Judges Should Be Held Accountable for Their Sentencing

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

I'm a neoconservative extremist, let's get that straight. So I find the 'social dimension' of politics to be of tremendous importance. So tell me if my idea is crazy.

So anyway, every night I watch the news, and I hear of a new rape. Last week I heard of a particularly bad one. There was an absolutely stunningly beautiful girl at the Clemson University who was found raped and murdered, strangled to death by her bikini top. I'm sure many of you saw this story and were shocked, as well.

And the man who did it? Well, he was some ass-hole with a long, and distinguished record. He had already been arrested once for kidnapping and rape. His sentence was something around 5 years in prison, essentially nothing---after which he continued his past lifestlye, which led to the rape and murder of the Clemson girl.

So who is to blame? In my opinion the crime is as much committed by the rapist/murder as it is by the judge who gave the weak sentence and the system they live by---the belief that rapists can be reformed. Rapists can't be reformed. They should be executed before they can do it again.

But that will never happen because the liberal policy of reforming these lunatics will never be killed. The least we can hope for is life in prison with no chance of parole. That's a compromise I'm willing to accept.

The only way to ensure that it happens is for the people to put the 'proper' pressure on judges to ensure that they give them the sentences they deserve.

Judges should fear the consequences of not sending rapists to life in prison.

I won't ellaborate on what those consequences should be for obvious reasons. The judge is as great a threat as the rapist as they have the power to release them back into society where they have proven time and time again that they will do it again.

 

[irishwavend]

Oklahoma just approved the death penalty for repeat sex-offenders. I guess it's a step.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Oklahoma just approved the death penalty for repeat sex-offenders. I guess it's a step.

The problem is implentation. Sure, there may be judges willing to apply the death penalty, but it's not assured. There will always be that ass-hole that gives a guy 60 days of probation (yes, for those of you that don't know, that is the sentence some judge handed out).

At least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Are you two Christians?

If so, how do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your bloodlust?

Look forward to the answer.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Are you two Christians?

If so, how do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with your bloodlust?

Look forward to the answer.

I'm a Christian in much the same way as several million men serving in the American military were during World War II.

 

[Fitzgerald]

You're comparing being a soldier in a war against fascists who're trying to take over the world, and wipe out entire races, to wishing the death penalty on civil offenders?

Really?

 

[Fitzgerald]

Anyway it'd be more accurate if you said "I'm a Christian in much the same way as the men serving in the military were during the Crusades." Or "I'm a Christian in much the same way as the Spanish conquistadores."

In other words, Christian in name only.

 

[punishment]

WOW!!!! Oklahoma agreeing to the death penalty for sex offenders.

Even for someone who is the most radical, fundamentalist Christian, this has to be too much. I can't believe such a thing would be allowed. This goes even beyond the "eye for an eye" thing that many seem to throw out there fore justifying the death penalty. This is more like an "eye, arm and leg for an eye."

 

[Fitzgerald]

Besides, eye for an eye is fine - if you're an Orthodox Jew. But for a Christian it's superseded, or is supposed to be.

 

[punishment]

Besides, eye for an eye is fine - if you're an Orthodox Jew. But for a Christian it's superseded, or is supposed to be.

That's always my response when I here the eye for an eye thing. I sometimes wonder how many Christians know that this was superseded in the new testament, because you constantly hear the "eye for an eye" argument when talking about the death penalty.

 

[Fitzgerald]

I think much of it is "Christians" with a lot of Bible reading but relatively little education otherwise, are unable to really understand their own religion. It might have been better if the Bible had been organized differently so that Christians would know, without being trained to know, that the Gospels were really "the Bible" for them and the rest, less so. But back then everyone knew their religion back and forth, so that there was no confusion. Nowadays Bible literalists, still saying they're Christians, pick and choose passages from the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible, and not really theirs, though one wonders if they know that) to justify everything from murder to homophobia to incest. The Gospels are ignored almost entirely by these folks so that they're not really Christians at all.

