Yes each case is different my friend. No one said otherwise. But we all agree that the laws need to be changed and the punishments, depending on the crimeneed to be more harsh.

In this case, if the punishment was more harsh, more than a mere 12 year sentence for what this animal did, then we wouldn't even be discussing this whole issue.


Don Cardi

Does anyone know the circumstances surrounding this guy's sentencing? Did the judge give him a light sentence? What are the sentencing guidelines for the crime? The article said he pleaded guilty, did he get a plea agreement?

If he pleaded guilty then I would think that it is safe to say that the 12 years that he got as a sentence was part of a plea agreement.

Don Cardi

Then maybe they should send him to live with the DA that made the deal or the judge that approved it.

Here's a follow-up to the story, from the Post's on-line edition:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Lawyers for 12 sex criminals who are being held in mental hospitals after their prison sentences ended complained to a judge Wednesday that the state is holding them illegally, a charge the state's lawyer denied.

The sex offenders were ordered held by Gov. George Pataki, who had sought for years to get a law passed that would allow civil confinement of sex offenders when their sentences end.

Pataki's plan extends the state's involuntary commitment law, normally used for the mentally ill, to sexual predators. It requires offenders nearing the end of their sentences to undergo an evaluation to determine if they are a public safety risk.

Assistant Attorney General Edward J. Curtis said that before the end of the sex offenders' sentences, prison superintendents applied for orders of confinement, and got opinions from two psychiatrists saying each inmate needed to be hospitalized.

Curtis said a third psychiatrist, at the hospital, also examines the inmate.

Sadie Ishee, lawyer for Mental Hygiene Legal Services, said that did not satisfy state law, which she said requires court supervision and notification of patients' lawyers.

Kevin Quinn, spokesman for Pataki, said the state carefully followed all laws and that arguments against the plan amounted to "a meritless legal technicality."

The judge reserved decision on the inmates' petition.

Pataki, considering a run for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, ordered state officials in September to look at the state's nearly 5,000 imprisoned sex offenders before their release to see if they should be civilly confined.

They should have given this perv a life sentence in the first place. Sickos like this cannot be saved thru rehab.


DS

Is that a medical degree I see on your wall?

We have "Doc" Ferro. Why not Dr. Smitty?

How exactly do you know that he (or other "sickos like this") cannot be rehabilitated?

Sounds to me like

a) You are stating your opinion as fact, and
b) You are making a rather broad generalization.

Anyway, that's not the question.

Do you think that the government should have the right to keep convicted criminals incarcerated beyond the time that they were sentenced to serve, and, if so, what's the point of sentencing in the first place?

No I am no a doctor. When I pick up a newspaper time after time and see that someone was attacked by a repeat offender who was thought to be rehabilitated, I use common sence.

Even you said that most of the times the crime is done by repeat offenders.
Why do you insist on sticking up for people who pollute our society and hurt woman and children both mentally and phisicaly?
Why do these pieces of shit deserve another chance to hurt someone else?

I don't think that the government has the right to jail sombody longer then a sentence that they were given. But I do think that the liberal judges in this country are part of the problem. Pataki is probably sick of the liberal judges. But it doesn't make what he is doing right. The real problem is the liberal judges.


DS

I'm not sticking up for these people individually.

I'm sticking up for their rights, and all of our rights, collectively.

This guy probably is a piece of shit, and society probably would be best served by keeping him in prison for life, but it has to be done the right way.

And while I would agree with you about people who hurt women and children physically (and why just them? How about men, too), I suspect we'd have different views about others who "pollute" our society.

Anyway, you answered the question, and i happen to agree with you, as I stated earlier. the problem is lenient sentencing.

BTW, as much as you'd like to lay the blame on the "liberal judges", it is not necessarily them who are at fault.

There are sentencing guidelines for most crimes, mandated by law, which all judges must follow.

all lof our rights? Does that include sticking up for the victims rights? What about those rights? You never seem to speak about victims rights.

What really is the right way to deal with a sick bastard that rapes woman and children?


DS

20, 25 years prison?

And it depends...

What if the raper was a drunk man, who didn't had sex for a veeeeery long time, a women teased him a bit, and in a rage of fury, he raped her?

Does he deserve the same punishment as a serialraper, who plans all his rapes and just loves to destroy the lives of his victims, and prefers virgins above other women?

