News Child Molester Who Was Mercilessly Beat By Victim’s Dad Finally Learns His Fate

[shrinkingviolet]

I don't know that there can ever be justice, whether the offender is sent to prison or not. It doesn't take away the act or the harm to the victim. As a parent, I know I would lay down my life to protect my children and they know it. This Dad was doing just that and was justified. No parent should EVER be punished for protecting their child. I think the world needs more parents that are protective.

 

[WillyKat]

I've done the research Fact: about half of those arrested for child sexual abuse will be arrested for the same offense again. You can bet your last nickel that there are plenty of other victims between arrests. That's from US data but its much the same elsewhere. Sexual criminals are serial criminals. Of those that abuse boys, for example, they average 150 victims!

So you have to ask yourself, what's the right thing to do here? Nobody benefits from vigilantism, because once that gets started, there will be a bloodbath with most of the victims being innocent. So really, what is the right thing to do? It's not an easy decision, is it? My personal opinion is that a conviction for a sexual offense is an automatic life sentence, with no possibility of parole. Maybe beating hell out of them isn't right, also because of what it does to the one doing the beating.

 

[Neverthesame]

@WillyKat You make a very good point. People commit these sorts of crimes are sick, it isn't a matter of consequence. They will keep doing it until they are forcibly confined to a place where they have no access to children. That is currently the only sure way to stop them.

I also, as much as it pains me to say. Your most likely correct about vigilante justice being a misused slippery slope, that likely would devolve back to the days of lynch mobs roaming the countryside beating "justice" into anyone that looks like an easy target. Not a solution to be sure. However for this particular case, the @#&*er got exactly what he deserved.

As for what may be a working strategy for the future. I really don't know. The first couple of things that come to mind.
- Castration (has some potential, yet not a surefire bet or well, humane).
- Lobotomy (Spent the last 2 days watching cheezy horror movies on Netflix lol) The reality of this "procedure" is simply turning the person into a drooling nincompoop. Probably less humane than a beating, and 25 years of sodomy from "Bubba, and the rest of the prison gang".

I also remember a news story from years ago about a daycare facility in New England, I think. The family that ran the facility all found themselves in prison for molesting the children in their care. After quite a few years all of them were later acquitted and released from prison. The reason? It had been found that investigators methods of questioning had been inadvertently been leading the children. They had kept the kids far too long asking leading questions over and over. Until what started as one concerned parent asking their child about odd behaviour. Turned into a family run shop of sexual horrors. There was also no evidence found to suggest that the children were being mis-handled at all.

I mentioned that case to make a point, when it comes to what sort of justice could/should be applied to such people. Not every child abuse case is as cut and dry as Florida molester, being caught red handed.

Now I do realize that there have been other cases like the daycare I described above. That have turned out to be true. It does however pose the question of what can be done with an abuser given for example the US justice systems "innocent until proven guilty" method of doing things?

One more time for the record. The Florida guy got his, that's good.

 

[Escape Goat]

Even in prison there is a Code of Honor. You can do anything to a grown-up but you can't do children. When this molester's prison-mates find out he hurt a child, the molester will most certainly become a chew-toy.

 

[WillyKat]

In some states, to avoid the chew toy scenario, the put all the sex offenders in the same cell block or even the same prison. There's one I know of (somewhat close to the family) that will spend the rest of his days in one of those. He got 138.5 years, no parole.

 

[Changing4Best]

If only my father had done that! Instead, he was too busy drinking with his friends to notice what his father was doing to me. Oh yeh, my dad was away working a lot, as was my mother. They needed money for all their parties they had with their friends. So instead of watching out for my welfare, they were always busy.

 

[joeylittle]

That is currently the only sure way to stop them.

Chemical castration is the concept you left out.

But even surgical or chemical castration won't work on 100% of offenders; if the offender is motivated by a sexual compulsion, severely curtailing their libido stands a chance (with therapy and motivation of the individual to break the addiction) of stopping the behavior. Not a guaranteed chance. And if they are not motivated sexually, no form of castration is going to change the behavior.

I'm really conflicted about the US prison system - but pedophiles are one of the categories of criminal where it seems that locking them up forever is the only real viable option, if you want to be certain it won't happen again.

Edit to add: I don't know if anyone is studying chemical 'castration' options for female offenders...but it's easy (I think) for the public to lose track of the fact that this is not a crime limited to male perpetrators.

 

[Neverthesame]

Chemical castration is the concept you left out.