I'd go so far as to the say that the Apocrypha, at least those concerning Jesus, are more authoritative for Christians than is the Old Testament. He, or rather what he said, is the religion.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

I'm Catholic, but I'm also pragmatic. I don't give a damn what the Bible has to say about this issue. I only care about the victims. I can't forgive a rapist and I never will. There place after death is assured, so why not 'quicken' their retirement?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I'm Catholic, but I'm also pragmatic. I don't give a damn what the Bible has to say about this issue. I only care about the victims. I can't forgive a rapist and I never will. There place after death is assured, so why not 'quicken' their retirement?

Because it's not Christian.

The Catholic church is clear on the Death Penalty. Jesus was clear about killing other people.

It's unequivocal.

If you don't care about what the Bible says, then why pretend to be Christian? No one forces you to. There are plenty of other religions that might fit your beliefs.

Just my $.02

 

[Fitzgerald]

That's not pragmatic, it's expedient.

 

[dankus]

Because it's not Christian.

The Catholic church is clear on the Death Penalty. Jesus was clear about killing other people.

It's unequivocal.

If you don't care about what the Bible says, then why pretend to be Christian? No one forces you to. There are plenty of other religions that might fit your beliefs.

Just my $.02

Was he clear? I'm pretty sure it's the commandments that set forth this imperative rather than Jesus. And by commandments, I mean the modern interpretation of the commandments, which is equivocal rather than unequivocal like you astutely put it.

Did you know that in the actual text of the Ten Commandments, the Commandment is actually closer to "Thou Shalt Not Murder" rather than "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I assume you did know that the commandment was not written in English(I cannot picture God giving Moses tablets on Mount Sinai written in a language not created yet), and had to be translated. But the translation is somewhat off, hence the discrepency. The actual commandment was more specific, referring to malicious and unlawful killing, rather than general killing of our accepted commandment. It is clear to me that the commandment itself is unclear, and ambiguous.

In addition, even thought the commandment is accepted as "Thou Shalt Not Kill", the Roman Catholic church recognizes a nation's right to kill someone to protect the safety of other citizens(i.e. Capital Punishment), but the church has also recognized that most nation's are capable of rehabilitation and have denounced the practice for the most part. Now to claim that Jesus taught this is untrue, unless you have specific scripture in mind where this is specifically stated. It is more the teaching of the Roman Catholic church(et al) that has instilled this belief in Christianity. This results in more ambiguous definitions of the commandment, which most people base their fanaticism regarding abortion and capital punishment on.

Personally, I believe that in some instances, capital punishment is necessary. I also consider myself a Christian, despite the fact I support capital punishment. And I do believe in what the bible says, but I also understand that the bible is an interpreted, translated text and it is not perfect in the form I have been taught. So, if that makes me less of a Christian to you than so be it. I imagine God will not mind so much that I accepted the more accurate translation of the commandment, rather than the ambiguous one.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

That's not pragmatic, it's expedient.

If you choose to follow texts literally, then why are you on a football board? Don't you know footballs are made from pigskin?

And I second Dankus' post.

 

[Fitzgerald]

The Ten Commandments are Jewish religious law. Jesus gave one, essentially, and it pretty much ruled out killing.

 

[Fitzgerald]

If you choose to follow texts literally, then why are you on a football board? Don't you know footballs are made from pigskin?

And I second Dankus' post.

I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you don't comprehend what you read, because my posts were pretty clearly against the Biblical literalism prevalent nowadays.

I don't take the texts literally. I think most of the Bible is irrelevant to a Christian. The Bibles that highlight what Christ says have the right idea. If you don't follow what Jesus says, you're not a Christian. The Old Testament is a different religion.

And the pigskin comment is both weak and nonsensical. I'm on a Catholic football board. Catholics are Christians, and Christians follow Christ.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

I don't care.

 

[dankus]

The Ten Commandments are Jewish religious law. Jesus gave one, essentially, and it pretty much ruled out killing.

I know it's not the intent of the way this is worded, but this makes it seem that Jesus' word usurps God's and it kind of made me laugh since most Christianity is Trinitarian.

Catholics are Christians, and Christians follow Christ.

No one is arguing this, but Christianianity follows the teaching of Christ as retold in the Gospels, which is a nice way of saying anecdotal.

I think most of the Bible is irrelevant to a Christian.

