Here in the US, should there be a law that people be banished from this country because they sexually abuse or assault a child.
I think this may stop or reduce these types of incidents. What do you think?
And to who's country would you send them?
I didn't say anything about sending them to another country.
Why offload your countries troubled citizens onto another country? This could be seen as ... it is wrong to sexually assault an american child but okay for any other countries children? Suck it up and neuter them. Turn them into public ridicules ... dont ship them off to become anothers problem.
Where would they be sent? Isn't this what prison is all about?...
Perhaps they should build specific prison environments for child molesters and abusers. If they could be permanently detained, this would solve part of the problem. To banish them from the country really wouldn't solve anything. Who would take them? No country wants to accept people with this behavior issue.
I think a regular maximum prison would be fine.
I think banishing them would strike some fear in people that commit these crimes.
And no country has to take them.
There are still cases where people are "framed"... "set up"... or have been wrongly accused of these crimes.
I feel that there should be justice, but contained with in the country.
If you are to banish someone, without specifying where they would go and where they would live, this just seems futile... a bit ridiculous.
We are not living in a small village where we can just banish someone from the tribe. This is too far fetched to even be imaginable.
Perhaps this is why Russia moves people to Siberia... to an area that no one would choose to live.
Banish them so they can abuse children somewhere else? I don't think so. Lock them up and/or keep them monitored. It would be criminal to send them off to some other country where they can start over on other people's children, where law enforcement won't know about them, and where -- in some countries -- child molestation is not taken seriously by law enforcement and it may not even be recognized as a crime (historically, it wasn't in many cultures simply because it didn't occur to peole or seem possible).
Although most countries check the criminal records of people trying to enter the country and would bar felons from entering anyway.
I have personally known three RSOs and/or their victims. In all cases, there were many repeat offenses when the truth finally came out, and each of the victims had been threatened in dire ways if they told anyone, allowing the abuser to continue preying on his victims. (including his own stepdaughter, in one case).
If it's proven, lock 'em up. They are a danger to children and continue to be a danger. There have been too many recent cases in the news of repeat offenders on parole, going after new victims. And having known a few of the victims, i don't want our justice system to cut the offender extra slack. Kids's safety first.
(A for how one can tell? The RSO I knew personally was the jerk boyfriend of a friend of mine, and he creeped me out, but I just assumed my visceral dislike of him was due to the fact I thought he didn't deserve her, so I resented him. I'm still kicking myself for not guessing why he triggered my "what a slimeball!" reflex. He's in for life, but the kids he hurt... no I will never again give the benefit of doubt, sorry.)
They already tried that, now we have Australia.
While it's a horrible thing, tossing someone out of the country and into another one wouldn't exactly solve any problems. This is what we have prisons for.
Again, again, I didn't say anything about sending them to another country.
Banishment is a draconian idea from the days of Babylon, and has no place in modern society. If we support the idea that it is immoral to tell people where they can live, it would be hypocritical to say that government could do it.
Maybe all the world's nations could chip in and buy a private island for all the child molesters. Then the perps could just molest each other, and children would be safer.
Sorry, but I have a real problem with those who harm children and animals. Perhaps it's because I was molested as a child, as were two of my daughters.
Rights are inalienable - they can not be lost, and morals can not have a 'provided' or 'unless'.
Some rights in the US are considered "inalienable". They're lost when people harm others. There's a difference between inalienable rights and losing freedom as a form of dealing with those who have harmed others and may harm yet more. As long as a prison system exists that means that some people have lost their freedom(s). The option to having a prison system would be either to let all the violent criminals run wild and destroy the whole society or else to do some of the outrageous things that are done to punish people in other cultures.
Morals can, and do, often have a "provided" and an "unless" to them. Basically, those morals are, "We don't bother you and we don't take away any of your rights unless you bother someone else and take away their rights; in which case, it's our moral obligation to protect innocent children - not you, or at least not when it comes to your rights versus theirs."
