Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    My understanding is that prisoners do not like sex offenders
    at all.   A police officer has told me that said offenders
    are "taken care of", particularly in hardened major prisons.
    
    I think prison overcrowding is such that separating them from
    others may not be practical. 
    
    So I don't think they last long.
    
    
                                            Russ P.

    Prisons have their own pecking order, with sex offenders just about
    at the bottom (I believe that child molesters hold the bottom most
    rung). Depending on what you're serving time for, your social position
    goes up from there. There life behind the walles is pretty miserable
    (but considering what they're doing time for, perhaps well deserved).
    
    Eric

    Why would that sort of life be any more deserved for a sex offender
    than for, say, a murderer?  (not defending sex offenders particularly,
    just wondering.)
    
    Mike

    Our handiman did time in Concord MCI a few years ago. The way he
    explains it is something like a pecking order. The guys who are
    in for murder or assault and battery or theft are at the top of
    the heap. The sex offenders and child molesters are at the bottom.
    Men in for those crimes - especially child molesters - are treated
    *very* badly. It is not a subject that we discussed in any great
    detail - as you might imagine. 
    
    Bonnie

    I sat on the grand jury for about six months.  We had numerous
    cases involving sexual offenders.  In a couple of cases we had
    the prosecuting attornies (not even the defense) suggesting
    we try to see our way clear to reducing a charge or two that
    the criminal may be assigned to a minimum security prison rather
    than maximum to give him a better chance.  They told us that life
    is not too long for these people.
    
    I sat and listened to three little girls tell me about this guy
    playing show and tell with them, and wanted nothing less for that
    man what was waiting for him in prison.  These girls had to point
    to indicate to us what they meant by "boobies" and "privates" 
    not fully comprehending what had happened to them.  It made me
    sick.  Let alone the rape cases!
    
    You ask about murderers, well there are many that feel they should
    get what they dished out also.
    
    
                                              cj
    

    
    re -.1
    
    If the intent is to punish child molesters by having them
    raped in prison, then the sentence should say that.
    If they are sentenced only to do time, then sikking
    the cons on him strikes me as unconstitutional. 
    
    Revenge is not the aim of our legal code.

    I think the reason for the short life span for child molestors is
    that these guys could be back on the streets for good behaivior
    in a short peroid of time. And some of the other cons may have kids
    of their own whom they feel that the CM would be out there possibly
    at  their own kids! Yes, our justice system may not be the best,
    but it is the lives of the victoms that are at stake. Perhaps it
    is one thing to terminate anothers life who is an adult. It is
    certainly another to scar the mind of a child for life, who has no
    intention of harming any one. Or still does not realize fully right
    from wrong. Yes, there is help for these folks, and I am not here
    to debait it. I am just looking at it from perhaps the logic from
    behind the wall.
    
    George
    

    From what I've seen, the sex offender is very likely to do very
    "hard" time and, not infrequently, other convicts will shorten
    the person's sentence in the most extreme manner.  Often the
    individual convicted of a sex offense will try to lie about the
    crime, siting something more "acceptable" in prison society like
    burglary.  As someone said, prisoners have their own pecking order
    and social mores.  Usually such lies are unsuccessful as prisons
    are pretty close societies and, in most prisons, there are trustees
    with access to most/all prisoner information (court records, etc.).
    
    I'm reminded of this (true) instance:  several years ago in Texas,
    a convicted child molester made parole.  Some months later he was
    re-arrested on a relatively minor sex offense which, severity of
    crime notwithstanding, broke his parole.  While in jail awaiting
    his parole revocation hearing, he hanged himself.  The note he left
    said it was a better way to go than going back to the joint.  I
    suspect he was right.
    
    Steve
    
    

    A study done a while ago disclosed that most  criminals had
    been abused physically/sexually in their childhood. Hence the intense
    hatred for sexual-offenders in their hearts. (esp if they offender
    a child.)
    
    Anil.

