2006-07-17 02:21:14 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being put towards keeping these types of offenders off the street because if they did it once they'll do it again and our safety is worth it.
What do you think?
2006-07-17 02:26:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I don't know about life without parole, but the sentences given to these people need to be stiffer. I've heard of pedophiles getting about a year in jail for molesting a kid. That's just wrong. I think a first offender should get probably ten to 20 years, and if a second offense occurs, life without parole.
2006-07-17 02:27:11 · answer #2 · answered by papag7222000 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Such people can be frightening, but it's known that most who are convicted and discliplined are no more and no less likely to repeat their crimes following release than are members of the general public likely to commit such a crime for the first time.
The idea that such people are somehow more evil and less amenable to reform is the result of political posturing, not of scientific study. The great majority of women and men who misbehave in this manner complete their sentences and go on to be productive members of society.
Repeat child molesters should indeed be incarcerated long enough to ensure they are incapable of repeating their misbehavior a third time. Rapists should be given a stiff enough sentence that they fully realize the enormity of their crime. If the rape is accompanied by murder, that's another story. Twenty years to life for such scum!
2006-07-17 02:52:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, life sentences w/out parol (and the death sentence) are for murderers, but rapists and molesters should be in there for a long time... eventually (hopefully), when they are freed, they will figure out it was a mistake to do those things, and not do them again, in fear of going back to jail for the rest of there lives...
2006-07-17 02:27:28 · answer #4 · answered by LittleMissSunshine 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It only sucks cause sometimes the system can put an innocent man in jail for life, but if dna tests were accurate, and the evidence was clear, i say lock them under the jail!!!
2006-07-17 02:28:26 · answer #5 · answered by chocolate_krys2000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The death penalty is so much more fitting. They take away a large chunk of a womans/childs life so they must lose theirs!!!
2006-07-17 04:45:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The punishment should fit the crime. I'm old testament on this one. And eye for an eye, a * for a *!
2006-07-17 02:26:25 · answer #7 · answered by barelyliterate 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I vote for castration. Making sure, of course, that they are actually guilty.
2006-07-17 02:25:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, only serial murderers, or those who murdered by mental disease (mental hospital for life).
2006-07-17 02:35:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way! the only right sentence for them is the death penalty
2006-07-17 02:25:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