Bullets and Ropes are cheaper than Islands.
I have no tolerance whatsoever for anyone that assaults a child, we as a nation and a society should not either.
Thanks, you got it right, habee.
I feel it's a brutal thing to do to children, physically and mentally. There should be something that instills some fear in people that would do it.
Habee - Hell no. If there's going to be any island buying for anyone, why should the bad guys get the island. Give them some wasteland like Siberia, fenced in with high voltage and let the rest of us have the islands.
Better still, just drop them in the ocean with a weight tied to their leg, an extreme solution, but at least the children would be safe.
How about we stop acting like savages and try and think of a way to deal with child abuse that doesn't involve continuing abuse.
Indeed. The still have the right to be treated by due process. If they remain dangerous after serving a sentence, that is what psychiatric detention is for.
(Oops. I posted this reply in the wrong place above and couldn't fix it. Anyway..)
The island (owned by the US, though - other countries can worry about their own pervert/pedophile-islands) has always been my imagined solution to what could be done with them. Let them set up a whole little society and do their thing (with regard to living life - not harming anyone innocent), contact their family members by phone, and have visitors over a certain age. They can all live happily ever after (as much as they deserve to), and more innocent children would stand that much better a chance of living happily ever after too.
I'd argue that we can support the idea that people shouldn't be told where they can live PROVIDED someone hasn't lost his right to that choice by making the decision for a child that that child would not live his childhood through without being molested by a pervert who has no regard for the child's personhood.
To hell with that shit. They get a nice cushy life on some island with visiting priveleges, phones, food, whatever, and no expenses? Hell no. Prison, without priveleges. Behind bars. The only thing they get is what's necessary for survival. Food and water, protection from the elements.medical care, eyeglasses, a good pair of shoes to keep their feet off the cold cement floors. They can read and obtain counseling. That's it. No candy bars, no gold chains, no cigarettes, no coffee, no luxuries, no gyms.
I would be satisfied with a law to lock them up for life, depending on the virulence of their crime.
A lot of RSO's had one time incidents. Some of them were kids who were as under aged as their partners. It is the one who will steal and kill someone that bothers me, because they have no business getting short sentences.
I agree on the importance of not categorizing all offenses under one (or three) main categories for just the reason you said. However, the ones that both me aren't just the ones who kidnap and/or murder children. They're the fathers (or mothers in some cases) and who molest their own children, do time for x number of years, and come out and molest their grandchildren or the kids in the apartment two doors down. They're also the teachers and coaches and whoever else gains the trust of children and their families after making sure they "work with children" - only to betray that trust, whether or not they let the child go back home as usual each afternoon or evening.
Agreed Xenonlit, I can't argue with that type of punishment, however, it is rare that it happens.
You must remember we have some really excellent lawyers these days, and the justice system is no stranger to the dollar.
My first question is what is the root cause of the troblem: psychological, social atmo1sphere as younsters, temperament, genetic amiss...?
As for what to do about the assualting individual, if they are US citizens (born or sworn in) treat them as a citizens in the courts.
I understand, certainly there has to be a psychological problem, that leads to this effect, child sexual abuse.
What I'm asking is, how do we continue to respond?
Are you saying banishment laws isn't something we should adopt for a US citizen?
Correct, we should not transfer our problem on to another country; take corrective action, yes.
I mean banishment as what it is, banished, out of the country whether by water or land with no idea of where they end up.
a.k.a. transferring the problem to another country.
Contrary to what you may believe, every country protects and monitors their borders.
No one can just stroll in.
So banishment, as in, out and they can drift or walk forever.
Ban them to the Marianas trench. There'll be no walking from there.
So you are either transferring them to another country, or inhumanely starving them to death in international waters. Either way, not a real solution.
The solution is, the persons with urges like these should think long and hard before they commit this crime, and ultimately decide not do it at all.
