murdered, and raped by other inmates (to say nothing of the prison guards themselves)?
Hah, nearly coughed up some beer when I read the first line.
Thats a good question, and I don't know the answer. I will venture a guess that there is a difference between private v. state institutions. Hell, it may even be covered by some kind of insurance, but I really don't have a definite answer for you. Inmates file these kinds of lawsuits (typically 8th amendment claims) at an extraordinary rate. This is usually thanks to lots of spare time, paper and a library. Nearly all of them get tossed. Here, the difference would rest on whether or not he gave the institution notice of the situation, there was great likelihood of the situation occurring; or that the event occurred, the prison was notified, and then did nothing to prevent it from happening again when there was a great likelihood of it occurring again.
If they knew and did nothing, he probably has a claim. I don't have access to west law at the moment but i'm sure a quick search on there would show what usually happens with these kinds of lawsuits.
MorphCross
08-30-14, 16:48
Probably start a child pornography ring.
So does every prison keep a slush fund with which to pay the families of inmates who are assaulted, murdered, and raped by other inmates (to say nothing of the prison guards themselves)?
From prison? He would make more friends figuring a way to get drugs and cigarettes into prison then exploiting children.
The point of prisons is that the guards have to maintain discipline among their own ranks as well as among the prisoners. If they turn a blind eye to criminal actions in prison lawsuits are bound to happen. They can be sued and lose if an inmate who clearly discusses plans to and does commit suicide and they do nothing to prevent it through upping bed checks on that inmate.
From prison? He would make more friends figuring a way to get drugs and cigarettes into prison then exploiting children.
thats an easy problem...they use the guards. Or apparently have a buddy use a drone if I've been reading the news right lately
MorphCross
08-30-14, 17:11
thats an easy problem...they use the guards. Or apparently have a buddy use a drone if I've been reading the news right lately
You don't have to convince me of the ease that drugs and cigs flow into some prisons due to corruption in the guards. I could come up with all kinds of fantasy scenarios "if I was a prison warden" on how I would handle those issues along with handling the prisoners. Unfortunately those programs could be construed as "cruel and unusual."
You don't have to convince me of the ease that drugs and cigs flow into some prisons due to corruption in the guards. I could come up with all kinds of fantasy scenarios "if I was a prison warden" on how I would handle those issues along with handling the prisoners. Unfortunately those programs could be construed as "cruel and unusual."
Agreed. I have always wanted to tour how prison/jail staff enters and exits work, because there is clearly a problem.
I used to think it was blown out of proportion, until I dealt with 30 or so cases of contraband in a jail facility (usually cellphones) it ALWAYS came back to a guard. Really disappointing, since they were all sheriffs.
Moose-Knuckle
08-30-14, 17:30
It won't, he actually has a legitimate claim.
Of course he does, in this country he has more rights than his victim(s).
MountainRaven
08-30-14, 17:31
From prison? He would make more friends figuring a way to get drugs and cigarettes into prison then exploiting children.
The point of prisons is that the guards have to maintain discipline among their own ranks as well as among the prisoners. If they turn a blind eye to criminal actions in prison lawsuits are bound to happen. They can be sued and lose if an inmate who clearly discusses plans to and does commit suicide and they do nothing to prevent it through upping bed checks on that inmate.
Won't be in prison forever. Especially not if he can become a bleeding heart, "I was raped in jail" case.
Won't be in prison forever. Especially not if he can become a bleeding heart, "I was raped in jail" case.
I didn't see what his sentence was, I didn't think about that. But I'm sure its shockingly low, especially if the judge imposed sentencing...
Voodoo_Man
08-30-14, 18:58
This is goin no where. If this was actually able to be won every inmate would sue and get special treatment.
I don't think the citizens if Walla Walla will look favorably in his claim at trial. Fairly conservative area. They know all about the prison life at the State pen and child rapists.
I don't think the citizens if Walla Walla will look favorably in his claim at trial. Fairly conservative area. They know all about the prison life at the State pen and child rapists.
they would bench trial it. You don't have to use a jury.
