Police in Nevada Say Arrest Made of Man Wanted in Videotaped Sexual Assault of 3-Year-Ol

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN

No article yet.

Read more: www.cnn.com

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now draw and quarter him!

[ThomCat]

2. That man's life won't last much longer.

x(

[shanti]

36. you are

absolutely right about that.

[Sukie1941]

3. Hope it is him!

What a beast!

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Link for you!

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7159986

CAUGHT: Chester Stiles Apprehended in Henderson

Oct 15, 2007 09:22 PM

Henderson police have just confirmed that Chester Stiles, the man allegedly on the disturbing video sexually assaulting a 2-year-old girl, has been caught by them.

Henderson police say they captured the fugitive during a routine traffic stop at Green Valley Parkway and Sunset, at about 7 p.m. The driver of the car pulled into a parking lot and handed Officer Dye a California driver's license. The picture on the license looked nothing like the driver of the car.

Officer Mike Gower pulled in behind the car stop to back up Officer Dye. When the officers questioned the driver about the driver's license, Stiles admitted who he was.


more at link

[Whoa_Nelly]

5. What the attorney representing the little girl and other said

An attorney representing the victim of a sexual assault and her mother shared his feelings Tuesday about the man accused in the attack. The victim's mother asked Jerry Donohue to speak on her behalf.

Donohue stated, "I hope he digs a hole in the ground and puts a gun in his mouth."

[RexDart]

6. Happy dance.

Now put him on trial. and if needed fire up the wood chipper.

[bluestateguy]

7. I sure hope they got the right man

Because the rapist on that video should be hung--in the public square.

[CoffeeCat]

8. One more scumbag child molester...

...off the streets.

God knows how many victims this evil scumbag has left in
his wake.

It's good to know that the victim in that videotape is getting
help, and that those around her understand what she endured.
She doesn't have to suffer her entire life now, and she can
get help, heal and someday understand that her attacker was
punished and held accountable for his crimes against her.

In a God-awful, horrendous situation---this is a silver-lining
ending.

[Arkansas Granny]

35. I found this info, which I hope is true, that states that the little girl

has no memory of the abuse. Look on page two of the report.

The girl in the videotape was found with her mother in Las Vegas Sept. 28. Now 7 years old, she has been described as happy and healthy, with no memory of the 2003 encounter with Stiles.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3735151&page=2

[CoffeeCat]

38. It sounds like this little girl has a very supportive...

...mother and that the family is doing everything to help her.

The fact that she is described as "healthy and happy" is a good thing.
If this was a one-time event, she has a better chance of healing than
those who are repeatedly molested over a long period of time.

If she has no memory of it, she may have repressed the memory and it
may surface later in life. If that is true, she is going to need
help processing and releasing that memory.

The videotape has been described as totally and utterly contemptible,
and that she is shown as "vacant" and "empty". That's a sign of
disassociation--meaning that she totally blanked out in order to
mentally escape this trauma. If her mind helped her to "go away"
during this event, the event is still there--and she might be
affected by it--even though she does not consciously remember it.

Hopefully, if she has repressed it--she can release it later when
she feels safe, process it and let it go forever.

Keeping memories like that in the subconscious is like fighting a ghost
that you can't see. You have many symptoms (fear, anger, depression),
but it's confusing because you don't have that event memory. Usually,
people just end up on antidepressants or other drugs---when what they
really need is to get to the root of the problem and process.

This little girl is very lucky. She might have processed this in her
own way, and she might be ok. However, if she needs to process later--
everyone around her supports her and they know the origin of the problem.
They'll be able to help her. Many times people start acting out later
in life, and the abuse remains a secret--even from themselves. They're
mislabeled with ADD or depression, and that is such a tragedy.

These soul-stealer pedophiles really need to be locked up for life.

[redqueen]

70. Great post...

agree... life in prison, no parole, on the first offense.

[Lithos]

9. Yes!!

I hope it's not a case of mistaken identity. I so want this man brought to justice.

L-

[krispos42]

10. I hope they let him keep his shoelaces in his jail cell.

Maybe he'd do the world a favor and save us the trouble of a trial.

I have a son that age. If that was my kid, the only safe place for him would be in jail.

[DCKit]

11. I want to see a pic of his voter registration card. nt

[varkam]

12. Thank goodness.

Glad he's off the streets.

[SKKY]

13. Suspect Arrested In Taped Sexual Assault of Girl, 3

Source: CNN

A man wanted in the videotaped sexual assault of a 3-year-old girl has been arrested, according to police in Nevada.


Chester Arthur Stiles was arrested following a routine traffic stop.

