Pedophile says 'two strikes' law will cause deaths

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Pedophile says 'two strikes' law will cause deaths
Article from: AAP

June 17, 2009 11:01am

A CONVICTED pedophile says a proposed "two strikes and you're out" system for child sex offenders will not work because offenders would receive less jail time if they killed their victims.

The founder of child protection group Bravehearts, Hetty Johnston, has proposed the two strikes penalty system, which could put multiple sex offenders behind bars indefinitely.

However, a convicted child sex offender, known only as Bob, said such a system would not work because the offender would get less jail time if the victim was simply murdered.

If convicted of murder they would eventually be released, but they would be jailed for life under the two strikes sex-offender penalty system proposed.

"The attitude is that it's better to kill your victim than go back to jail for nothing," Bob said.

"We had a man released recently who raped a victim, murdered them, then was released on parole.

"It doesn't work in America, I don't think it's working in Western Australia.

"I don't think it will work anywhere."

Bob, who has to wear a monitoring bracelet on his leg and lives in a halfway house with other sex offenders, sees a psychiatrist and vows he will never reoffend.

However, he and other sex offenders "still needed more support from the Government".

He said the risk of reoffending was at its highest when sex offenders were depressed.

"(You feel) entitlement to some form of gratification when your life's falling apart," he said.

"The stress in your life is so great that you can't cope with it anymore; you want some sort of reward, gratification."

Bob said laws were already too harsh against sex offenders and their defence rights were often used as a political football.

"There's no denying it's a horrific crime. But sex offenders are topical," he said.

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

[AshtonBlack]

I hate to say it, I can't fault the pedo's logic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hate to say it, I can't fault the pedo's logic.

The guys in the prison won't be killing any kids.

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

Smoking pot, raping kids, what's the difference?

[AshtonBlack]

I hate to say it, I can't fault the pedo's logic.

The guys in the prison won't be killing any kids.

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

Smoking pot, raping kids, what's the difference?

Zilla, what the pedo is saying is that fuckers like him would rather kill a kid and serve for murder (and have a chance of parole) than for sex abuse (with no prospect of parole)

That final quote, could be interpreted as murder should be "life" as well as "kid rape".

Both are terrible, abhorrent, crimes. But one could argue that murder is "worse" since the victim has a chance of recovery in sexual abuse.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hate to say it, I can't fault the pedo's logic.

The guys in the prison won't be killing any kids.

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

Smoking pot, raping kids, what's the difference?

Zilla, what the pedo is saying is that fuckers like him would rather kill a kid and serve for murder (and have a chance of parole) than for sex abuse (with no prospect of parole)

That final quote, could be interpreted as murder should be "life" as well as "kid rape".

Both are terrible, abhorrent, crimes. But one could argue that murder is "worse" since the victim has a chance of recovery in sexual abuse.

I interpreted it as saying, "You can't do anything about either, so don't try."

[AshtonBlack]

I hate to say it, I can't fault the pedo's logic.

The guys in the prison won't be killing any kids.

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

Smoking pot, raping kids, what's the difference?

Zilla, what the pedo is saying is that fuckers like him would rather kill a kid and serve for murder (and have a chance of parole) than for sex abuse (with no prospect of parole)

That final quote, could be interpreted as murder should be "life" as well as "kid rape".

Both are terrible, abhorrent, crimes. But one could argue that murder is "worse" since the victim has a chance of recovery in sexual abuse.

I interpreted it as saying, "You can't do anything about either, so don't try."

There is, either make the sentence for murder worse than the sentence for sexual abuse or make both mean life without parole.

Just because an issue is a media hot topic, should not change a rational expression in the law.
Personally I WOULD like to see them locked up for life, but only if comparable or worse crimes were so treated.

[Pappa]

"At the end of the day we should treat all crimes the same."

Smoking pot, raping kids, what's the difference?

Hanging's too good for them fucking stoners!

Regarding the OP, I actually remember hearing the same argument, perhaps a few years ago, in relation to rape (or some other crime - I forget which).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's the rational view. The OP is just trying to take advantage of a loop-hole in the law, IMHO.

I had a Criminal Psych class at Purdue and looked into the FBI stats on molesters and murderers. The murderers had 1.07 victims while the molesters had 5.8 victims.

[Feck]

"The attitude is that it's better to kill your victim than go back to jail for nothing," Bob said

Sexual abuse of a child is nothing , well if there is no crime then how come there is a victim ? oh and he just fucked up the only defence possible for
sick fucks like him "I was abused, it's not my fault ,I am ILL " well that don't work if to avoid a life sentence adding murder to the crime is no big thing !
Ok you may have been abused OK you are ILL but then to justify murder shows a total lack of any humanity .

[AshtonBlack]

That's the rational view. The OP is just trying to take advantage of a loop-hole in the law, IMHO.

I had a Criminal Psych class at Purdue and looked into the FBI stats on molesters and murderers. The murderers had 1.07 victims while the molesters had 5.8 victims.

I agree about the OP.

About the stats, interesting, but the number of victims shouldn't be a guide to a sentence taken as a whole. But each crime should be taken in context. IMHO, sentences should run sequentially rather than concurrent, including murder, rape etc.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's the rational view. The OP is just trying to take advantage of a loop-hole in the law, IMHO.

I had a Criminal Psych class at Purdue and looked into the FBI stats on molesters and murderers. The murderers had 1.07 victims while the molesters had 5.8 victims.

I agree about the OP.

About the stats, interesting, but the number of victims shouldn't be a guide to a sentence taken as a whole. But each crime should be taken in context. IMHO, sentences should run sequentially rather than concurrent, including murder, rape etc.

I agree with that.

[Pappa]

No... I remember now... it was cocaine traffickers. If caught, they'd get life, so they might as well kill the cops and try to get away.

[charlou]

How does the law work with regard to multiple offenses in the one criminal prosecution case over there, Gawd? I mean, to put it over-simply, if a person sexually assaults a child then murders that child are they charged with, and can they be convicted of, both crimes?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How does the law work with regard to multiple offenses in the one criminal prosecution case over there, Gawd? I mean, to put it over-simply, if a person sexually assaults a child then murders that child are they charged with, and can they be convicted of, both crimes?

Multiple charges would be filed in that case. The perp could get the death penalty for the murder AND life for the assault, depending on the circumstances.