Mood:
incredulousTopic: A Hello to Arms
Brits and Europeans who read this blog are, more likely than not, aghast about things we've got going on over here in the US 'o A such as, oh, I dunno... Capital Punishment, for one.
But facts are facts, and we kill our worst offenders. Most of us think this is sensible, and the appeals process is surreally long and all, so end of story.
But in good old Louisiana they're prepping an oblong box for a guy who didn't even kill anyone.
He just brutally raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter.
Now, I say good for LA (that is, I agree with the jurisprudence) but with some qualifiers...
In my book it is repeat sex offenders, not especially first-timers, that should be introduced to the cold needle of justice. After all, the first time around there can always be that shadow of a doubt: did the witness lie, did their PARENTS ensure conviction through embellishments, etc... etc...? These are kids testifying, after all, and absolute credibility is difficult to obtain, more often than not.
Of course, if the evidence is OVERWHELMING, this qualifier is moot. In the LA case the evidence seems to be compelling enough to excuse this point, but I still broach it as a valid argument: stick a kid once, then twice: your ass is on ice...
So, I say a first offense and conviction should merit a hefty prison term (...hefty...) so that, barring overturning on appeal or the recantation of the victim's story, the perpatrator is beyond a reasonable age of 'active libido' upon their release.
The offender COULD be allowed to get out sooner, perhaps within a decade, even, but they would have to agree to a little surgical intervention (by that I mean full-fledged under-the-knife castration, not that wimpy 'chemical castration' thing in use today...)
Even after getting 'clipped' or getting old, there's always a compulsion with these people, be it mere overriding desire or sadism, that might trump their lack of either libido or 'nads, so they might reoffend even after all this.
If so, kill 'em.
If these policies seem 'draconian' (and, by definition, they are) one must realize the truth about violent sexual predators: unlike some punk who robs a liquor store, or even a person who kills another human being in a fit of passion, it is almost STATISTICALLY GUARANTEED that a sexual predator, especially a child sexual predator, will have SOME additional transgression somewhere down the line if allowed to. Recidivism rates for this 'worst of the worst' population are staggeringly high, and it is the ANOMALIES in the system who will not ever reoffend again, even if that 'offense' is purchasing and using child pornography.
Which, by the way, makes them only an accomplice to child rape. What a wonderful distinction...
LA should tread lightly here, but technically their jurisprudence is in the right place: morally and ethically this man deserves to die for his crime.
But, at the end of the day, ten'll get you one the Supreme Court vacates the sentence. They've got something of (ironically!) a 'lack of balls' when it comes to letting blood. Maybe they should.
But maybe this defendant needs to check out, too.