Chester Arthur Stiles, 37, was arrested following a routine traffic stop around 7 p.m. (10 p.m. ET) Monday night, according to Henderson Police Department spokesman Keith Paul.

Stiles was driving a white Buick Century without a license plate, police said.

During the traffic stop, Paul said, Stiles first presented a California driver's license that "didn't resemble him." He later admitted to being Chester Stiles.

Stiles has been turned over to Las Vegas Metro Police, who were seeking him in connection with a four-year-old videotape that shows a small girl being sexually assaulted.

The girl, who is now 7, was found last month with her family in Las Vegas after a nationwide search generated thousands of tips.

Stiles, a resident of Pahrump, Nevada, was also sought by the FBI in a separate matter involving state charges of sexual assault and lewdness with a minor under the age of 14.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/16/rape.tape/index.html

---

Thank God this monster is off the street. As I've said before, I would very much enjoy watching this individual suffer for what he did to this poor child.

[bluestateguy]

14. OK, Take him up into the Space Shuttle, and then just dump him into space

Then he'll implode or burn up in re-entry.

[SKKY]

15. I'm fine with that!

[JeanGrey]

75. Count me IN. Where do I send money to get this done?

Works for me.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

16. Here, here!

For once I'm cheering the police. When it comes to sex offenders I'm EXTREMELY conservative, unlike the right wing we don't have to all bow to the same nazi-esque agenda, this fucker should fry. Better yet, we should take a lesson from the Russians like how they handled the infamaous child-murderer Andrei Chikatilo. He was tried, sentenced, then they took him into a courtyard and put one through his head. If the suspect gets a fair and balanced trial and there is incontrovertible physical evidence, I say we apply the same policy. It'll save tax dollars. Sex offenders have the highest recidivism rate, they contribute nothing to society. There are sound arguments against the death penalty, and I can almost buy it, but I think of Bundy and Gacy and guys like this, imagine what that poor child went through, and I can honestly say I feel NO REMORSE for such a creature. We all know the rules and the rules are thus; All human life is sacred save those who knowingly destroy life for power, pleasure, or profit. Is there any other way to see it?

[rusty quoin]

17. Yes, children should be completely walled off from anything bad

But I would like to understand why this happens. It is historic. How can it be stopped, besides killing the molester?

[varkam]

18. Actually, offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates...

out of any class of criminal. Nevermind, carry on.

:hide:

[zalinda]

19. I heard the exact opposite. n/t

[varkam]

20. Well, check the Center for Sex Offender Management.

They've got recidivism data for you.

[BadgerLaw2010]

26. Let's see...5% re-arrest rate. Now adjust that for crimes reported and crimes committed...

~ 5% re-arrest rate for sex offense is from the DoJ 1994 study, so that's accurate.

Most crimes of all types aren't reported, and most of those that are reported aren't solved.

Child molestation in particular is notoriously underreported for obvious reasons. The FBI estimates that at most 10% of incidents are reported.

When you multiply that re-arrest for sex offense rate out through the general issues regarding all crime, you see that it is not low at all. It might not be quite as high as raw math would indicate, but there's no reason to believe it's really that much lower. Child molesters in particular have enormous numbers of total victims over their lives.

5% re-arrest is not exactly encouraging. It indicates an awful lot of sex offenses being committed by those released from prison for felony sex offense.

[CoffeeCat]

42. Exaclty....recidivism rates are UNRELIABLE and MISLEADING...

You bring up an excellent point.

How is recidivism measured?

Usually interviews are conducted---and the statistics are built on
a foundation of SELF REPORTS FROM CONVICTED CHILD RAPISTS.

Do we actually expect that these convicted child rapists (most of
whom are sociopaths) are going to offer accurate data?

It's absurd.

Furthermore, if you are counting recidivism as ONLY when the predator
pedophile has been AGAIN convicted--that is absolutely not a measure of
recidivism. IT's only a measure of the pedophile being caught and convicted.

Victim studies have consistently revealed that ONLY TEN PERCENT OF SEX CRIMES ARE
REPORTED. Even when victims report, the majority of those crimes are never
convicted.

In conclusion---THERE IS NO RELIABLE DATA ON THESE PREDATOR PEDOPHILES because
the self-reports of convicted child predators are highly unreliable, and the
percentage of pedophiles convicted for their crimes against children is at best 10 percent.

To suggest that pedophile recidivism rates are low---is simply untrue.

[varkam]

45. It's true that those crimes are underreported.

But that doesn't make the recidivism rates false or misleading, though they are probably higher than stated. This is because while the crimes are underreported we're not able to determine who is committing them simply because they are not brought to the attention of authorities.

