re: Florida To Begin Sentencing Pedophiles to Death – Democrats Outraged

quote:

---

Preventing recidivism should have a shite load of money.

---

The only ways to "prevent" recidivism are (i) execution and (ii) life without parole. SCOTUS has deprived us of option (i), and for purposes of this discussion, we stipulated "life without parole." Recidivism is not a variable in that analysis, because the prisoner in question will never be breathing free air again and will have no OPPORTUNITY to re-offend.

In THIS discussion, the question is simply "where do we house them" for life. I say that a low-security facility is a good option, for a variety of reasons including (a) prevention of extra-judicial execution, (b) low risk of escape, (b) low risk of violence in the facility, and (d) low cost.

There are several theories of incarceration, including protection of the citizenry, rehabilitation and pure punishment. I have readily-admitted that my analysis is based upon the premise that prisons exist primarily to protect the citizenry.

You seem to not care about any of the factors I analyze, so long as you make their lives as miserable as possible. That is certainly one approach to incarceration.

quote:

---

You worry way more about the sensitivity of predators than you do the safety of children

---

Not ONCE have I said anything about the "sensitivity" of the offender. The closest that I have come is the assertion that the State should not engage in "de facto" execution when it is prohibited from a "de jure" execution. That is a limitation on the power of the STATE, not a concern for the offender. "Limited government" and all that. Neither you nor I is safe, when a government is free to ignore the limitations placed upon it by applicable law.

But set that aside. How is any given child more safe, if a given offender is housed in a super-max versus a low-security prison, given the minimal likelihood that this class of offender is going to attempt escape?

Roger, you are engaging in emotional hyperbole.

The groomers aren't going to like this one bit. The groomers say it is just another in the long line of sexual preferences.

[quote]Not ONCE have I said anything about the "sensitivity" of the offender. The closest that I have come is the assertion that[/quote]

You literally said you, Aggiehank, could make an argument that the child molester was a victim.

Now lie your way out of that one.

quote:

---

The groomers say it is just another in the long line of sexual preferences.

---

Evidently the new groomer message is that pedos are the actual victims in the big picture.

Raping a child passes the disease down from generation to generation. Its one of two irredeemable crimes IMO.

I value a random dog more than a child predator.

quote:

---

Now lie your way out of that one

---

You are such an odd duck.

Why would I "lie" about something that I have acknowledged repeatedly?

The victims of child molestation suffer many, many long-term, negative effects. You know this better than most. I think it is reasonable to consider mental health issues in sentencing, and the law agrees with me.

All of which has zero bearing upon the question of whether it makes sense to consider housing this class offenders in administrative segregation at a lower-security facility.

Do you always have this degree of difficulty juggling two concepts at the same time?

quote:

---

All of which has zero bearing upon the question of whether it makes sense to consider housing this class offenders in administrative segregation at a lower-security facility.

---

Of course it does.

Minimize escape. There is absolutely no reason to house dangerous rapists in minimum security.

quote:

---

I value a random dog more than a child predator.

---

Hell, I value a pit bull over a pedo.

quote:

---

You are such an odd duck.

---

Holy shite

quote:

---

I’m opposed to the death penalty but if if I wasn’t I’d have no problem making child molesters eligible for it.

---

This and move them to the front of the line.