Also, it's inhumane for someone to rape a girl or boy child, so yes, I'm okay with that.
If you want them killed, just advocate the death penalty. You don't eradicate torture by having the state perpetrate it.
I don't care if they die or not.
And if we had the death penalty in place for a crime like this, the people that do it obviously don't care about dying either.
In prison, you can get killed by other inmates for committing crimes like these simply because someone is a father, or they just don't like their kind.
The attitude today is, let them suffer in prison until they're dead, which eventually happens unless they're smart enough to get themselves put into solitary confinement and manage to stay.
This is a form of torture also, just not the justice system doing it directly but allowing others to. So what's your argument again?
Wanting to torture people and having sharp distinction between people you can and can't torture ("conditional empathy") is a psychological marker for being violent/abusive. Just saying.
Banishment may have been used to torture people in the old days, but that's not the general idea. These people are tortured, in prison.
Today, society has evolved, banishing would no doubt be used to solve a problem, than torture. Banishing would keep something that happens to weaker and more vulnerable individuals from happening.
People can empathize between a need to see these people suffer or not all they want, we who know the justice system can see they're going to suffer and possibly die in prison.
I'm just saying, to banish them or not can still lead to torture in reality. That they will be tortured is no excuse not to banish them, it's gonna happen anyway when they get caught and prosecuted.
Check out the new laws that are coming in after the NDAA Bill was issued in, Jan 1st, 2012.
I've heard people chatting about a law that Obama just pushed through that would give him the right to take away American's citizenship where they could be sentenced to "indefinite detention" without any due process of law, a trial by jury, or even the ability to counsel with an attorney.
Your wish may become a reality.
Watch the Jesse Ventura show on FEMA camps.
The United states has built over 160 FEMA Camps which came about as a result of Rex 84, back in the 80's.
Oliver North was involved in this.
If you do your research on this, this may be where the United States is moving to.
Research Agenda 21 next.
There is a projected plan to depopulate the planet by 85%. So I'm sure child molesters will probably be at the top of this list.
Banishment is not my wish. Just something I'm curious about.
I graduated from a public university with classes that were more discussion-based. I can't help it, I'll just throw out opinionated type questions like this.
However, this bill sounds interesting, I'll check it out.
There are already unjust and draconian laws in place on this matter, and the media does not help. In point of fact, the majority of so-called "abusers and molesters" are known to the family, (witness all the parish priests in the news!); some are even relatives!
The media thrives on sensationalism, and blowing things out of proportion--they would have you believe there is a child molester hiding behind every bush, and this simply is not the case. The media's slogan is, "If it bleeds, it leads." They don't care about accuracy--only selling ads.
You should go read this blog post I came across by a person whose friend got unjustly caught up in these very laws:
http://the-whole-truth-of-the-matter.bl … stice.html
The problem is this creation of a climate of fear, in the name of "protecting" us from all manner of some real and mostly imagined evils, "The Powers That Be" get to infringe upon and remove more and more of our constitutional liberties. Just look up the so-called "Patriot Act" if you need further proof that this is already happening.
I understand what you're saying. And I had to practically study the Patriot Act in my Political Science Terrorism class.
You didn't answer my question and state how you feel about the predicted effect it may have : >
I do not think it is a relevant question, for under our constitution, those parts of it that remain intact, there is no 'banishment' provision for any crime. Even murder, which is worse by far. (You can recover from a sexual assault, both physically and mentally--there is no recovery from murder.)
The unjust laws that already exist surrounding your issue have neither increased nor decreased the incidence of these crimes. If you read the blog post, you will also learn that not all people caught up in these laws have even committed a crime..they are nonetheless punished by these laws.
The main effect it would have would be the total devastation of the family of the persons so unjustly punished. There are far too many cases of people (see my reply to another comment) because they cannot afford to buy the "justice" they need, while others, more affluent, get off the hook even if guilty as charged.