This I can't agree with however. It is widely accepted that the Old Testament is the word of God, than it is very relevant(assuming this is the part you say is irrelevant). However, there are Christians that deny the laws of the Pentateuch, which would make the teachings of Jesus supercede anything written in the Old Testament. That again, is your beliefs, however do not share them. To say it is a different religion is really incorrect, since we have established on numerous cases that being a Christian is not as cut and dried as saying you follow Christ. Yes, following Christ is a primary objective, but it is only part of it, at least to me. If you believe in the Holy Trinity, than the teachings of Christ technically are in the Old Testament as well, since the Holy Trinity is three parts of a single eternal being.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Christians follow Christ. The New Testament, the New Covenant, do indeed supersede the Old. Christ is God, to the Christian - and his words, rather than exactly "superseding" God's, ARE God's, and newer, and the final word on the subject. And they do indeed contradict. That's why much of God's action (as a literary character, as he's presented through most of those books) in the Old Testament is actually un-Christian and can be called such without there being any contradiction in sense. Jesus came in and erased the Old Testament, or meant to. And good riddance, I say. The God in the OT was as cruel as the people in it.

 

[donjuan]

a way off subject but a very funny viewing!

a way off subject but a very funny viewing!

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/avis-xm-radio-commercial-hilarious.html


just thought i'd let you guys see it again!

 

[dbldomer]

I'm not sure what this means. Maybe you don't comprehend what you read, because my posts were pretty clearly against the Biblical literalism prevalent nowadays.

I don't take the texts literally. I think most of the Bible is irrelevant to a Christian. The Bibles that highlight what Christ says have the right idea. If you don't follow what Jesus says, you're not a Christian. The Old Testament is a different religion.

And the pigskin comment is both weak and nonsensical. I'm on a Catholic football board. Catholics are Christians, and Christians follow Christ.

Catholics are christian but christians are not Catholic.

The vatican is clear that the value of life is paramount and is against capital punishment.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Catholics are christian but christians are not Catholic.

The vatican is clear that the value of life is paramount and is against capital punishment.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

i just want to make something clear. do you (pro-killing rapists) want all rapists to be given death sentences? i wonder bc everyone seems to be reacting to extremes of either side of the argument which doesn't get us anywhere bc the most intelligilble and logical answers are brushed aside by "well i don't think that so it's wrong".

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Then I suppose I'm just a bad Catholic. Either way, I'll fight for my way. I'm 17, I've got plenty of years ahead of me, and politics is one field I may pursue.

It won't be on my conscience to let these fuckers reminesce on their crimes in prison in 'joy'.

It also matters to me that the victims can be assured that "it's over and it's not going to happen again". Because though it's incredibly unlikely that someone could escape prison while serving a life-sentence, the possibility is still there, and it's psychologically traumatizing. I find the victim's comfort to be of far, far more importance than the life of a rapist.

And that's assuming that the rapist even gets a life sentence. They're almost always released after short sentences and then the victim has to live a life of fear.

i just want to make something clear. do you (pro-killing rapists) want all rapists to be given death sentences? i wonder bc everyone seems to be reacting to extremes of either side of the argument which doesn't get us anywhere bc the most intelligilble and logical answers are brushed aside by "well i don't think that so it's wrong".

I do and by pushing for an extreme, you're more likely to get the compromise result---life imprisonment---which is in my opinion, acceptable, albeit unfortunately modest. So yes, I want all rapists executed (with the few exceptions being those with shades of gray), but I also understand that that's not very pragmatic.

 

[Fitzgerald]

It won't be on my conscience to let these fuckers reminesce on their crimes in prison in 'joy'.

Prison is hell for anyone, but for rapists, and especially child rapists, it's much, much worse. If you think anyone, let alone rapists, is reminiscing about past crimes and experiencing any "joy" in prison, you're wrong.

It also matters to me that the victims can be assured that "it's over and it's not going to happen again". Because though it's incredibly unlikely that someone could escape prison while serving a life-sentence, the possibility is still there, and it's psychologically traumatizing. I find the victim's comfort to be of far, far more importance than the life of a rapist.