You are correct, I did leave that out. I believe that was attempted in the US. Not too long ago either. It was in the late 80's early 90's. After a woman was raped by three men while jogging through central park in new york city.

The judge tried something radical, he offered the men either long prison terms or chemical castration, in exchange for leniency of sentence.
From what I remember about the case. The men took the castration, but subsequently appealed the case. Citing cruel and unusual punishment. Though I believe the appeal was upheld, the procedure was already performed. I don't remember what they received as recompense. Not that they deserved any, what they did to that poor woman was just, (I have sat here now staring at me phone, for about 5 minutes, trying to think of a word to describe that. I can't)

Does anyone know why locking up serial rapists and child molesters is the only thing that works? I don't know enough about psychiatry or neurology, to understand why they can't be reformed. I just know they are forever a threat to society.

 

[Ladyghosthunter]

I would've blown his head off. Forgive me but I would because, for the rest of my child's life, he will have to endure the pain, the agony and the suffering of what this man did and I would NOT let him do this to anyone's child anymore.

I would protect my children without one thought...however I don't have any but would love to adopt.

 

[joeylittle]

I did leave that out. I believe that was attempted in the US. Not too long ago either. It was in the late 80's early 90's.

It is still used here in the US; I believe about 10 states have it as an option in sentencing. Also, full medical castration is used here. But, like I said, if libido isn't the primary (or even sole) factor, they aren't effective - and that's where the controversy (should this be an option or shouldn't it?) comes in. I don't think anyone has a really good idea how to handle these criminals.

 

[Neverthesame]

@Ladyghosthunter Yup, same here. I don't have children either.

Which also makes the whole thing even more difficult to understand. Why? Why does this happen? Clearly one does not need to be a parent to understand that children are lovely innocent little things, that need love and protection. What the hell goes so terribly wrong with a person's life, brain and or soul. To make them want to do harm?

@joeylittle It would seem then, preventative screening measures would likely be the avenues for study. I wonder why those men won their appeal? Or is New York State, more opposed to corporal punishment?

 

[ms spock]

The majority of people who sexually abuse children will never come before the courts. 85% of sexual assault against adult women is never reported. It is a tiny percentage of child rapists that come before the courts.

Most people who sexually abuse children are related to them - their own fathers and mothers and family members or part of the family network by being friends of the family. It makes it much easier for parents to silence their children by blackmailing them that they might be hurt or what might happen to them.

So in terms of children being able to disclose about sexual abuse in their own families I don't see vigilantism as helping, in fact quite the opposite - it will enable abusers to manipulate them into silence to prevent the child rapists from being monstered by the "outraged" thus condemning the children for long periods of sexual abuse. Abused children still love/depend on their mothers and fathers so they will protect them.

Child rapists assess children in their own families and in their own friendship networks based on the adult's interaction with the children - if a parent is sick, unavailable, incompetent, has been sexually abused themselves, lacks the skills to protect their child/ren they then go on to groom them. If there is an adult that challenges the child rapist, be they male or female, then they move on to greener pastures. That is why so many "grow their "own".

So ruling class fathers pay for therapy for their offspring, and "give" houses and apartments and shares. Middle class fathers do a similar thing on a smaller level. They never ever come close to being processed by the courts. And they have a life time access to a wide range of potential victims - it is not the person that is like a "monster" that gets to do this - they are charming, manipulative, cunning and superfically "good seeming" types of people. For women child rapists the sexism that men do most of the raping and child sexual abuse assists them in flying under the radar.

Talking of stranger danger which is such a small percentage of child sexual abuse is a distraction from the systemic problems in our society of child sexual abuse within families by their family members.

In my humble opinion justifying violence towards child rapists is also a distraction of the overwhelming reality of the problem. To me it is not that productive or helpful because it enables a whole discussion to go on without facing up to the reality is that child sexual abuse happens in people's homes, every day, and by not naming and facing this - we all enable it to continue to happen on a huge scale. But we are socialised to behave in these enabling ways by the forces in our society that shape us to not really get involved in social justice or social change or to face up to the widespread nature of sexual abuse of children within their families.

I can see that the prevailing opinions in this thread are at odds with my own, and I respect that, but I don't think it is an effective use of time. I think the discussion needs to be held in a different way and across a different paradigm, if actual social change and prevention of child sexual abuse of children in their families was to occur. This discussion of parents being able to be violent to "protect their children" obfuscates the fact that parents are the majority of sexual abusers of their own children, and I don't see that as being helpful as it reinforces a denial about child rapists, who on the whole, operate out of their family of origin or they family that they have created.