Our entire justice system is askew. Trying to insitute punishments from back in the dark ages won't help.
Your comment tells a true story, but 'the whole truth about the matter' is something every American citizen should be familar with its message. I have thought these offenders were a mix, some real, some not; now you really opened my eyes, thanks.
Instead of keeping molesters in protective custody, release them in to general population. The prison will distribute its own sense of justice.
The child molesters worse fear.....other prisoners!
Considering that pedophilia has only been acknowledged as a serious matter in the past few decades, it is a relatively new issue that is being dealt with and one that is recognized as a mental disorder, hence it should be treated as such. Isolation is not the answer as with any medical disorder. When it is better understood, treatment will most likely be the answer in many cases.
Treatment??? Success in some cases? You've gotta be kidding me. I worked a caseload of "youthful offenders" who had committed sex crimes on babies and children. If you think "treatment" is the answer, you're dead wrong. My boys, who were 17 and under, had "R's" in their jackets and were going nowhere except to prison. Wake up and smell the coffee, Dude. And while you're at it, take off your rose-colored glasses. Sex offenders will always have a strong tendency towards babies, children or women. And it's always going to be about manipulating them into what they want them to do. Get real. I also worked two other prisons, and the sex offenders were always coming out of the woodwork. Obviously, a lot of the public are not informed when it comes to people who destroy lives by taking what they please. Instead, they make these sex offenders pets for life and vote to give them "life" on San Quentin's Death Row.
Despite what TV programs say, data shows recidivism for sex crimes is pretty comparable with other crimes and generally low. For example: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/ … gy_facpubs
Regardless, of people want life or death sentences, the way to do this is through the political and legal systems--not some medieval torture.
Medieval torture has evolved, into prison-justice.
Let them not be tortured by abandonment, but by other people and turn a blind-eye. Really?
Banishment is iffy compared to the torture that's certain from a prison sentence.
From the link...
"In all cases and at all levels treatment is needed for both offenders and victims of child sexual abuse (Shanahan and Donato, 2001) and more research is needed to see what treatment programs work, if any. Finally, coherent theory is needed to guide research and understand child sexual abuse."
Sorry, but that sounds like they're comparing the act and desire in a person to commit child sexual abuse to something like ADHD or Down Syndrome.
It's a coherent decision being made by the perpetrator of a crime like this. I don't think research is needed to see why they chose to do it, since they chose.
And it would take a specialist to get a child back on track after an incident like this. And I hope that's what a parent or victims guardian would rush to do, get their child back on track so they can have a normal life.
To everyone that's discussing this, it is sexual assault on a child ages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc...
But, your take on that "desire in a person" is based on what?
So, according to you, that "coherent decision" is based on what?
They make a natural decision to commit this crime. They desire sex and they choose or take whatever is available. If it can be a child, that's alone, they choose to a child. Which is child sexual assault, mixed with kidnapping.
And, that is your idea of a "coherent decision"? If so, why aren't we all making those kind of decisions? What basis would you or I have to not make that kind of decision?
You're thinking about the word coherent and forgetting about decision. Coherent or not, the decision determines the punishment.
Okay, how about this. The crime is apparently coherent or logical, to the perpetrators, since they decide to do it. Logical meaning, it makes sense to them to do this. Therefore they DECIDE to do it.
And the law is the law, no matter how intelligent you are or aren't. You know the law, you learn it, or you ask somebody if you're unsure.
It's illegal, whether they understand why or not. There is no justification for sexually assaulting a child.
But, if the decision is determined due to mental disorders, then it is the mental disorder that needs to be addressed.
It makes sense for someone with a mental disorder to hear voices in their heads, to have hallucinations or believe they're Napoleon, too.
The law understands there are people with mental disorders, if you cared to know that part of the law.
No one is claiming justification. You are simply ignoring the issue of folks with mental disorders.
The mental disorder is determined by problems with the brain. Therefore, the people that have mental disorders can't help what they do. If they could decide what to do, they wouldn't have a mental disorder.
