Sexual Predator in Mom's Daycare

[Slim]

Put them down.

Not for their punishment. (The damage is done and nothing will make it better.)

But for our safety. So they can‘t be around to reoffend.

Slim

 

[nULL]

Better reason than that; many of them were themselves abused as children. Castrating/Killing them before they harm children would be an effective way to nip the bud, so to speak.

 

[Old Cent Hand]

In reguards to ‘ Crime and Punishment" , I think our legal system , is weak , look at the " Young Offenders Act " . If I ever become down and out , I will commit a crime , and go to " Club Fed ", just think think , a warm place to sleep, 3 meals a day , entertainment ( TV), computer access,a good gym.Drugs( Yes , Drugs are smuggled there , all the time), and Sex ( If you are into guys ). And it doesn‘t cost the inmate a penny !

 

[Old Cent Hand]

Further to my last , the Inmate gets free Health Care , and if he is deemed fit to go back into society , he could get a free education . All I can say is , " HANG THE PERVS". But having said this , maybe these guys have " ISSUES" to deal with , and being a " PROUD CANADIAN" , maybe we have gone so far, as to give people a right , "To Be An *******".

 

[Slim]

Well its not all warm and fuzzy in there you know. Dig up Bruce Monkhouse and ask him what hard time is like. No thanks...If I was gonna be bad, the number one rule would be "Don‘t get caught!"

The number two rule would probably be go down where you stand. Not waste away in the big house for years.

 

[pte anthony]

That judge should be fired and the case heard again.Who wants to make a bet that the scum bag becomes a repeat offender. The sad part of that is his next run in with the law will probably be pertaining to sex crimes as well. Room for one more pick me up and lets skin this petafile alive. :rage: :threat:

 

[loyalcana]

Justice Celynne Dorval was a long time Crown attorney before she was appointed as a Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. During her time in the Crown office she had proscuted numerous sexual offenders.

These cases are very difficult to try because there usually isn‘t any evidence to try the suspect. In this case I suspect that the only reason this case was brought to court was that the offender turned himself into the police and his confession was the only evidence available to the Crown.

Push for the 10 year max sentence and the offender retracts his confession and the Crown no longer has any evidence. I know its a tough pill to swallow but many more cases of even more serious sexual abuse cases go unnoticed everyday often by family members or friends.

 

[army_paralegal]

Sexual preditors should have the following done:

real castration;

to be branded with a LARGE 'P' on their foreheads; and

never to be released, and permanant presence in the general popluation of a prison

my view

Wes

Yeah! No protective custody!

Look at Paul Bernardo! He is enjoying his TV paid for by us!!!

 

[WO2 Gubbels]

  I as well think that the legal system in Canada is terrible.  In particular the young offenders act.  When someone is sentenced for something terrible, maybe they should take all their assets if they dont have a family.  Pay for their own time in, from what I hear some people have it easier in then those out, just seems really messed up to me.

 

[48Highlander]

Castration is not a good idea for convicted sexual predators. When the scumbags get out of prison they still want to do what they did before and since they can't that inability would turn to rage and instead of a sexual assault you would have a gruesome murder.

Actually, castration is used because it eliminates the production of testosterone (assuming ofcourse that we're talking about removal of the testicles as well).  That in turns kills the sex drive and also makes the person less agressive/violent.