The victim's rights to what, Don Smitty? Revenge?

What legal rights does the victim have that I don't "stick up for?"

You tell me, and I'll tell you if I stick up for them or not.

You're mixing apples and oranges here.

Of course the victims have the same rights as the criminals, if and when they are accused of a crime as well. When I say "all of our rights, collectively", that's what I mean.

Take a rape victim. Her rights have already been violated. The only thing that can be done is to punish the perpetrator. Does that justify violating the rights of the perpetrator as well?

Because if it did, then no accused criminal would ever have any rights.

20, 25 years prison?

And it depends...

What if the raper was a drunk man, who didn't had sex for a veeeeery long time, a women teased him a bit, and in a rage of fury, he raped her?

Does he deserve the same punishment as a serialraper, who plans all his rapes and just loves to destroy the lives of his victims, and prefers virgins above other women? [/b][/quote]a rape is a rape is a rape.

RAPE depends on NOTHING.
A person should have enough control that even if a woman teases they don't have the right or sympathy from anyone to RAPE them.

Of course DMC, but judges always look at... (how do you call that in English)... things that might give some credit to the agressor.
I'll take murder for example: A different sentence is given when the murder is planned, than when it just happened on the spot. See what I mean?
When it's a serial raper that carefully plans all his rapes, then doesn't he deserve a higher sentence than someone who raped by accident, and regrets what he did? Alcohol can change a human... and make him do things he doesn't want to do. Like rape...

Well, you can't exactly rape "by accident".

But I'd agree that in most cases a serial rapist deserves a much longer sentence than the rapist in some cases of what we call in the U.S. "date rape", where the rapist and victim know each other.

i agree with that plaw but if we start basing sentences on alcahol level or on period of time between sex is a little ridiculous.

What do you mean by "a period of time between sex"?

Enzo stated that "if a guy didnt have sex for a very long time"

Drunk or not, "sexually turned on" or not, that doesn't give you the right to rape someone.

Well, I don't really mean to say that we should base sentences on all those criteria. I just wanted to say that a judge should look at the conditions under which the rape is done, and the global view on the rape: Serial or not, planned or not, regret afterwards or not,...

So if you want to measure the punishment of rape based on the situation then I say if the perv is a serial rapist, you cut both his balls off. If the guy is drunk and rapes a woman for the first time, then you only cut one ball off.

Ridiculous statement, huh? Well it is ridiculous. Just like the ridiculous statments made above about date rape and serial rape. "accidental rape? What the fock is accidental rape? Rape is rape, Period. If a man cannot control himself when a woman says no and forces himself on her, against her will, it's rape. Plain and simple. A man cannot force himself on a woman, AGAINST HER WILL, no matter what the situation may be.

So cut it out with the "well it depends" bullshit. Thats the damn problem right there. That mindset of justifying the disgusting act of rape and why it took place. :rolleyes:

As DMC said RAPE IS RAPE.


Don Cardi

"Because if it did, then no accused criminal would ever have any rights."

But in this case you are talking about a CONVICTED criminal, and a convicted criminal who shows no remorse or any signs of being anything but a future problem.

First of all, it's the article which calls hime "remorseless". We have no idea what that chracterization is based upon, and the Post is not exactly known for their unbiased reporting.

Second of all, from what do you infer that he shows "no signs of being anything but a future problem."?

From the conclusion of some psychiatrists who work for the state?

Haven't you ever heard of a trial where the defense is insanity, and each side puts on "expert" psychiatric witnesses, all of whom reach a different conclusion?

I just think that it depends if the rape is planned or not, at least. The period of how long a criminal is put away should depend on how dangerous he is to society. When the rape is planned, and the guy is a serial raper, I consider him more dangerous to society, and thus deserving a higher punishment than someone who raped only once.
The same thing is also for murder, no? Suppose I'm fighting with someone, and in the fight I unintionally kill him. Do I deserve the same punishment as Bin Laden? No, because he killed more and he planned it.

And sorry for my choice of words in 'accidental rape'. I meant to say it otherwise, but I didn't find a more correct word.

Enzo, you're mixing apples and oranges.

If a man and a woman meet in a restaurant, and later on that evening the man forces himself on that woman, against her will, it is rape. Plain and simple. Rape. That man may not have set out earlier in the evening to actually rape someone, but the bottom line is that he did wind up raping this woman. No self control, no morals. A skeeve.