The person who commits these crimes make a decision to do these things. They desire to do it. Therefore, they choose. There is no brain problem because they CAN CHOOSE.
But, they still make decisions that affect their lives and the lives of others based on their mental disorders.
Complete nonsense. Choosing and making decisions is not based on having a normally functioning brain.
Seriously, you are in serious denial. You maybe need to just forget about this.
There is no such thing as a mental disorder that controls the body and mind, in that, it makes someone decide to kidnap a child, then sexually assault them. No way.
Wow, you are in deep denial.
Here's a very simple example with a link to just one site amongst many other sites and many other examples...
"Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a type of anxiety disorder. If you have OCD, you have repeated, upsetting thoughts called obsessions. You do the same thing over and over again to try to make the thoughts go away. Those repeated actions are called compulsions.
Examples of obsessions are a fear of germs or a fear of being hurt. Compulsions include washing your hands, counting, checking on things or cleaning. Untreated, OCD can take over your life."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/obse … order.html
I think something must be wrong with them so it's best to get them to a institution and keep them there.
In all seriousness, I believe there is a housing unit in the states for these type of offenders who know they will offend again. They are never to leave, ever and do daily lifestyle tasks to aid to their, illness, I guess is the right term? It is like a closed campus that only house these offenders.
However they admittedly are aware they will re-offend and chose to stay there. So that may not help the in the whole scheme of things. But to the topic, perhaps this should be revisited on a larger scale, have a closed living space where the offenders live and be sustainable to avoid cost. Positive yet affirmative of safety issues.
OCD is a mental disorder. It is a mental disease. It is a brain problem. It is this because not everyone has it. People don't choose to have this disorder.
It occurs in some people that have had a certain type of stress in their lives. The stress has contributed to a brain problem. People with OCD have unwanted ideas and impulses. They don't have wanted desires or wanted impulses.
OCD is all about rejection not desire. It doesn't apply in this case.
You're saying that in some people there is the unwanted desire to harm a child this way, in order not to harm this way? That's just ridiculous.
Congratulations! We actually agree on the science.
OCD is just a minor example of the many mental disorders in which "Researchers think brain circuits may not work properly" - from the link provided.
True, but there are many other disorders that do apply.
You are misconstruing the issue now. Yes, you are being ridiculous and still in a state of denial.
Don't congratulate me. We are not on the same page.
You're the only one trying to make excuses for people that abuse children. You're trying to turn desire into a mental disorder, and you're using ones we're familiar with.
They decide to do what they do, and because of that, they should be punished.
And if ever a law was was created to banish any people, they should be the ones. Simply because they're obviously so traumatized by some individual in their past that they have a mental disorder, now, that's supposed to cause them to have to abuse someone else, and it must be sexually and a child.
Your examples and opinion is all justification, which is ridiculous. A decision is a decision. And they make conscious decisions based on their desires, period
You've made one thing perfectly clear, that it isn't really possible to reason with anyone who is in such a state of denial and simply wants to banish others based on their state. Oh well.
by weholdthesetruths5 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. ...
by Kathryn L Hill15 months ago
According to the Constitution, we are endowed by our "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights.Where do rights come from, if not God?The Government?Where do rights come from according to atheists?Wondering.
by mom1014 years ago
Do you agree with dual citizenship? Why or why not.
by Stacie L5 years ago
have you ever wished you were French but were born German?i don't mean to be political and you could become a citizen but did you ever wish to be another nationality ,culture or speak another language other than your...
by Sooner284 years ago
Most people accept that human beings have certain rights by virtue of being human. A person's monetary status is irrelevant to whether they enjoy these fundamental rights. Some of these rights are usually centered...
by greeneyesH19826 years ago
I bring this up because some people think that the united states is trying to ban this altogether and think that it will result in more crime from children being allowed to get away with more.... what are your thoughts...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.