MorphCross
08-30-14, 19:09
Won't be in prison forever. Especially not if he can become a bleeding heart, "I was raped in jail" case.
I didn't see what his sentence was, I didn't think about that. But I'm sure its shockingly low, especially if the judge imposed sentencing...
Which is the real problem. Child molesters can bide their time once they get out and that is why people end up allowing their children to be around "Harry from down the street who seems like such a sweet friendly old man." I say lock them up and throw away the key.
I don't think the citizens if Walla Walla will look favorably in his claim at trial. Fairly conservative area. They know all about the prison life at the State pen and child rapists.
Indeed. God/Allah/Shiva help him if I were ever on that jury.
IFF (if and only if) it can be verified that the guards leaked his crime and he actually went to the warden complaining and nothing happened do I think he has "a case".
The irony of this does not escape me (or him) in that the psychological scars are similar to the ones he infected upon others...
Karma can be a bitch, yeah...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
So it cost everyone who lives there a few bucks there for a chomo to get raped? Win.
I'm willing to donate a couple bucks towards a nice shiv.
IFF (if and only if) it can be verified that the guards leaked his crime and he actually went to the warden complaining and nothing happened do I think he has "a case".
The irony of this does not escape me (or him) in that the psychological scars are similar to the ones he infected upon others...
Karma can be a bitch, yeah...
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
If the guards or even the warden leaked his crime, I still have zero sympathy. Word gets around and it's not like he was innocent. I'm also sure the warden is a very busy man.
If the guards or even the warden leaked his crime, I still have zero sympathy. Word gets around and it's not like he was innocent. I'm also sure the warden is a very busy man.
You miss the point in its entirety...
If it can be proven that they went out of their way and refused to protect him (as they are required to do by law) they are culpable for some portion of this jackwagon's claim.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
Belmont31R
08-31-14, 01:17
Prisoners are basically ward's of the state. That means the state is responsible for their safety and well being. Allowing him to get raped means they should be responsible.
FWIW I think SCOTUS nixing the death penalty for rape was wrong but but throwing them to the wolves in prison isn't the right thing to do by the state's responsibility to seek justice.
You miss the point in its entirety...
If it can be proven that they went out of their way and refused to protect him (as they are required to do by law) they are culpable for some portion of this jackwagon's claim.
-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."
I completely understood your point, I just don't care. I think there are certain lines that once crossed revoke any and all claims you might make. If the warden himself raped this guy while guards held him down, I still wouldn't support agree that he is entitled to anything except a shiv in the ribs.
Prisoners are basically ward's of the state. That means the state is responsible for their safety and well being. Allowing him to get raped means they should be responsible.
FWIW I think SCOTUS nixing the death penalty for rape was wrong but but throwing them to the wolves in prison isn't the right thing to do by the state's responsibility to seek justice.
Problem is we have a "legal system" rather than a "justice system." If we had a justice system this guy would already be dead.
Belmont31R
08-31-14, 01:42
Problem is we have a "legal system" rather than a "justice system." If we had a justice system this guy would already be dead.
Blame the Supreme Court not a lack of 'prison justice'. I'm all for executing child rapists and rapists in general. But I'd rather not delve down into sending people to be raped by Bubba in prison because our government didn't do the right thing.
Prisoners are basically ward's of the state. That means the state is responsible for their safety and well being. Allowing him to get raped means they should be responsible.
FWIW I think SCOTUS nixing the death penalty for rape was wrong but but throwing them to the wolves in prison isn't the right thing to do by the state's responsibility to seek justice.
I was actually thinking about the death penalty for rape today before I saw this thread, but I came up with a problem.
Under the current system, the rapist often leaves the victim alive, although not always. If they knew the penalty for rape was death (the same as murder), wouldn't they now have an incentive to kill the only witness (the victim) instead of just leaving?
I know if you're a rapist that doesn't mean you're also a murderer, but if the penalty is the same but murdering the victim after the rape makes being caught less likely, wouldn't anyone just kill the victim after?
Belmont31R
08-31-14, 02:45
I was actually thinking about the death penalty for rape today before I saw this thread, but I came up with a problem.