If you are out in a mall and happen to get into a physical fight with someone, you obviously have to defend yourself and you are not looking to intentionally murder your opponent. But in the altercation you hit the guy and he falls down and cracks his head and dies. Well, you never intended to kill him. He was assualting you and it was not that you could stop and say "well do I hit him back or show self control?" You just needed to defended yourself. You were put into a situation where you had no choice but to hit this man back.

Involuntary Manslaugter instead of murder.


There's no such thing as Involuntary Rape vs. Rape.

There is absolutely no situation, at least in my mind, that can justify why someone need to rape someone else. If someone rapes another human being, it's voluntary rape, no matter how you slice it.


Don Cardi

Varying sentences are always handed down for the same or similar crimes, depending upon the circumstances.

Allow me to present some different scenarios here, and you tell me if the punishment should be the same in all of them.

First Scenario:
A man chooses an apartment at random and breaks in. Finding a 16 year old girl home alone, he proceeds to beat her into unconsciousness and then commits various acts of sodomy upon her, culminating in vaginal rape.

While the final act of rape is taking place, her policeman-father enters the apartment, catches the rapist in the act, and immediately subdues and arrests him.

Unexplicably, the rapist pleads "not guilty" at his trial, however the eyewitness evidence of the girl and her father, along with the forensic evidence, makes the case against him airtight.

The jury deliberates for twenty minutes before returning with a guilty verdict.

Second Scenario:
A 18 year old college junior has a reputation on campus as a real "party girl".

She has been sexually promiscuous since the age of 14, and has had more than 100 sexual partners in her lifetime, most of whom she slept with only once.

She is very much in demand at fraternity parties, since she is known for granting sexual favors to many of the boys at the partty during the course of an evening.

She is attending just one of those parties tonight, where she proceeds to get rip-roaring drunk, and then to do a striptease in the center of the room in front of 15 fraternity members.

She then goes around the room, and performs fellatio on each one of them.

When she is finished, she beckons one of the fraternity members to an upstairs bedroom, where they begin to have sex.

As he is about to penetrate her, she decides that she doesn't care for this boy's "technique", and attempts to resist the penetration, but the fraternity member, rather drunk himself, proceeds anyway.

The next morning, she files a rape complaint against the fraternity member.

Under the rape shield law, testimony about her previous promiscuity is ruled inadmissable. Despite testimony about the girl's behavior at the party itself by seven eyewitnesses, there is incontrovertible forensic evidence that the fraternity brother did, in fact, have intercourse with her, the jury believes her story that she attempted to resist penetration at the last moment, and after two days of deliberations finds the fraternity brother guilty.

Third Scenario:
Brad is a promising 23 year old medical student at a leading university. He hopes someday to get into research and work on a cure for the rare form of cancer which killed his mother. His girlfriend Jennifer comes from a religious upbringing, and at age 20 is still a virgin. Thy have been dating for one month, during which time they have gone out together six times.

After their first date, Brad kissed Jennifer goodnight at her door, but the relationship has progressed so that after each date they have gone a little further.

Jennifer, who now has deep feelings for Brad which she believes he shares, has finally decided on the evening of their seventh date that she wishes to have intercourse with him.

They discuss this over dinner and profess their love for each other. Both are delighted that they are about to take their relationship to the next level. Brad takes Jennifer home, and they go to her bedroom, where they begin making love.

Although she is enjoying the experience, Jennifer begins to have second thoughts about the wisdom of pre-marital sex just moments before penetration.

She whispers to Brad, although not very forcefully, "Brad, I think this might be wrong. Please stop."

Brad, attributing her words to the nervousness of someone having sexual intercourse for the first time, says to her "It can't be wrong, Jennifer, because we love each other."

Jennifer says nothing in reply, and Brad consumates the act.

Later that evening, Jennifer, wracked by guilt, confides in her father, a Deacon in their church. She tells him that she knows what she did was wrong, but, after all, she asked Brad to stop and he didn't.

Upon hearing this, her father convinces her that she has been raped, and insists that she press charges, which she does.

At Brad's trail, Jennifer testifies that she asked Brad to stop prior to penetration, and he didn't.