    
    
    Too many times a child molester will end up in a "treatment center"
    like Bridgewater.  Although incarcerated, their life is by no means
    the living hell they have created for their victims.  Unfortunately,
    I have little compassion for adults who abuse children, and I would
    feel they had been better punished by being sent to real prison
    and dealt with in that society, than sent to a "treatment center"
    and supported for their lives or until they can have the Sexually
    Dangerous Person label removed, and return [shudder] to our world.

    Having a daughter who was raped when whe was nine and seen the low
    self-esteem she has exhibited during her teenage years, I cannot
    help but feel that whatever child molesters receive as an inmate
    is what they deserve.  
    
    Barb

        Re: rapists...
        
        Chemical castration  for  the  first offence, lasting for a set
        period, with full  castration  for any repeat offence following
        discontinuation of the chemical treatment.
        
        (That's the liberal side  of me - my gut feeling says _chop_ on
        the first offence, especially when a child is involved.)
        
        Andy
        

    re: .10
    
    � . . .and I would feel they had been better punished by being sent to 
    � real prison and dealt with in that society, than sent to a "treatment 
    � center"
    
    Bob, it may be of very little consolation, but in most, perhaps
    all states, the toughest prison is less of a punishment than
    being incarcerated in a "hospital" for the criminally insane.
    Some years ago I was a "guest" at one of the state of Texas' 
    facilities (max. security) and, if even half of what I learned 
    is true (and I'm certain it is), prison is, relatively speaking,
    a day at the beach compared to places like Bridgewater.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    Are we about justice, or are we about revenge?

    
    .14
    
    REVENGE!

    < Note 241.16 by AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust ..." >

    	Eagle, don't you mean eaglets? :^}
    
    
    	GCA/
    

    Revenge is best served cold......call me iceman.
    
    If a man molested one of my daughters, I personally tear his hangers
    off and wear them as earrings.
    
    Ken

    
    You would do that before or after the fair trial?
    
    How would you determine you had the right guilty
    party?
    
    Is this the way we should deal with all crime ?
    
    (Probably a dumb question, given the predispostion
     to vigilantism of most New Englanders...)

    
    	Glad to hear it, .19.....  
    
    	Then there are those "fathers" who when told their daughter
    
    was "date-raped" calmly say...."Oh, well, she probably wanted it!"
    
    And she was only 14??!!??!!  That's one father I'd like to hang!
    
    
    		My

    To answer your question - justice or revenge...
    
    Both...  The justice part right now seems to be the easiest part..
    the state steps right in, and does everything for you... The DA
    almost ignores you in fact!.. In Mass they assign you a victim/witness
    advocate that (at least in my daughters case) in absolutely wonderful.
    There is also in Mass a rape crisis center that assigns you a
    counselor, and does neat stuff besides the therapy.  The one my
    daughter has assigned took her to the court room before she had
    to testify before the grand jury.
    
    The hard part is in the waiting... even after the grand jury 
    indictment(s!), we have to wait up to a year (possibly!) for the
    trial...  Talk about having that over any person's head... how are
    they supposed to function (ie school)...
    
    On the other hand.. here is a man - locked up in jail, but only
    a holding type jail (for those in Mass, the one on top of the Cambridge
    court house).. and having practically the time of his life?... Yeah,
    he can't walk the streets (THANK GOD!), but he could IF he could
    make his bail (that was a mistake even in itself - granting someone like
    that bail)... he gets everything handed to him on a silver platter
    I'm sure!... Revenge - hell yes!... I'd rather see him a dark and
    grungy (sp?) basement!... Thats where my daughter is emotionally!...
    She can't even live in the same portion of the state anymore!!!..
    She really did try, but when she ran into this persons brother the
    other week, her hands actually swelled up... and how do you handle
    the nightmares????... She is in a jail herself...
    
    Revenge - HELL yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....  
    
    But then the other side of me says, he is sick, and needs help to
    function in this world.... I want him to get the treatment he needs
    to get better, so he can see what he did and why... I still want
    him to pay - however, nothing he can go through will equal what
    my daughter is going through - nothing at all!
    
    When you look at the very last sentence - I guess Revenge or justice
    really doessn't matter does it?
    