Now to play devils advocate for a second...the only reason most of you are reacting with the "just kill the bastard" attitude is because of social conditioning.  Sexual attraction in nature usualy has very lose standards.  Anyone who's studied the sexual behaviour of chimpanzees and apes can tell you that our closest animal relatives will generally do it with any willing partner regaurdless of age or sex.  Humans have historicaly acted quite similarily - in the times of the greeks and romans, bisexuality was an accepted norm in many cultures, as were sexual relationships between adults and children.  In our own society it is unacceptable, however, social standards don't always overome human nature.  So no, those who molest children aren't "sick bastards", they're criminals like any other - simply unable or unwilling to cope with the regulations of our society, and as such more inclined to follow their natural urges.  They certainly don't deserve the death penalty, unless you're willing to start executing shoplifters, drug dealers, and drunk drivers too.  However, since they ARE unable or unwilling to control themselves, we need to do it for them.  Castration is one very effective method.  Long term incarcaration works well too.  Depending on the individual, even simple exposure (ie.  a trial and media attention) could be effective, such as in the case which started this article.  If you take the stance that the purpose of the judicial system is to rehabilitate offenders, then in a case such as this it can sometimes be counter-productive to lock up the individual for a long term period.  There are different types of sexual offenders, and they need to be treated accordingly.  If this man truly is a normal, law-obiding citizen, who gave in to his sexual urges because he hoped he wouldn't be discovered, then the emberassement of having everyone around him know what he's done would almost certainly be enough to ensure he never does it again.  On the other hand, if he's a psycopath such as Paul Bernardo, whose sexual urges have more to do with control and degradation than anything else, then he should be castrated and locked up for life because he's gauranteed to offend again.  It all depends on the individual, and I think the judge of this case is a lot more qualified to decide this mans fate than those of us whose only source of information is one short article.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

what I find scary, are these offenders are being prosecuted for the things we know about. Imagine what they've gotten away with...

 

[1913_kicks_ass]

maybe capital punishment on display, i think they still have the gallows in Ottawa?

Yeah...there's still 1 working gallow in Ottawa at the Youth Hostel (the old jail house) You can see them on the Ghost and Gallows Walk (Its a tour of the  :"haunted" : part of Ottawa.) Our corps saw it on our trip to Ottawa last weekend.

 

[Britney Spears]

Actually, castration is used because it eliminates the production of testosterone (assuming ofcourse that we're talking about removal of the testicles as well).  That in turns kills the sex drive and also makes the person less agressive/violent.

<nitpick>

Removal of the Testicles does not eliminate testosterone production. It is also produced in the prostrate and adrenal glands,  abeit in smaller amounts. Castrati/eunuuchs are not completely sexually inept, they can still have erections and orgasms upon demand, and with some effort, but the sex drive is greatly diminished if not eliminated completely, and their ejaculate is a clear fluid, since no sperm is produced.

</nitpick>

Chemical Castration, where the production of testostreone is stopped by injections of drugs, can be mandated as part of a sentence by courts in many US states.

See here: <a href=http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/252/spalfram.html>FLORIDA'S 1997 CHEMICAL CASTRATION LAW: A RETURN TO THE DARK AGES,  LARRY HELM SPALDING, 1998 Florida State University Law Review</a>

 

[sdimock]

Now to play devils advocate for a second...the only reason most of you are reacting with the "just kill the bastard" attitude is because of social conditioning.  Sexual attraction in nature usualy has very lose standards.   Anyone who's studied the sexual behaviour of chimpanzees and apes can tell you that our closest animal relatives will generally do it with any willing partner regaurdless of age or sex.   Humans have historicaly acted quite similarily - in the times of the greeks and romans, bisexuality was an accepted norm in many cultures, as were sexual relationships between adults and children.   In our own society it is unacceptable, however, social standards don't always overome human nature.   So no, those who molest children aren't "sick bastards", they're criminals like any other - simply unable or unwilling to cope with the regulations of our society, and as such more inclined to follow their natural urges.   They certainly don't deserve the death penalty, unless you're willing to start executing shoplifters, drug dealers, and drunk drivers too.   However, since they ARE unable or unwilling to control themselves, we need to do it for them.   Castration is one very effective method.   Long term incarcaration works well too.   Depending on the individual, even simple exposure (ie.   a trial and media attention) could be effective, such as in the case which started this article.   If you take the stance that the purpose of the judicial system is to rehabilitate offenders, then in a case such as this it can sometimes be counter-productive to lock up the individual for a long term period.   There are different types of sexual offenders, and they need to be treated accordingly.   If this man truly is a normal, law-obiding citizen, who gave in to his sexual urges because he hoped he wouldn't be discovered, then the emberassement of having everyone around him know what he's done would almost certainly be enough to ensure he never does it again.   On the other hand, if he's a psycopath such as Paul Bernardo, whose sexual urges have more to do with control and degradation than anything else, then he should be castrated and locked up for life because he's gauranteed to offend again.   It all depends on the individual, and I think the judge of this case is a lot more qualified to decide this mans fate than those of us whose only source of information is one short article.