Under the current system, the rapist often leaves the victim alive, although not always. If they knew the penalty for rape was death (the same as murder), wouldn't they now have an incentive to kill the only witness (the victim) instead of just leaving?
I know if you're a rapist that doesn't mean you're also a murderer, but if the penalty is the same but murdering the victim after the rape makes being caught less likely, wouldn't anyone just kill the victim after?
I have a hard time believing a rapist will think "well if I kill her the penalty is the same as rape so I might as well kill her." If they operated on that level they wouldn't be out raping people in the first place.
I have a hard time believing a rapist will think "well if I kill her the penalty is the same as rape so I might as well kill her." If they operated on that level they wouldn't be out raping people in the first place.
Well not just because it's the same penalty, but because killing the victim removes the complaining witness and perhaps the only witness without changing the penalty. In the current system, you'd increase the penalty. But yeah, I can't say rapists are always the most logical people, but you never know. Rape can be anything taking advantage of a drunk/intoxicated individual without the legal ability to consent all the way to kidnapping and making the victim live in your basement for decades. In the former, I have to assume many rapists at least have some schooling and understand the basic concept of risk vs reward. In the latter, the person's psychotic and should be put down like a rabid dog.
MorphCross
08-31-14, 03:15
Rape can be anything taking advantage of a drunk/intoxicated individual without the legal ability to consent all the way to kidnapping and making the victim live in your basement for decades. In the former, I have to assume many rapists at least have some schooling and understand the basic concept of risk vs reward. In the latter, the person's psychotic and should be put down like a rabid dog.
Or at least grant the latter individual enough time and material so he can hang himself in prison...
Belmont31R
08-31-14, 03:25
Well not just because it's the same penalty, but because killing the victim removes the complaining witness and perhaps the only witness without changing the penalty. In the current system, you'd increase the penalty. But yeah, I can't say rapists are always the most logical people, but you never know. Rape can be anything taking advantage of a drunk/intoxicated individual without the legal ability to consent all the way to kidnapping and making the victim live in your basement for decades. In the former, I have to assume many rapists at least have some schooling and understand the basic concept of risk vs reward. In the latter, the person's psychotic and should be put down like a rabid dog.
Most rapes are people they already know. So I don't think the whole murder them to eliminate the witness thing is that plausible.
Most rapes are people they already know. So I don't think the whole murder them to eliminate the witness thing is that plausible.
Do you think friends/family would report the rapist if they knew that person would then die for the crime?
I'm willing to donate a couple bucks towards a nice shiv.
...and I would cough up some dough to "pay back the state" if he wins the case.....
MountainRaven
08-31-14, 09:41
Do you think friends/family would report the rapist if they knew that person would then die for the crime?
Most rape victims never report being raped and most who do - unless the rape fits the stereotype of being a psychotic stranger attacking them on the streets or in a club - never get even a shot at seeing their tormenter tried for their crime (partially because the police and DA are less likely to believe a rape victim whose accounts don't fit the stereotype in the first place and are therefore unlikely to investigate the crime in the first place, partially because it's so difficult to prove rape in the first place, and partially because juries aren't likely to believe a victim of a non-stereotypical rape and thus the prosecutor is unlikely to bring charges in the first place, lest they lose a case and thus tarnish their professional record).
In other words, the penalty is irrelevant from the start: Most rapists never face trial, even on the rare chance that the victim reports being raped.
Most rape victims never report being raped and most who do - unless the rape fits the stereotype of being a psychotic stranger attacking them on the streets or in a club - never get even a shot at seeing their tormenter tried for their crime (partially because the police and DA are less likely to believe a rape victim whose accounts don't fit the stereotype in the first place and are therefore unlikely to investigate the crime in the first place, partially because it's so difficult to prove rape in the first place, and partially because juries aren't likely to believe a victim of a non-stereotypical rape and thus the prosecutor is unlikely to bring charges in the first place, lest they lose a case and thus tarnish their professional record).
In other words, the penalty is irrelevant from the start: Most rapists never face trial, even on the rare chance that the victim reports being raped.
you have anything to back that up? That is a pretty bold statement, and pretty much the absolute opposite of my experience.