This is illogical and dishonest, IMO. The number of prison escapes is negligible; but more importantly, this isn't why victims and their families want rapists killed. It's entirely a matter of retribution. Once in prison, he's not getting out unless he's let out. And if the only thing that can make a victim and his or her family comfortable is a murder, then they're as sick in their way as the rapist, and may they long be uncomfortable. Leave the vengeance to mobsters.

And that's assuming that the rapist even gets a life sentence. They're almost always released after short sentences and then the victim has to live a life of fear.

This doesn't make sense. The victim is going to either live in fear or not after the rape, regardless of where the rapist is. Rapists rarely specifically target someone, or are a threat to rape that person again. There is recidivism but it doesn't impact the person raped initially.

I do and by pushing for an extreme, you're more likely to get the compromise result---life imprisonment---which is in my opinion, acceptable, albeit unfortunately modest. So yes, I want all rapists executed (with the few exceptions being those with shades of gray), but I also understand that that's not very pragmatic.

You think a life sentence is modest? Go spend a day in a prison cell.

 

[Fitzgerald]

And please don't enter politics. We don't need more bloodthirsty people in office.

 

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

Prison is hell for anyone, but for rapists, and especially child rapists, it's much, much worse. If you think anyone, let alone rapists, is reminiscing about past crimes and experiencing any "joy" in prison, you're wrong.

Well, that's an assumption. I'm making one too, but I don't think mine is as general considering that so many rapists continue their lifestyle once released. In reality, I doubt too many prison inmates have the moral authority to even care about a rapist's crimes.

The number of prison escapes is negligible; but more importantly, this isn't why victims and their families want rapists killed. It's entirely a matter of retribution.

That may be partly true. But fear certainly plays into it as well. It's not '''entirely a matter of retribution'''.

Leave the vengeance to mobsters.

Mobs have their places in our society. In particular, they have the potential to ensure that judges don't harm society by giving rapists a slap on the wrist. That's the main thing I was advocating in my original post, as a matter of fact.

This doesn't make sense. The victim is going to either live in fear or not after the rape, regardless of where the rapist is. Rapists rarely specifically target someone, or are a threat to rape that person again. There is recidivism but it doesn't impact the person raped initially.

It only needs to happen once. I think there's some depth behind my belief that victims have something to fear afterward.

You think a life sentence is modest? Go spend a day in a prison cell.

Have you ever spent a day in a prison cell? If not, then how do you know? My guess is that walking down the hallway to imminent death is a lot more awful an experience than an entire lifetime in prison could ever be.

 

[Fitzgerald]

Well, that's an assumption. I'm making one too, but I don't think mine is as general considering that so many rapists continue their lifestyle once released. In reality, I doubt too many prison inmates have the moral authority to even care about a rapist's crimes.

So you don't know what you're talking about, then. Moral authority or not, it's common knowledge that rapists, especially child rapists, go through Hell in prison, even moreso than everyone else does. And what does "once released" have to do with prison? You said reminiscing and having "joy" in prison. And no one does. It's not an assumption. It's fact. Go read up on the subject.

That may be partly true. But fear certainly plays into it as well. It's not '''entirely a matter of retribution'''.

No, it's entirely a matter of retribution in nearly all instances. Or, if there's fear, it's entirely illogical and so should be dismissed. I certainly don't think that because a victim may be illogically afraid of the same total stranger raping them again "should he get out," a guy should be killed. It makes no sense at all.

Mobs have their places in our society. In particular, they have the potential to ensure that judges don't harm society by giving rapists a slap on the wrist. That's the main thing I was advocating in my original post, as a matter of fact.

Idiotic.

It only needs to happen once. I think there's some depth behind my belief that victims have something to fear afterward.

How many instances are there of rapists who'd not known their victims before raping them ever raping them again? Give me numbers. I'm fairly confident that 0 will be the number.

Have you ever spent a day in a prison cell? If not, then how do you know? My guess is that walking down the hallway to imminent death is a lot more awful an experience than an entire lifetime in prison could ever be.

Your guess is as idiotic as all your other guesses, which is what everything you say is, pretty much. A guess. You don't seem to know anything or to base anything on real information. It's all just wild nonsense from a 17 year old.