    From someone who is there right now.

    re: .20
    
    Well said (asked), Bob.  Those are exceedingly important questions
    to be asked and answered and, if we are to see a better world, the
    answers must make as much sense intellectually as they do emotionally.
    
    This topic is one that can't help but evoke a lot of powerful feelings
    in people and that's not a problem in and of itself.  But deciding
    the law in a state of high passion can lead down some mighty tough
    roads.  Please understand, in no way do I mean for these words to
    imply that I want to treat sex offenders "nicely".  I don't.  But
    I believe that vengence alone is not the answer and my reason is
    quite pragmatic.
    
    Some day, most of these convicted felons *will* be on the streets again.
    
    I agree with Gale (.22) that the fact of the matter is that both
    the "criminal justice" system embraces both justice *and* revenge
    (or, punishment).  It, like ourselves, is imperfect and reflects
    our ambivalence.  On the one hand, I want to "take these slimeballs
    and crush their faces."  On the other, I want to "cure these sick
    people so that they come out of the rehabilitative process with
    a deep sense of remorse, an unswerving sense of penitence, and
    a driving need to do what they can to prevent others from committing
    such crimes and to do anything necessary to help the victim reach
    a point of health/sanity/peace of mind.
    
    To say the least, there are no easy answers here.
    
    Steve
    

    re:20
    
    My daughters are 9 & 13 -> No trial required
    
    If my kids pointed the person out, when I confronted them, I'd know
    if they were the right person. 
    
    In the case of kids, This is how we deal. Result would be that assault
    on children would become non-existent. The only reason that the
    death penalty does not work is that it is not carried out quick
    enough or often enough to dissuade violent/viscious crime.
    
    FWIW..Read last week's people magazine about the young girl who
    was raped and sodomized, had her arms cut off by her attacker with
    an axe and stuffed her into a drain pipe. She somehow survived and
    filed charges. The man was found guilty. Ask her if she feels the 
    4-1/2 years the guy did in prison fit the atrocity of the crime
    committed against her. Why even bother to prosecute the guy??? A
    little vigilante justice may have suited much better. Think about
    the nightmares that this woman must live with for the rest of her
    life......and the attacker says he's sorry now....big deal. 
       
    I could say that .20 is the wimp, bleeding heart liberal, let some
    one else do the nasty stuff, left coast attitude......but I won't.
    
    Ken
    

    
    	RE: .24
    
    	No Mike, we put them in prison complete with color TV's, stereos
    	and other comforts, then after they have been "rehabilitated",
    	we set them free on the streets to assult the next victim. This
    	is our current system..

    re: .25
    
    � re:20
    �
    � My daughters are 9 & 13 -> No trial required
    �
    � If my kids pointed the person out, when I confronted them, I'd know
    � if they were the right person. 
    
    In asserting this, you open the door to vigilantism.  Will you then
    forfeit your life in fairness the first time it's discovered that
    an innocent person has been falsely accused and hanged?  Please
    understand I'm not suggesting that your children would lie or
    be confused.  But surely you're not suggesting that no "victims",
    children or otherwise, have *ever* lied or been mistaken.  And 
    suppose one of your children (or you yourself) becomes the accused?
    Still no trial?
    
    � The only reason that the death penalty does not work is that it is 
    � not carried out quick enough or often enough to dissuade 
    � violent/viscious crime.
    
    I have to disagree here.  The large majority (about 80%) of murders
    for example, are classified as "crimes of passion" - the perpetrator
    commits the crime in a moment of extreme emotion and, at such times,
    thoughts of punishment do *not* enter the picture.  Any number of
    murderers I've spoken with say that no power on earth could have
    stopped them.  Indeed, given the same circumstances, most would
    do the same *even if they knew they'd be executed*.  Before the
    advent of prisons and/or the trial system, people often were 
    dispatched with the utmost haste and yet it did *not* prevent
    further crime then and I see no reason to think it would do so
    now.
    