MountainRaven
08-31-14, 10:47
you have anything to back that up? That is a pretty bold statement, and pretty much the absolute opposite of my experience.
Rape reporting statistics, RAINN.org (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)
Tied in with the above was an article on how to improve the rate of prosecutions. I can't seem to find it, but here's an article (in .pdf format) about police investigators that is relevant:
Police Investigations of Rape--Roadblocks and Solutions, Martin D Schwartz (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232667.pdf)
So if this guy sues and wins, the family of the child he raped should get all the money, right? After all, he had a duty to not rape their child. :confused:
Averageman
08-31-14, 11:20
So if this guy sues and wins, the family of the child he raped should get all the money, right? After all, he had a duty to not rape their child. :confused:
My thoughts exactly.
Rape reporting statistics, RAINN.org (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)
Tied in with the above was an article on how to improve the rate of prosecutions. I can't seem to find it, but here's an article (in .pdf format) about police investigators that is relevant:
Police Investigations of Rape--Roadblocks and Solutions, Martin D Schwartz (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/232667.pdf)
I read through a lot of that and stopped at about page 50. This report is heavily based off of old, and outdated information. Pre 1998 or so, there was indeed a problem with investigative practices in sexual assault cases. However, although he tries very, hard to hide it in his paper, this trend has reversed dramatically. DAs decide who to prosecute, not police. If a detective gets caught dumping cases like these, they are gone. This kind of stuff just doesn't happen anymore because it gets reported on the media.
DAs decide which cases go to trial, get plead, or are dismissed based on the strength of the evidence. While I'm not discounting your claim that often go without reporting rapes, it is even harder to get a victim to come to trial (for obvious reasons). Without a victim, there cannot be a trial. This doesn't have anything to do with conviction rates. Conviction rates are important because it sets a gauge not only of the DA's effectiveness, but more importantly, they they properly evaluate the evidence before going to trial. There must be enough evidence to convince the jury, without that you can't prosecute. (well you can, e.g. Zimmerman, but it is a bad policy that often results in innocent people going to prison).
Jury dynamics vary wildly by county, but one thing is pretty much certain. If your witness is lying on the stand, even if they are a real victim, it usually becomes very apparent on cross examination, and the case is lost.
While I'm sure there are some counties that have not quite caught up with the modern trends, sexual assault crimes are taken extremely seriously. If you can get the victim to court, it is usually the easiest case to win, if you can stomach getting through all the gritty details. One example does remind me of the point you are making and that was in Dallas recently, where a judge sentenced a convicted rapist to probation, without the standard probation conditions(later applied). There was an uproar about it and people went on screaming about how this prevents people from wanting to come forward. They are right, and they also left out a big chunk of that case. This victim had changed her story several times and there was more than enough reasonable doubt for the defendant's acquittal. The judge still should have applied the standard convictions and let the appeals process do their work, but these are typically isolated incidents and in no way reflect the modern trends.
Just for example, out of 50 or so felony DV cases I had no doubts that any of the assaults actually occurred. What I did have problems with 35% of them was a refusal of the witness to testify, a reconciliation between the victim and defendant, or an outright anger that we were even prosecuting the case.(Keep in mind these are all cases with serious bodily injury, not the oh look I have scratches crap on Cops). 40% of them changed there story during an interview prior to conducting a preliminary hearing. The rest were straight up cases and usually the defendant plead guilty or rolled the dice (and lost every time) going to a jury.
There are a lot of dynamics that the author of that article overlooked, which isn't surprising as that report was drafted with the intent to secure funding for different training groups to go out to local law enforcement. While not a bad idea, reports written with the intent to secure government $$ are hard to persuade me, especially when I've worked in different states and seen nearly identical procedures for the handling of these kinds of cases.