So while I agree with you that the actual recidivism rate is higher than is reported, there's no real way of knowing what the actual rate is - just as though there's no real way of actually knowing how many rapes are committed in the US each year (because, again, many are not reported). Simply put, the best we have to go on is the data that we have, but that should certainly be qualified.

[redqueen]

71. If you know the data is flawed, why tout it as if it's meaningful?

[varkam]

80. As I said.

It deserves qualification, as does most data. For instance, general recidivism in this country is between 60 and 70 percent over a five-year followup though it is not unreasonable to assume that there are some people who are not caught for another offense - does that mean that the 60-70% figure is meaningless? No, it doesn't.

[mzteris]

29. don't you mean highest?

[varkam]

46. No. eom

[CoffeeCat]

41. That's absolutely not true...

All experts who specialize in pedophiles and sex crimes agree that there is
no way to accurately measure recidivism rates of predator pedophiles.

How are recidivism rates measured? They are measured by ASKING THE PEDOPHILE WHETHER
OR NOT HE HAS MOLESTED ADDITIONAL CHILDREN.

Just exactly how many pedophile predators do you believe are truth tellers?

Furthermore, if these pedophile predators do admit to molesting more victims,
they face prison, which further invalidates the self reports of these pedophile
predators.

To suggest that the self reports of CONVICTED child rapists, child predators
and serial child molesters---is reliable in any way--is irresponsible at best.

[varkam]

44. Uh...no they are measured by re-arrest and conviction rates. eom

[CoffeeCat]

49. Both forms of data collection are INVALID!

Some recidivism rates are based on self-report data from convicted pedophile predators.

Other recidivism rates are based on re-arrest and conviction rates.

Again, these data only measure how many predator pedophiles are
CAUGHT again. These data do not--and can never--provide a reliable measure
of whether or not these convicted predator pedophiles have molested again.

One in ten sex crimes are reported. That statistic is even lower for children
under 12.

The overwhelming majority of predator pedophile crimes are never reported to
the police, thus the "re-arrest and conviction rates" have no bearing on
how many of these convicted-and-released predators victimize children again.

Your assumptions are flat out WRONG.

[varkam]

54. Recidivism for sex offenders based on re-arrest and conviction records...

...places recidivism between 11 and 18%, depending on which study you look at (which is lower than for any other type of criminal such as drug offenders). Additionally, if given treatment there is a statistically significant decrease in those numbers.

As I addressed above, it is probable that the recidivism rates for these crimes (and indeed - ALL crimes) are higher than are reported, as it is not an unreasonable statement to make that some simply get away with it. As I also noted above, however, it is unclear how much bearing the claim that sex offenses are undereported has on sex offenders as there is simply no way of knowing whether or not these crimes are being committed by former offenders or new ones.

I'm not sure where you're getting your stats from, but AFAIK the rates of reporting are much higher than you claim and vary depending on which study you look at and how the data was collected.

So, again, as I addressed, the recidivism rates are the best data that we have to go on, but they (along with all over recidivism rates) should be qualified that some sex offenders probably do offend again and are not caught. How many do, however, there is no way of knowing.

[redqueen]

72. "There is no way of knowing" yet you keep acting like you know.

Strange, that.

[varkam]

79. As I posted:

So, again, as I addressed, the recidivism rates are the best data that we have to go on, but they (along with all over recidivism rates) should be qualified that some sex offenders probably do offend again and are not caught. How many do, however, there is no way of knowing.


So there is no way of knowing in the sense that there is also no way of knowing how many rapes are actually committed in the United States each year, though the best data that we have to go on are the FBI Uniform Crime reports.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Recidivism has NOTHING

to do with re-offending. Iirc, for every time one of them is caught, he/she has done this at least 10 times before. Plus, these crimes, like rape, are highly underreported crimes. I've worked with lots of criminals and law enforcement people and they all say the same thing -- these guys CAN'T be rehabilitated.

[varkam]

81. The CSOM would disagree with you. eom

[silverojo]

21. Why do cops kill women in airports

Yet when they arrest sickos like this, they don't harm a hair on his perverted head? :mad:

[rox63]

22. He'll get his in jail

Child molesters are generally considered scum by a lot of the other prisoners. I'd be suprised if he makes it to his trial alive.

[RantinRavin]

23. When was the last time you heard

of someone in prison being taken care of by other prisoners. Everyone talks about it, and it sounds real good, but I've never heard of it really happening.

[Mend]

25. John Salvi for one....shot people at an abortion clinic, dead in 6 months

in jail. Called suicide but others said he was found bound with his mouth stuffed with cotton, beaten to death.