    Again, this is not to invalidate your outrage which I personally
    feel is justified.  But if we are to bring about a better world,
    I believe that we must temper our rage with ration.  I think your
    point (about 4� yrs. for the rape/assault) is well taken - the
    punishment here doesn't seem to fit the crime (although I'd hasten
    to add that if he does time in a state joint, 4� yrs. is a long
    time to survive amongst cons who share your opinions; he'll be
    relatively lucky to get out alive at all).
    
    � I could say that .20 is the wimp, bleeding heart liberal, let some
    � one else do the nasty stuff, left coast attitude......but
    
    But you did. . .  When you begin to make personal attacks, you
    lessen the potency of your arguments.  Argue the issue and I'll
    listen all day; attack the speaker and I'll begin to wonder if
    that's your substitute for a rational argument.
    
    re: .26
    
    �	No Mike, we put them in prison complete with color TV's, stereos
    �	and other comforts, then after they have been "rehabilitated",
    �	we set them free on the streets to assult the next victim. This
    �	is our current system..
    
    Two points:  
    
    1) ". . .color TV's, stereos and other comforts. . ."
    
    While I understand that some of the federal prisons allow such comforts
    you may be pleased to learn that many (most?) state prisons don't.
    George, I can assure you it's not a fun place to be.
    
    2) ". . .then, after they have been 'rehabilitated'. . ."
    
    If, by enquoting "rehabilitated" you mean to imply that rehab in
    prison is more or less a farce, I agree.  And that's a very big
    problem because, as you point out, most prisoners *will* eventually
    be released.  In fact, it's at least reasonable to assert that
    most convicts are more *dehabilitated* than rehabilitated - certainly
    the recidivism statistics support this notion.  Given the half-hearted
    attempts at rehab, we shouldn't be at all surprised when the ex-con
    reverts to crime.  We are getting exactly what we paid for.
    
    I would argue that, unless we are to adopt the method described
    by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in "Cat's Cradle" (?)�, I think that getting 
    serious about rehabilitation is the only solution that will move us
    towards that better world we all want.  For one thing, I'd like
    to see people (and, no matter how we feel about them, cons *are*
    people) emerging from the process with a nearly overwhelming desire
    to repay the victims and/or society at large for their crimes.
    And I'd like it if ex-cons would spend the rest of their lives
    being useful citizens.
    
    I'm afraid, though, that such will not likely be the case very
    soon - imagine the money it would take to *really* rehabilitate
    such people (people who, btw, often start their lives as the victims
    of sexual offenders).  I seriously doubt if this society is ready
    to shell out that kind of bread - after all, why should we care
    so much about a bunch of low-life convicts?  And so we'll continue
    to get what we pay for.
    
    Steve
    
    �	I believe it was "Cat's Cradle" in which Vonnegut describes
    	an island on which *all* crimes are punishable by death.
    

    re: .27
    
    ". . .our current system is primarily based on revenge.  The ultimate 
    example of this is, of course, the death penalty. . ."
    
    This depends on your point of view.  Personally, knowing what I
    do about life in the joint, if I were staring at anything greater
    than a 20 yr. sentence with no parole possibility (I'm in my 40s),
    you'd find me hanging in my cell one morning.  Under today's system,
    if you *really* want revenge, I submit that a life-with-no-parole
    sentence is a far nastier punishment, especially if you can eliminate
    the possibility of suicide.
    
    Despite the above, I think your remarks are well said, Mike.
    
    Steve
    

    
    	Re: .20
    
    	"...the predisposition to vigilantism of most New Englanders."
     Oh, really?  Upon what sociolgical research data do you base this
     interesting conclusion, Mr. Holt?  Or did you just wake up with
     a little tummy ache from the previous night's scorpion soup?  It
     is becoming obvious even to Left Coast habitues that our current
     most famous New Englander is hardly predisposed to anything so
     fascist as vigilantism...he, in fact, has no problem allowing
     dangerous felons to roam far and wide across the land wreaking
     havoc, pain, and terror along their merry way, perhaps even in
     the land of the lotus-eaters, California...stay tuned.
    
