The second article today was about a woman in England who has reasonable opinion on this subject. Specifically: "He should have had life and life should mean life". Amen to that. See, in her case, her three year old daughter was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by some scumbag who, if this was a sane world, would still be in prison from the time he assaulted a six year old. A crime for which he only got three years, though he actually served even less.
Adding insult, is the amazingly lenient sentence he is getting for his second offense:
Craig Sweeney, 24, who took the three-year-old from her home in Cardiff was last week sentenced to life but can seek parole after five years.Life is a great start, I have no argument with that. However, the ability to seek parole after any amount of time, let alone a measly five years is just pathetic. I think the mother of the child says it best:
The mother of the victim, who cannot be named, said Sweeney's sentence, passed at Cardiff Crown Court, was a "pathetic insult" to her child and called for the law to be changed immediately.Absolutely, and I would add that this sort of thing should be a life sentence without parole starting with the very first offense.
She said: "Regardless of whether its a minor assault, or a major assault, there should be a minimum of 15 years."
2 comments:
The argument that all sex offenders should be locked away for life fails after a cursory look at the facts. According to the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. This is compared to a recidivism rate of 67.5% of all prisoners released having been arrested for committing a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release.
I am not positing that there is such a thing as a good crime. But in a society (based on religious culture) that gives second chances, are we to deny 94.7% of sex offenders their second chance? Sorry, but I have 8th Amendment problems with that.
Finally, the bottom line. Are you willing to accept the monumental tax burden of housing these people at taxpayer expense for the rest of their natural lives? As a member of a generation facing a loss of Social Security benefits in the existing climate, I for one, do not.
Can you provide links for your stats? The info I have (such as here points out that recidivism rates vary wildly for sex offenders, depending on study and the actual sex offense. Here, we are talking about child molesters, which seems to have the highest rate of recidivism.
As for a "second chance", that all depends on the seriousness of the crime. I believe that certain crimes are serious enough that they do not warrant a second chance, and I believe that the sexual assault of a child qualifies as one of those crimes.
And, yes, I am willing to accept the tax burden. Running prisons, a strong military, and strong police and fire protection are a few things I have no problem paying taxes for. Bloated social programs that should be handled through charity, bloated benefit and pension packages for public employees, the likes of which you would rarely see in the private sector, etc. That, I have a problem with.
There is plenty of fat that we can get rid of when it comes to government spending, so I would suggest we start with that, and not worry about how much it will cost to put a person who belongs in prison there for the rest of his life.
Post a Comment