14 year old rapist

    bret--untrue. Rapists and molesters go through hell (well deserved, by many standards) in jail, being seen as the scum of all prison denizens...so often end up raped themselves, beaten, and dead. Paul Bernardo, for example, perhaps Canada´s most infamous murderer-rapist, was put in maximum security for a reason: so he wouldn´t be killed by other inmates while serving out his life sentences.

    In teenagers the brain isn´t fully developed, certain parts of the brain, including the part used to evaluate risk and assess consequences, are not yet developed. Something like death would be appropriate for maybe a 30 year old rapist because a 30 year old would understand the consequences and do it anyway, he wouldn´t care that it caused untold mental and physical agony to someone. This 14 year old probably didn´t and probably still doesn´t realise that what he did will affect those girls for the rest of their lives, he is too young to comprehend that, too immature to consider that. Now I´m all for castrating adult rapists and whatever else it is you bloodthirsty people want, but when it comes to children maybe you should quell your collective urges to kill and hurt for a moment. And I say child because this 14 year old isn´t even a proper teenager really, still just a child. Now think about this, if you kill him, there is nothing worse no matter what you believe. Now I don´t want a god damned discussion on what I´m about to say next because that will get this thread locked so keep your mouth closed if you feel the urge to open your mouth only to argue. If you believe in one of the mainstream religions, he goes to hell and spends an eternity in untold pain and suffering. If you don´t believe in religion, then oblivion awaits him. He will simply cease to exist, a frightening prospect for many and one of the worst punishments one can face.

    I am pretty sure that if you ask a rapist whether at the time of the attack they thought "This will ruin their lives" - they will say no. At 14 years of age, ANY "child" should know the difference between right and wrong, be able to evaluate their actions and potential reactions... if not, why the heck would they lie when they do something bad? They know the consequences of lying, but they try to cover up what they know gets them into trouble. Some will actually tell the truth because they evaluate the possible outcome OF lying, and deem it a worse response than lying. If he were 11 or younger I may believe your statements, if he was 12 - then I would have some leeway - if he were 13, I would start being sceptical. At 14 I dam well knew what I was up to, I was in year 10 at school - hormones running wild, and getting involved with the ladies my own age. I did not look at young girls, and I knew the consequences in getting involved with girls sexually my own age as well - so these comments I read do not wash with regards to his age. I cannot (and nor can 14 year olds I have recently spoken to) believe this as an excuse. Either the lad has some mental issues, or he damned well knew his actions and the hurt they would cause. He may not have bothered to consider it, but neither do murders or rapists, child molesters or other criminals when commiting their crimes as well... they would if they bothered to think about it, but they simply do not. They only think of themselves... Crying is a natural distress mechanism which is supposed to bring out compassion and help from other humans - he would have ingored their crying, their pleas and potentially their screams. Even if he were unsure of his actions, that combination would have made him stop in any normal human. So anything saying "he is only 14" just does not wash in my books I am affraid. At what age do we become responsible for our actions? Otherwise, I may hire myself a couple of 14 yr old hitmen, safe in the knowledge that as long as I am not discovered. Jamie Bulgers killers got stiff sentences, as they were deemed to have known what their actions were wrong/would result in... They were younger than 14 at the time too - speaks volumes in my opinion.

    Actually, because of something which happened to me today, I´ve had a change of heart. I think he should be put to death. He is nothing more than weakling scum like most others that walk on this earth. It is better that his kind is exterminated from the earth rather than have them use up valuable air and resources.

    Thank you, Balthazar. You have just proved my point... By deciding pre-emptively without any coroborating sources or any investigation into his mental health you have done exactly what was done in the dark ages and late classical ages, you have shown that human morals have not advanced beyond the barbaric treatment of criminals based solely on feelings of vengeance and the only thing stopping wonts and whims like yours from affecting his fate is the restraint that has ever increasingly been demanded by the revolutionary thinkers and those determined to appear in a better light than their predecessors. If it wasn´t for them, people would be burnt alive at the stake simply for disagreeing with the majority (ok, fine... call it ´Heresy´) or hanged for stealing a few pieces of fruit. EDIT: Sorry, Wilde, I was a little tired when I wrote that <img src=smilies/icon_smile_blush.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/18/2005 5:11:13 AM