    	The points by Mr. Mallett and Mr. Valenza are well-taken, and
     I appreciate the reasoned thought behind them.  However, I would
     also point out that there are large numbers of us out here who
     have had many and varied experiences, mostly less than desirable,
     with our criminal justice system.  Some of us, or people we know
     and love, have been victimized very badly; once by the original
     perpetrator/s, and then again by the system.  (A National Crime
     Survey finding is that one in four American households is hurt
     by criminal violence or theft each year.)  Stephen J. Markman,
     Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice has
     said that "Government owes the public a criminal-justice system
     which inspires confidence that the innocent will be protected and
     the guilty punished."  I feel that when the government either
     cannot, or will not, fulfill its legal contract with us in this
     regard, it has then forfeited our allegiance accordingly, and it
     then becomes incumbent upon us to protect ourselves and our loved
     ones as best we may.  Apparently, a fairly significant number of
     individuals has been able, over these most recent decades, via
     the liberal courts, academia, and the Fourth Estate, to circumvent
     any semblance of justice, rehabilitation, or even revenge, and
     to inflict their mayhem on the rest of us.  This is patently
     unacceptable, and will not be tolerated by a free people.  It is
     time that we recognize that there are most definitely some persons
     among us who are beyond such concepts as justice and rehabilitation,
     at least in this life, and that the best we can hope for, for the
     sake of us *and* them, is to keep them caged away from us.  Let
     me hasten to add that I have always been against capital punishment,
     and as a former police officer and soldier, I detest ad hoc
     vigilantism.  I applaud the alternatives of mandatory sentencing,
     and life (at hard labor) without parole.  Forget furloughs for
     those convicted of violent crimes.  
    
    	Education and rehabilitation should be available to those who
     sincerely want it.  But my concern for a convicted criminal's re-
     habilitation, material comforts, environmental factors, childhood
     trauma, and spiritual well-being begin with the safe removal of
     his knife from my, my family's, and my neighbors' throats.  When
     that occurs to our satisfaction, then we will be glad to sit down
     with the prisoner, the concerned liberals, and the victims (remember
     them?) and see if we can work something out.
    
    	My heartfelt sympathy to those of you who have courageously,
     and painfully, indicated in this topic, what your children and
     you have gone through.  God bless.
    
    			Dave

    re: .30
    
    Now *that's* a reply!  I doubt I could agree more.  I'd be interested
    to hear more of your thoughts, Dave.  While I am, at least in theory,
    committed to the notion that no human is absolutely beyond help,
    I readily acknowledge that there seem to be a few individuals who
    are so damned close that the difference is extremely small.  
    
    The main reason I espouse a serious approach to rehabilitation is
    not for the benefit of the perp.  It is the "victim" (i.e. society
    in general as well as, possibly, the individual victim of a particular
    crime) whom I'm concerned about.  It's essentially a pragmatic 
    view: 
    
    1)	Most prisons are not successful at rehabilitating cons
    
    2)	Most cons learn more about crime and become more hardend
      	in most prisons
    
    3)	Prisons do provide cons with lots of time to think; unfortunately
    	those thoughts are all too often about what the con will do
    	to "get even" when (s)he gets out
    
    4)	It is extremely unlikely (prohibitively expensive, for one thing)
    	that we will ever simply take all criminals and lock them up
    	for life or kill them
    
    5)	Most cons become ex-cons
    
    I submit that until we understand this as a society, the problem
    will get only marginally better.  Again, ethics don't weigh into
    this argument.  Until there are *real* efforts at rehabilitation,
    it seems to me that the forces at work above will yield us more
    criminals on the streets with harder attitudes.
    
    BTW, "Real reahb for those who *demonstrate* that they really want
    it and see you around the cell block, Charlie, for those who don't"
    is spot on, for my money.
    
    And I share your concerns (also as an ex-cop) about ad hoc vigilantism;
    very dangerous stuff.  
    
    And, in honesty, I'm not optimistic.  I have a very difficult time
    believing the American public is ready, especially in today's political
    climate, to shell out the kind of money that would make a serious
    difference to prison rehabilitative programs.  
    