I disagree with your entire premiss. I think some of what you covered was discussed on another thread about "Religion and Politics".

I think that because a portion of society (no matter what size) considers something normal doesn't make it right.

Anyone who preys on the weakest or least able to defend themselves for there own gratification diserves no mercy.

The damage to these innocent childrens lives warrants the death penalty.

I also don't take the stance the the purpose of the judicial system is to rehabilitate offenders, the purpose of the judicial system is to dispense justice.

   

 

[dutchie]

I think that because a portion of society (no matter what size) considers something normal doesn't make it right.

I think you are confusing calling something 'normal' and 'right'. As well, I don't think he called pedophilia 'normal'. What he did say, was that pedophilia is based on some primordial/primitive human trait from our primate ancestry. Similar to the primitive trait of hot blooded murder (as opposed to cold-blooded calculated murder). As civilized humans, we have virtually eliminated this tendency, and it is completely abhorrent in our society. It is NOT normal to have these thoughts/tendencies, but it is based on a heredity that we all have.

I also don't take the stance the the purpose of the judicial system is to rehabilitate offenders, the purpose of the judicial system is to dispense justice.

Actually, right or wrong, a major goal (if not the main one) of our Justice system is to rehabilitate. I don't believe that pedophilia is curable, so it doesn't really matter what you do, but the system is focused on rehab and reintegration into society.

I don't believe in capital punishment under any circumstances, for any reason. We don't have the right to end life. As well, if you take the 'well, he didn't give his victims the choice/didn't show them mercy/etc' stance, you abandon the idea of fair and proportional justice based on fact rather than emotion. In a criminal trial, victims are, for all intents and purposes, 'witnesses'. The offence was against the Crown, not the person. The punishment should not be based on the feelings of anyone, but based on the crime. As well, do you really think that killing the perpetrator of a murder or violent rape will make the victim feel better (even if that was the goal of our System, which it's not)? I don;t think so. You always hear the victims family say "The execution was too good for him." or "It still won;t bring my baby back". Do you ever hear "Now I feel better. I don't have my loved one, but that's OK because the scumbag that took him/her is dead now." No. In our attempt to make up for the crime, we fall short, and in the process we degrade ourselves into vigilantes.

For what it's worth, the guy should have gotten 20-25 years hard time, no parole, general population.

 

[48Highlander]

I think you are confusing calling something 'normal' and 'right'. As well, I don't think he called pedophilia 'normal'. What he did say, was that pedophilia is based on some primordial/primitive human trait from our primate ancestry. Similar to the primitive trait of hot blooded murder (as opposed to cold-blooded calculated murder). As civilized humans, we have virtually eliminated this tendency, and it is completely abhorrent in our society. It is NOT normal to have these thoughts/tendencies, but it is based on a heredity that we all have.

Thanks, you got it exactly right.  The only thing is, a lot of the things behavioral traits we think we've made progress at eliminating, I'm not so surea bout.  Rape for instance, or sexual abuse in general, is almost impossible to accurately measure because so many victims fail to report it.  Just judging by the women who have confided in me, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 75% or more of women have at some point been victims of sexual abuse.  How many have been victims of paedophiles?  Once again it's almost impossible to gather accurate statistics - most such abuse occurs at a young age, and comes from members of the family, or close friends.  Children block the memories in later life, so the majority of those crimes once again never get reported.  And when it comes to the enforcement and punishment issue, there's the whole problem of defining paedophilia, statutory rape, sexual exploitation, etc.  The age of consent in Canada is 14, but I'm guessing most people here would find the thought of a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old to be pretty disturbing.  So would that person be a paedophile?  Well, from a legal and psychological standpoint, no, he's not, but many people would think of him as such.  On the other hand, a 16 year old dating a 13 year old could be charged and would legaly be guilty of statutory rape or sexual exploitation, but people would tend to view that with a lot more understanding.  The whole issue is a mess, it's something most people tend to ignore untill a person gets arrested and charged for it, and then everyone piles onboard screaming for his head.  That type of emotional response is totaly unproductive, and is one of the main reasons why issues regaurding the age of sexual consent and paedophilia continue to be a problem.  If we can't even agree on a definition, it's rather difficult to work on a solution.