    Excuse me! Not all are saying they should be killed - a minority call for death. Although castration would suffice for some - although research has proved that castration doesn´t remove sexual desires after a certain age at all... Why do we have a justice system? Is it to really deal justice out - or does it actually give an opportunity to rehabilitate and integrate wrong-doers back into society - acting as a deterrent to other criminals, whilst removing the threat from the law abiding citizens whilst serving their sentence. An interesting thought though... should being mentally ill mean that you are spared execution? What type of mental illness should actually excuse someone from a death penalty (should one exist for crimes in the UK) - especially if they are to be incarcerated without any hope of a &quot;cure&quot; for their condition. Does this also fit in the idea of a criminal &quot;justice&quot; system (which sounds biased for the criminals), or catering for the criminals needs whilst neglecting those whom have been wronged? Is society supposed to be one which &quot;forgives and forgets&quot; immediately, coping with the trauma they have undergone - or should they be able to feel a certain &quot;justice&quot; has been carried out? Since humans will put to death any animal that attacks (with or without provocation by a child) and mauls them (inspite of it possibly being their natural &quot;instinct&quot; though straying on their territory, and being incapable of reasoning), and hunts down any wild animal to be destroyed that attacks as a food source (tigers, lions, sharks) - how exactly can we suddenly get on a high horse when it comes to humans? We respond to everything as else &quot;destroy the threats&quot; - why so lenient against proven threats between humans though? If you consider the fact that this lad may actually be treated for a mental illness, and released in ten years time... by simple fact that he has been treated/served his time for his crime - then if he moved next door to your family - would you be &quot;okay&quot; with this? After all, he has been treated and deemed safe... would you be happy with your children living next door to him? If he is not mentally ill at all (like most rapists or paedophiles are not deemed to be), then will a lengthy prison sentence really quash his desires upon release? Are we protecting society against them if this is the case? Are we addressing the issue, or just putting a layer of cosmetics over it instead (jail time) to satisfy. Whom does the criminal justice system actually serve? Is it societies needs - to protect citizens from criminals and dangerous people... or is it the criminals themselves? It is supposed to serve both, but with a very high rate of re-offense and increasing crime rates - one could easily argue that it fails both equally badly. The post deviates away from the mental illness issue, but that is simply because at what level of mental illness should a line be drawn about sentencing as normal humans would be? Alot of the &quot;mental illness&quot; mentions here seem to be simply attributed to his age only - after all, there are plenty of paedophiles out there whom no-one says are mentally ill at all... maybe this one just acted early like the rest of the current teenage generation. I ask again; if this was an adult - would you still be questioning his mental state? Plenty of fodder in this post for both sides to have a poke at, remember that none of this necessarily represents my viewpoint at all. *edit* Jamie Bulgers killers got 8 years, raised to 10 by the Lord Chief Justice - and then to 15 by the then Home Secretary (Michael Howard). It was deemed that politicians shouldn´t interfere with sentences in the interest of public pressure (by the EU courts)... and the sentence was reduced by the Lord Chief Justice Woolf and Jack Straw in Labours first term in office. The two boys being let out after serving just 8 years, although they apparently showed alot of remorse, and didn´t want to be released due to fears for their safety. They will probabily spend the rest of their lives living in fear - which should be more than enough extra punishment. Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 7/17/2005 5:50:45 AM

    Balthazar, you claim: <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I don´t want him put to death for his crimes <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> and yet in your previous post you claim <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>It is better that his kind is exterminated from the earth rather than have them use up valuable...resources <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> and that <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>he should be put to death <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> You can´t have it both ways, I´m afraid. EDIT: By <i>trying </i> to be clever I am going to assume you will not change your post. Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/18/2005 5:29:09 AM

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>You have just proved my point to Wilde et al. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Excuse me! I was agreeing with you!

    Is it more important to score points off of each other and nit pick, or to discuss things with a mind open to changing opinion? Does consitency matter when it could simply be a change of heart based upon your viewpoints offered so far? Rather than just say &quot;Your flip flopping here, play it straight only - pick one side and stick to it forever&quot; - shouldn´t you be asking if you have persuaded him to change his opinion instead?

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Balthazar, you claim: I don´t want him put to death for his crimes and yet in your previous post you claim It is better that his kind is exterminated from the earth rather than have them use up valuable...resources and that he should be put to death You can´t have it both ways, I´m afraid. If you change your post, I´ll change mine. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Obviously you fail to understand my words. When I said his kind I didn´t mean rapists. And in both posts I stated that death was appropriate. Let me spell it out a little more clearly. <b>Exterminate: tr.v. ex·ter·mi·nat·ed, ex·ter·mi·nat·ing, ex·ter·mi·nates To get rid of by destroying completely; extirpate. </b> And here we have what was in the previous post. <b>Put to death: To execute. </b> Now execute and exterminate are what we call synonyms. For more information look in your local library or browse the net a bit. Edited by - Balthazar Furious on 7/18/2005 12:18:26 AM

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>As for castration not being the answer because sexual thoughts are still there then fine. But no rapist can rape again if his twig and berries are in the bin can he? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> There are far worse ways to rape than through conventional methods.