    And I don't think it's very likely that we, as a nation, will choose
    to throw even more dollars at the root causes of crime - poverty,
    ignorance, bigotry, and the like.
    
    It seems to me more likely that calls for more police, tougher laws, 
    tougher sentences, and (some) more prisons (tho' not in *my* town, 
    thank you very much) will probably get a lot more votes.  I suppose
    part of this is because it *seems* like this should be the quickest
    solution to the problem.  For my money, it's akin to treating a
    tumor with (a couple more) aspirin.
    
    Steve (ex-cop, ex-con, and, at 12:25, a.m. ex-hausted  zzzzzzzzzzz)
    

    Recently I wrote a letter to colunmist Mike Barnicle about his column
    in Thursday 11 August edition of the Boston Globe.  If any of you
    recall the column it was about a girl named Mary Beth Lenane who
    owns a variety store in Dorchester.  She is in her early 20's and
    that was her lifelong dream, to open a corner neighborhood store.
    
    Well it seems a couple of guys(for lack of a better word that would
    be considered inappropriate in notes)saw it as an easy way to make
    a living by holding up her store.  They did so and several times
    beat her.  Once they raped her.  So as far as they were concerned
    what she made was theirs for the taking and the taking just kept
    going on.  Since Massachusetts is so lenient with its bail laws
    on sexual offenders they were allowed to walk.  One of them tryed
    to threaten her from testifying by strangling her with a clothesline.
    
    Its my belief that people like this should not be allowed to walk
    the streets but instead should go to prison for a while say 10 years
    and experience a miserable way of life.  That is what the prison
    expreience is all about, punishment for crimes against society.
    If they go to prison and are victims of rape well they should have
    thought about the consequences of their actions.  They deserve
    it.  Lets see how the  show fits on the other foot.
    
    As far as the prison experience goes.  Some individuals it does
    not work.  They are not reformed convicts when they return to society
    but instead are more hardened criminals.  Others learn by their
    prison experiences.  
    
    Several years back, a couple of guys I went to high school with
    were convicted in the beating death of a college student in Boston.
    I won't mention names or where it took place.  Anyhow they were
    given long stretches at Cedar Junction.  One guy was there for about
    1 1/2 years and he freaked out.  So they sent him next door to the
    minimum lockup Norfolk.  Where I believe he still is.  When he went
    in he was a tough city kid, now who knows.  He may have learned
    his lesson.
    
    Bryan

If there's one thing I'm tired of hearing it's "there isn't enough money
to build and maintain all the prisons we'd need to put every criminal
behind bars".  It should only take enough money to get the thing built;
maintaining it should be the job of the inmates.  Make 'em work for their
daily bread, and any other niceties they may desire.  No work = no food.
Cruel and unusual, I suppose some will say, but why should society pay
(again and again) for their crimes?

As far as executing murderers and rapists, fine, as long as there is *no*
doubt as to whom the perpetrator is.  If (s)he's caught in the act - with
witnesses, I mean - then hangin's not good enough.  When there is some
doubt as to the guilt, then life at hard labor will suffice until which
time more evidence may be presented by the defense.  As far as worrying
about one member of the jury not wanting to impose the death penalty, I
say punishment = crime, whereupon, you kill or rape, you get your just
deserts.  No two ways.  The law should dictate the punishment to equal the
crime, not a jury of one's peers.

.39>                           So far it appears from examples like Drunk
.39>  Driving that a tougher arrest, prosecution and punishment policy must
.39>  be used because as obviously un-neccessary as it is for adults to drive
.39>  while in an intoxicated condition ... without real "teeth" in the legal
.39>  system ... people were doing it in sufficient numbers to force the issue.

Actually, as many if not more people have been arrested for drunk driving
as before the stiffer laws/penaties went into affect.  This (in my opinion)
is one argument against the death penalty having any sort of affect on
prevention of serious crimes against individuals.  But whether or not it
convinces anyone not to commit murder or rape, doing away with the scumbags
will certainly prevent them from ever doing it again.

.38>>   Yes, if we executed past rapists, it would prevent them from committing
.38>>   rape in the future.