 

[sdimock]

Hello Caesar,

I'm not confusing normal and right, his argument was that the call for the death penalty was an emotional, socialy conditioned response.

He also said that sexual relations between adults and children was an acceptable norm in some societies.

To excuse actions based on "heredity" is denying responsibility for your actions.

You don't believe in capital punishment under any circumstances so you have eliminated that as part of the fair and proporional justice.

By my comments I'm sure you can tell that I think capital punishment is smething that should be available to the justice system.

Also I don't belive that by having, or using capital punishment we degrade ourselves into being vigilanties.

I also wonder if being against capital punishment could be seen as being a socially conditioned emotional response and not based on fact.


48Highlander,

A 40 year old and a 14 year old, I would say the 40 year old is a paedophile, a 16 and 13 year old, it's still wrong.

I think one of the problems with our entire justice system, definitions and all, is that the scales of justice are tipped in the criminals favour.

 

[dutchie]

To excuse actions based on "heredity" is denying responsibility for your actions.

Absolutely correct. In fact, by identifying pedophilia as 'nature' rather than 'nurture' (the idea that something is genetic/hereditary rather than learned), lends itself to the idea that it cannot be cured. It does not absolve the creep from his actions, but does explain how these compulsions came about. We also have a hereditary compulsion to promiscuity, but it doesn't make infidelity right.

You don't believe in capital punishment under any circumstances so you have eliminated that as part of the fair and proportional justice.

Yes I have. And every other western nation except the US agrees with me, and disagrees with you. Perhaps another thread is in order for this topic, but basically capital punishment is wrong for 3 basic reasons:

1- Risk of executing an innocent man. With life sentences, you can reverse the sentence. Case in point is David Milgaard, who was jailed for 15 years (IIRC) for a murder he did not commit.

2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. What right do we have to decide to end another's life? They are there, in this instance, to protect Canadian society. There are more acceptable means of protecting society. If execution is used to protect society, then why not just jail them for life with no parole?

3- You can't make someone feel better about their loss by killing another. Too often, the execution of a criminal is justified due to the pain he has caused his victims family. How can you justify ending someone's life to ease the emotional pain of another? How is their emotional health more important than his existence? Also, how exactly is killing someone going to make another feel better about losing their spouse, child, parent or sibling? Is their pain so superficial that it can be eased by simply ending another's life? Keep in mind that their pain is focused around the victim not the perpetrator. It is caused by the loss of that loved one, it is not caused by the act of the criminal. If you could bring the person back by killing the perpetrator, then that would be different. In the end, after you kill the murderer, the victim is still dead, and their pain remains.

I also wonder if being against capital punishment could be seen as being a socially conditioned emotional response and not based on fact.

Actually, my position is devoid of emotional response. It is as logical and factual as I can make it. We should remove as much emotion as possible when dealing with crime and punishment. Emotion has nothing to do with it. Case in point, if one person is devastated by the break in of their home, does the perpetrator deserve a stiffer penalty than the one who broke into the home of someone who really didn't care? No, it should not. Punishment/sentencing should be based on the severity of the crime, the risk of re-offence, and the risk to society.

 

[YukonJack]

2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Apparently they do...how many wars is it gonna' take for you to figure that out? Why do law enforcement personell carry firearms? You cannot make a statement like that and end it in a period. You cannot make a statement like that and say most of the time...either they can or they can't...jmho

 

[dutchie]

2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Apparently they do...how many wars is it gonna' take for you to figure that out? Why do law enforcement personell carry firearms? You cannot make a statement like that and end it in a period. You cannot make a statement like that and say most of the time...either they can or they can't...jmho

Ok, how aboutn this: "2- Lack of ethical and moral jurisdiction. Governments do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies....with the obvious exception of the defence of those you're sworn to protect with deadly force.

Police officers must use deadly force to prevent death. Executions do not PREVENT death, they are a reaction to it. The threat of imminent death to a person has passed, and so has the authority to kill.