    The court sentencing in this country sucks. That kid will probably get 18 months in juvi but will be released after 3. I think that sentences should be alot harsher and if your´re sent to prision for 18 months, you should do the 18 months with no chance for bail, appeal, parole etc.

    *borrows Final´s soapbox* Balthazar is scary. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> I do agree though, that given unequivocal evidence that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever a murderer is a murderer and a rapist is a rapist, a jail sentence is an unnecessary burden on the civilian folk who have to shoulder the costs through taxes. Not forgettting the terrible trauma caused by such a crime. The rapists impact their victims for the rest of their lives. How do you repay that? I´d like to think we´ve evolved as a race and be capable of preventing these sorts of crimes in the first place. Everyday I read the paper (sensationalist, true, but the message is clear) and learn of new deaths, rapes, muggings, burglaries. And bombs. Part of the problem is we hear of these events SO often that we become immune to the sensitivities, at least, until it affects us directly or someone we know closely. Apathy is as much a crime of conscience. *Returns Final´s soapbox*

    <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>There are far worse ways to rape than through conventional methods. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Sorry Balthazar, but correct me if i´m wrong on this, but is rape not forcing sexual intercourse on someone without consent? Unless you are talking of using &quot;other&quot; things in which case i admit defeat there. I didn´t think of that.

    What is sexual intercourse? People have different ideas than the clinical definition. And I´m not scary, my compassion for humanity simply went out the window after the final straw broke the other day. On the note of increasing criminal activity in the papers, some good summary executions would decrease the rate of those activities significantly. If people won´t learn from prison then they´ll learn from deaths of friends and family. That´s one great way to prevent crime.

    Alright, Balthazar, ignoring the part about &quot;extermination&quot; (by the way, your attempts at patronising me are not working very well) because I haven´t the foggiest idea what you were trying to say or prove with that, you said in one post: you don´t want him put to death, but in another you said: you do want him put to death. I quote: <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Actually, because of something which happened to me today, I´ve had a change of heart. <b>I think he should be put to death. </b> <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> But then I quote: <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Oh <b>I don´t want him put to death for his crimes. </b> <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Now, clearly again I have failed to understand your most complex use of the English Language. Obviously the meaning of the idiom &quot;put to death&quot; can mean different things based not only on the context but also on the whim of the speaker. However I was still a little confused by all of this so I took the liberty of referencing from Dictionary.com (you know how I don´t like to repeat my... mistakes) <b>put to death </b> Kill, execute, as in Another convicted murderer was put to death last night. {c. 1400} I have to confess that it agrees with you as to the definition of &quot;put to death&quot;. But then, this leaves me in the interesting position of trying to understand your comments, and I must admit defeat in that respect. Oh, and Balthazar, just so you know, by patronising me you have completely missed the point of what I was saying. If you make any more condescending remarks I won´t reply because I don´t want to start a flamewar and get myself banned. Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/18/2005 6:30:12 AM

    Except that it (the death penalty) isn´t (a deterrent). I mean, look at Saudi Arabia. Public executions are, if not commonplace, then at least a reality. And there´s still crime there. Look at America. I think there are hundreds of executions every year there, and yet crime continues unfettered. Death isn´t such a wonderful deterrent, unfortunately. Ultimately, it´s probably all but impossible to stop crime entirely. The best we can ever hope to do is minimize it. That´s not something I know how to do, but I´d wager that it would involve creating a society that isn´t quite so hyper-sexualized, consumerist, celebrity-worshiping and unequal. But that´s still a *long* way off. All we can do now is help the victims. *They* should be our main concern, not the rapist. If they want him dead, fine. He´s dead. But everyone else calling to kill the kid really isn´t in a position to do so. Perhaps someone who has been the victim of a sexual assault him/herself could give insight into what the girls are feeling, but even then, he/she isn´t the victim in this case and therefore can´t really demand death. And yes, death should be an option for the victims when they decide what punishment should be meted out. Given that the rapist did something very wrong, and given that the victims did absolutely nothing wrong (in this context), the victims needs are given full precedence. I don´t care what the kid´s mental capacity is or was. It´s irrelevant, really. All that matters is that he has caused an immense amount of hurt and it is now incumbent upon us as a society to fix that as best we can. If killing him is the only way to do so, so be it. I wouldn´t shed a tear for a dead rapist, even if he is &quot;just a child&quot;. Evil guy - I think you need to put the empasis on the &quot;for his crimes&quot; bit. Balthazar wants the kid dead, though not necessarily for this act in particular. I think. Edited by - Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! on 7/18/2005 6:00:23 AM