MountainRaven
08-31-14, 12:40
While I'm sure there are some counties that have not quite caught up with the modern trends, sexual assault crimes are taken extremely seriously. If you can get the victim to court, it is usually the easiest case to win, if you can stomach getting through all the gritty details. One example does remind me of the point you are making and that was in Dallas recently, where a judge sentenced a convicted rapist to probation, without the standard probation conditions(later applied). There was an uproar about it and people went on screaming about how this prevents people from wanting to come forward. They are right, and they also left out a big chunk of that case. This victim had changed her story several times and there was more than enough reasonable doubt for the defendant's acquittal. The judge still should have applied the standard convictions and let the appeals process do their work, but these are typically isolated incidents and in no way reflect the modern trends.
There was a judge here who blamed the victim and then gave the perp 31 days in prison. (This being after the victim committed suicide.)
The Montana Supreme Court has required the perp to be re-sentenced, censured the judge, and the judge has decided - in his good sense - not to run for re-election this year.
Link (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/05/3445295/montana-high-court-orders-suspension-public-reprimand-for-judge-who-called-rape-victim-in-control/).
Just for example, out of 50 or so felony DV cases I had no doubts that any of the assaults actually occurred. What I did have problems with 35% of them was a refusal of the witness to testify, a reconciliation between the victim and defendant, or an outright anger that we were even prosecuting the case.(Keep in mind these are all cases with serious bodily injury, not the oh look I have scratches crap on Cops). 40% of them changed their story during an interview prior to conducting a preliminary hearing. The rest were straight up cases and usually the defendant plead guilty or rolled the dice (and lost every time) going to a jury.
The article I was looking for - and had read originally - covered the part in bold (sans reconciliation): Why it is that victims do that sort of thing and that police and prosecutors (and people in general - at least those in jury pools) should be more understanding of why victims do it and that, just because they do it, doesn't mean that they aren't actually victims.
There was a judge here who blamed the victim and then gave the perp 31 days in prison. (This being after the victim committed suicide.)
The Montana Supreme Court has required the perp to be re-sentenced, censured the judge, and the judge has decided - in his good sense - not to run for re-election this year.
Link (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/05/3445295/montana-high-court-orders-suspension-public-reprimand-for-judge-who-called-rape-victim-in-control/).
The article I was looking for - and had read originally - covered the part in bold (sans reconciliation): Why it is that victims do that sort of thing and that police and prosecutors (and people in general - at least those in jury pools) should be more understanding of why victims do it and that, just because they do it, doesn't mean that they aren't actually victims.
It is tricky, and getting victims prepared to testify, or just show up at all really was somewhat of my speciality in law school. I understand why they do it, the trick is getting the jury to understand.
I remember the one in montana and it had my blood boiling as well. I'm really hoping that in the next 10 years the last of these "activist" judges are taken care of.
It is tricky, and getting victims prepared to testify, or just show up at all really was somewhat of my speciality in law school. I understand why they do it, the trick is getting the jury to understand.
Ugh, memories of convincing a victim of statutory rape that she actually was a victim of a crime... And then trying to work with her between her high school classes... And then her trying to back out from testifying at the last minute because she was too busy doing her own stuff and because she didn't care as she was consenting - but for her age.
Hell, even her parents didn't care one way or another.
Ugh, memories of convincing a victim of statutory rape that she actually was a victim of a crime... And then trying to work with her between her high school classes... And then her trying to back out from testifying at the last minute because she was too busy doing her own stuff and because she didn't care as she was consenting - but for her age.
Hell, even her parents didn't care one way or another.
One jurisdiction has the young victims escorted everywhere by some biker gang. Its actually pretty awesome to see how comfortable they are with the bikers and how much it boosts their confidence.
One jurisdiction has the young victims escorted everywhere by some biker gang. Its actually pretty awesome to see how comfortable they are with the bikers and how much it boosts their confidence.
You're talking about B.A.C.A. (Bikers Against Child Abuse). They're an international organization with chapters in over 40 states and 7 countries. Awesome group.
Averageman
08-31-14, 15:08
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia
Fears about predatory behavior are valid. Most pedophiles who act on their impulses do so by manipulating children and gradually desensitizing them to inappropriate behavior. Then they escalate it. Pedophiles are able to do this because in most cases they already know the children or have access to them. In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child. Strangers are less likely to sexually abuse children — although they are more likely to commit violent assaults when they do.
Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.
When you read a bit about it and look at the numbers, it is pretty damned scarey.
As much as I would like to see Justice Done, the idea of putting them in G.P. is pretty much encouraging them to be raped, tortured or murdered. On one level I don't have an issue with that, but on another level we're supposed to be better than that.
Either give them the Death Penalty and take care of it that way, or house them in segregation until you figure out returning them to society again just doesn't work.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia
Fears about predatory behavior are valid. Most pedophiles who act on their impulses do so by manipulating children and gradually desensitizing them to inappropriate behavior. Then they escalate it. Pedophiles are able to do this because in most cases they already know the children or have access to them. In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child. Strangers are less likely to sexually abuse children — although they are more likely to commit violent assaults when they do.
Estimates of recidivism vary because studies define this term in different ways. One review found recidivism rates of 10% to 50% among pedophiles previously convicted of sexual abuse, although this could include anything from an arrest for any offense to reconviction on a crime against a child. One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.
When you read a bit about it and look at the numbers, it is pretty damned scarey.
As much as I would like to see Justice Done, the idea of putting them in G.P. is pretty much encouraging them to be raped, tortured or murdered. On one level I don't have an issue with that, but on another level we're supposed to be better than that.
Either give them the Death Penalty and take care of it that way, or house them in segregation until you figure out returning them to society again just doesn't work.
Those numbers on recidivism are the ones that get caught again. There's no telling how many just get smarter or more selective about it. I'm unaware of a single effective method to take a person that's sexually attracted to little kids and eliminate that attraction. Not entirely.
As for housing them, perhaps we need to consider a model where we have regional prisons to accommodate nothing but sexual predators?
Those numbers on recidivism are the ones that get caught again. There's no telling how many just get smarter or more selective about it. I'm unaware of a single effective method to take a person that's sexually attracted to little kids and eliminate that attraction. Not entirely.
As for housing them, perhaps we need to consider a model where we have regional prisons to accommodate nothing but sexual predators?
Yes, there is only one way. Separate them from the living, as expeditiously as possible. My feeling is give em to the Dads...
I agree they will reoffend upon being released. They have a sickness prison does not heal.
I also agree we can not throw them to the wolves (though its what my heart would want), I also while want these people dead, execution is not fair (even if that is to say they get off too lightly by simply being killed).
Solution, isolation for the rest of their lives, for their own safety and all.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-14, 15:28
I also agree we can not throw them to the wolves (though its what my heart would want), I also while want these people dead, execution is not fair (even if that is to say they get off too lightly by simply being killed).
Fair?! What is fair is for them to be raped themselves as punishment for what they did to someone else. Then they need to be purged from society as they are a threat the whole of their lives.
Solution, isolation for the rest of their lives, for their own safety and all.
That sounds great and all but why should I have to pay for their isolation; housing, medical, clothing, food, education, cable TV, rec yard, etc? I'm sick of footing the bill, execute them already.
Fair?! What is fair is for them to be raped themselves as punishment for what they did to someone else. Then they need to be purged from society as they are a threat the whole of their lives.
That sounds great and all but why should I have to pay for their isolation; housing, medical, clothing, food, education, cable TV, rec yard, etc? I'm sick of footing the bill, execute them already.
I agree on both your points, really I favor one of the above posters idea of turning them over to the father. But end of the day I believe in some of the fundamentals of our legal system. Part of that being not to truly torture criminals, and that they need to be decently protected in prison.
I don't want to pay for it either, but I'd much rather pay for them to rot in solitary than to be paying for all the drug offenders and non violent criminals in prison right now.
Holding sex offenders in isolation for the rest of their lives is pretty high on my list of shit I'd like to see done with my tax money.
I don't think executing them is 'fair' because they didn't kill some one, and I think they should suffer longer in the same way their victims do.
"They failed to protect him".
Hmm.
If cops aren't legally bound to protect us, are prison guards legally bound to protect their prisoners?
1) You are misinterpreting the ruling.
2) Yes. In a detention setting, the Sheriff/Jailer is responsible for safeguarding the prisoners in his custody from predation and malicious attack.