.39>	... and it would act as a greater deterrent against other potential
.39>  rapists who might lack the "moral" values to refrain from doing it in the
.39>  first place ...  

Unfortunately, those about to commit a crime of passion, be it murder or rape,
DO NOT, as I stated above, consider the consequences just before they strike.
Only a moral person does so, and is therefore unlikely to be caught with his
pants down in an embarrassing, possibly illegal, situation in the first place.

Kip (who_basically_agrees_with_Eagles_but_wishes_they_weren't_so_lonnggg_winded)

    
    Excuse me, but I'm a little offended at the painting of
    Iranians as some kind of subhuman species...
    
    We live with them here and I find them perfectly wonderful
    and gentle folk. True, they can become excitable, but not the 
    beasts that you would portray.
    
    Somehow I though the East was more cosmopolitan...
    
    

    Re: .42
    
    Please don't tar all of us on the East coast due to the peculiar
    views of individuals.  I am proud to count several Iranians among
    my friends and coworkers.
    
    				Steve

    How do you think we see them when the news about them is always
    on the down side. I myself think that there has to be some good
    folk every where you go. But what do I know. ;-)
    
    Ben

    Perhaps a contrast with prisons in Turkey might have been better
    received, as we've at least had one look into such a horror (I'm
    referring to the movie "Midnight Express").
    
    DougO ( Who_is_suprised_to_be_recommending_ANYTHING_2_Eagles )

    After seeing the results of paternal insest on a good friend of
    mine,  I think that what the offenders get in prison is just.  The
    psychological affects of such an act has completely destroyed the
    lives of many people.  She was not able to have a normal relationship
    with a man.  She felt the only way to feell love was to sleep with
    someone.   Her mother also is an emotional wreck.  Her friends have
    been betrayed and lied to because she has become a cronic lier to
    cover for what has happened to her.  Is it just for an innocent
    girl (about 11 years old at the time) to have her life completely
    destroyed?  I used to be for the death penalty,  now I'm not.  If
    we can send the monsters who do this to a place where it will 
    happen to them over and over I'm all for it!  I believe in the rights
    of all humans, but in my mind those who refuse to act like humans
    (no matter what their excuse) deserve to get what ever they dished
    out.  I usually don't think "an eye for an eye..." but this is one
    exception!!!!
    

    I hate to reopen a rathole that's already been closed, but...
    
    	When considering appropriate punishment for sex offenders it is
    necessary to consider secondary effects that stiffer sentences might
    have.  If we make the penalties for sex offenses effectively as severe
    as those for murder, then there is less to deter the offender from
    murdering the victim.  As a father, I would rather have a live child
    than one who was murdered by some creep who figured to eliminate any
    witness/victim.  
    	As we are all aware there are serial killer/sex offenders who 
    murder more than one victim.  These criminals are harder to catch, more
    difficult to convict and do more harm before they are caught than do
    simple sex offenders.  Can we afford to make sentences for simple sex
    offenses so severe that more serial killers occur?  How many of the
    serial killers murdered their first victim because they were afraid of
    the penalty for the rape that they had committed?
    	I think it might be reasonable to allow a reduction in sentence for
    sex offenders who choose to have themselves neutered, if this can be
    shown to eliminate or greatly reduce their tendancy to violence.  I
    think that most people, including the criminals, realize that there is
    somthing wrong with them, and in their more lucid moments they might
    wish to be cured of this wrongness.
    
    -----------------------
    	On the subject of rape in prison:
    	Rape is a crime whether it is committed in prison or outside.  The
    criminal should be punished accordingly.  Presently we are letting a
    certain class of violent sex offenders have a field day in prison.  In
    some cases the prison rapists are in there for commiting the same crime
    that they are allowed to commit in prison with impunity.  Some of them
    come out and commit homosexual rape on the outside.  Does someone who
    has committed a relatively minor crime (car theft, minor drug offense,
    etc.) deserve to be subjected to rape while in prison?  Part of the
    reason that our property is unsafe is that the judicial system is
    unwilling to make property offenders into rape victims.
    
    	A few points to consider.
    						John