Taking the witness stand in his own defense, Brad testifies truthfully under cross-examination that, yes, Jennifer did ask him to stop, but he thought that she was simply nervous and did not resist or attempt to fight him off in any way.

After deliberating for three days, the jury finds Brad guilty.

Fourth Scenario:
A simple case of "He said, she said". No eyewitnesses, just the victim and the alleged perpetrator.

Ralph, the son of a multi-millionaire, and Alice, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks, have been on a few dates together, altho nothing serious has developed out of the relationship.

After one of the dates they have intercourse, and Alice charges Ralph with rape.

Ralph admits that they had sex together, but insists that it was consensual.

Ralph, because of his wealth, appears arrogant on the witness stand, while Alice easily conveys the impression of being a poor, helpless, and pathetic victim.

The jury believes her rather than Ralph, and despite the lack of any other evidence besides her testimony, Ralph is convicted.

Same sentence for all four?

How could you possibly distinguish between the two?? Is his crime somehow diminished because they knew one another? That's the most outrageous and ridiculous statement I've ever heard, and I'm assuming you made it because you are a man, and have never been raped.

Did you honestly mean to say that date rape is less of an offense?? Did you know that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew?? Did you ever think that the betrayal of a friend or acquaintance is far WORSE to the victim?? That to be physically assaulted and sexually molested by someone that you knew and trusted could actually be more psychologically damaging than if it were a stranger?

And what about the fact that if this was his "first time" and that if he hadn't premeditated the crime, do you think that won't make it EASIER the next time??? Especially since most women won't report being raped! And why?? Because she's scared to death that some dumbass man will get on his high horse and say that she was drinking with a man, or was in his apartment, or that he hadn't had sex in a long time, or some other ridiculous, misogynist take on it that somehow implies that she was asking for it. Just like the judge who dismissed the rapist because the defense argued that she was wearing a skirt and no underwear, which implied that she was somehow guilty.

Date rape is rampant on college campuses across the US. And why?? Because it's a crime committed against WOMEN and laws are made by MEN.

Read the above scenarios I presented, SB.

Most of these "date rape" cases are cases of "He said, she said", and there must be more doubt in the minds of jurors in most of the cases than in those in which the rapist and victim are not acquainted.

I believe that a rapist who violently attacks a woman he doesn't know and rapes her should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

I don't believe that the same sentence should apply to a man who is accused of rape after a date, and the whole case rests on the woman's word against his.

Those are the most ridiculous things I've ever read, PL. I expected better from you.

Frat boys and med students?? Puh-leeze!

Try this one on for size. A young man and lady in their 20's work together. They are both attracted to one another, but being coworkers, they are reluctant to do anything about it. The girl has admitted to others that she finds him very handsome, and even makes some jokes of a sexual nature about it to another female coworker.

One of their other coworkers has a party. The downstairs bathroom is occupied, so the young lady makes her way upstairs to find an empty one. The aforesaid young man is also upstairs. They begin to kiss and maneuver into a bedroom. The young lady decides that this is a truly bad idea, since they do work together, and tells the young man rather urgently to please stop. He doesn't. The loud music and noise of the party drown out her protestations and screams for help. He succeeds in raping her.

She decides that pressing charges is useless. Given the fact that she was kissing him, alone in a bedroom with him, and had mentioned her attraction to him to others, she decides that a jury would SKEWER her.

I think that one is a bit more realistic, and something that happens far more often than virgins that change their minds, and confess their sexual dalliances to their preacher fathers.

Do you think there is no forensic evidence? Do you think that the woman is not bruised afterwards? Or would the case be made that she just "likes it rough"? The way you think is why sexual assaults are so under-reported.

I don't know all the answers to this, but I might compare sentences in these cases to Murder vs. Manslaughter. Should the way a person kills somebody matter how long of a sentence they get? The bottom line is the victim is still dead, and you still caused it. Premeditated murder will give a person a longer sentence then someone who just killed someone in a fit of a rage. If there was no premeditation then it's manslaughter. The person is still as dead, so why should that matter. If you drive drunk and kill someone in your car you get charged with Vehicular Manslaughter. I don't know what that sentences are in most states but I know in Maryland you can get as little as 6 months - 3 years. And you've ended someone's life. That makes no sense to me. We should all take our anger and frustration on these matters and use them to get at our legislatures to toughen these benefits. Closing the barn door after the horse has already fled is not the solution.