MorphCross
09-02-14, 16:49
Fair?! What is fair is for them to be raped themselves as punishment for what they did to someone else. Then they need to be purged from society as they are a threat the whole of their lives.
That sounds great and all but why should I have to pay for their isolation; housing, medical, clothing, food, education, cable TV, rec yard, etc? I'm sick of footing the bill, execute them already.
A complicated subject. Should they be removed from society. Yes. Should they be killed for rape. In some cases yes. Should they be subjected to Rape as a matter of punishment. No. Will I ever cry for a rapist getting sodomized in prison. NO.
As the presence of Sexual Offender Registries prove you technically can't ever trust a sexual offender for as long as they live so why risk them being allowed out of prison? Yet we are unwilling to keep them in prison because it cost too much? There is a disconnect here. Housing is a given if you don't want to kill them with exposure. Doesn't mean they need AC at temperatures around 70-74 degrees F. Or heating at temperatures of 68 degrees overnight. Medical. Treat infectious ailments so guards aren't put at risk. Broken bones should be set in the cheapest fashion possible. Give that person the proper amount of time to recover before putting them on a work detail. Things such as cancer, diabetes, or other maladies, their family should have to pay for out of pocket. The state should have no responsibility to pay for it. Clothing again is required, to keep them from dying from exposure. Food should be contained to a single serving per meal with the largest amount of calories, carbs, and proteins given in the morning and scaling down throughout the day so they go to minimum daily value for the average adult male/female depending. It puts everyone on equal footing as the largest of inmates won't be brutalizing the smallest easily. Network TV only on days the weather is too nasty to let them out into the rec yard. Their library should only be self help books and fiction contained to pre-teen reading level.
I don't really see how the above could be taken as cruel or unusual.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-14, 19:49
I agree on both your points, really I favor one of the above posters idea of turning them over to the father. But end of the day I believe in some of the fundamentals of our legal system. Part of that being not to truly torture criminals, and that they need to be decently protected in prison.
I don't want to pay for it either, but I'd much rather pay for them to rot in solitary than to be paying for all the drug offenders and non violent criminals in prison right now.
Holding sex offenders in isolation for the rest of their lives is pretty high on my list of shit I'd like to see done with my tax money.
I don't think executing them is 'fair' because they didn't kill some one, and I think they should suffer longer in the same way their victims do.
A complicated subject. Should they be removed from society. Yes. Should they be killed for rape. In some cases yes. Should they be subjected to Rape as a matter of punishment. No. Will I ever cry for a rapist getting sodomized in prison. NO.
As the presence of Sexual Offender Registries prove you technically can't ever trust a sexual offender for as long as they live so why risk them being allowed out of prison? Yet we are unwilling to keep them in prison because it cost too much? There is a disconnect here. Housing is a given if you don't want to kill them with exposure. Doesn't mean they need AC at temperatures around 70-74 degrees F. Or heating at temperatures of 68 degrees overnight. Medical. Treat infectious ailments so guards aren't put at risk. Broken bones should be set in the cheapest fashion possible. Give that person the proper amount of time to recover before putting them on a work detail. Things such as cancer, diabetes, or other maladies, their family should have to pay for out of pocket. The state should have no responsibility to pay for it. Clothing again is required, to keep them from dying from exposure. Food should be contained to a single serving per meal with the largest amount of calories, carbs, and proteins given in the morning and scaling down throughout the day so they go to minimum daily value for the average adult male/female depending. It puts everyone on equal footing as the largest of inmates won't be brutalizing the smallest easily. Network TV only on days the weather is too nasty to let them out into the rec yard. Their library should only be self help books and fiction contained to pre-teen reading level.
I don't really see how the above could be taken as cruel or unusual.
If we're not going to execute the 02 thieves then they need to be not only completely isolated from society but also completely independent from society. Every aspect of their life from their housing, clothing, medical care, and food must be provided by themselves through forced labor. No TV, no cigarettes, no weights, just pure back breaking labor day in and day out. They will be so busy from the labor that they won't have time to play butt cowboys in the shower.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.