[Strelnikov_]

27. Dahmer, for one n/t

[rox63]

39. Child-molesting priest John Geogan was killed in jail

He was one of the few Catholic priests in the Boston area who was prosecuted and sent to jail for molesting children. He was murdered in jail a couple of years later.

[LisaL]

55. Oh it happens. A few years back a guy who kidnapped and

raped a little girl (living close to my area) was killed in prison.

[Le Taz Hot]

62. Oh, it happens ALL the time.

You just don't hear about it. I used to work with parolees and I was informed about what happens to child molesters in prison. They may be put in PC (protective custody) and isolated from the rest of the prisoners but remember, there are inmates who work in the office and each prisoner has a schedule issued to them. And CO's have been known to look the other way. No, it happens.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. Such people are usually kept isolated for their own safety.

Is that policy evil? Do you disagree with the corrections people who decided to do that?

[redqueen]

73. Maybe they want them to be punished?

:shrug:

I don't know... it does seem strange.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Yes, there IS other way to see it.

Go to the most civilized countries in the world - those in Western Europe. None of them has the death penalty. Are they evil or what?

[iverglas]

50. "Is there any other way to see it?"

We all know the rules and the rules are thus; All human life is sacred save those who knowingly destroy life for power, pleasure, or profit. Is there any other way to see it?

Yeah. There's the right way.

Human life is not sacred, nor profane, nor butterscotch flavoured.

Human beings have the right to life, among other rights.

All human beings -- or as your founders & framers put it (assuming you are in the US): "All men ...".

And those rights, again to quote your founders & framers, are "unalienable".

People who "knowingly destroy life for power, pleasure or profit" have the same rights as all the rest of us pure and good people. The right to life included. And also the right to due process, and the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

And nobody forfeits or surrenders or bargains away or can be stripped of those rights.


It's funny how so many people will say that freedom of speech is there to protect "unpopular" speech, and so many others will say that various other rights are only there to protect people they like ...

[varkam]

56. Oh for want of recommending replies to threads...

I'd give you a K&R if I could. :thumbsup:

[NoGodsNoMasters]

60. I disagree. (Surprise surprise.)

My use of the word sacred was for dramatic flair, I am an atheist. However, I have some problems with you're notions. "nobody forfeits or surrenders or bargains away those rights." Isn't that the concept of any kind of punishment? When we incarcerate someone we admit they have FORFEITED, by they're actions, they're right to freely move among the general population for said populations' safety. IE depriving said individual of, usually, happiness, definitely liberty, and any kind of life except the strictest biological sense. I believe firmly in due process and hope this individual, however repulsive, receives a FAIR and JUST trial, and is convicted on CLEAR, INCONTROVERTIBLE evidence. Who would want otherwise? Then it's just the witch trials and lynch mobs all over again. The disagreement is the realm of acceptable punishment, which ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion. Also, I never advocated torture, you may define execution even under strictest criteria, as cruel and unusual, simply by nature, but I advocate such procedure be carried out in the quickest and least painful manner, although I'm sure this means nothing to you, just clarifying.

[iverglas]

66. no, you don't disagree; you don't understand

"nobody forfeits or surrenders or bargains away those rights." Isn't that the concept of any kind of punishment?

Nope.

Punishment prevents people from exercising their rights. It does not take away their rights. Seriously: "unalienable". If you're a human being, rights are inherent in that status. That is the consensus of humanity today.

If it did, how could people in prison challenge decisions that interfere with their exercise of rights? Freedom of speech, the right to counsel, etc. They still have rights, and they may still exercise them. Certain exercises of certain rights are denied them, for a certain period.

When we incarcerate someone we admit they have FORFEITED, by they're actions, they're right to freely move among the general population for said populations' safety.

Nope.

When we incarcerate someone, we assert that we are JUSTIFIED, by their actions and our interests (e.g. in protecting the public, denouncing crimes, deterring them and others from committing crimes), in preventing them from exercising certain of their rights for a certain period of time.


IE depriving said individual of, usually, happiness, definitely liberty, and any kind of life except the strictest biological sense.

Happiness is not a right.

They are denied the exercise of certain kinds of liberty. They are still at liberty to do all sorts of things as and when they choose. And they may still exercise other rights, including the right to life.

They are not deprived of "any kind of life except the strictest biological sense", even if this were meaningful in this context. They may still have contact with family and friends outside prison, read books, write books, and so on and on.


The disagreement is the realm of acceptable punishment, which ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion.

Some opinions are more authoritative, and some more worthwhile, than others. And there are rules that govern what opinions may be acted on -- like the virtually universal prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.


Also, I never advocated torture

I didn't suggest you did -- when I referred to cruel and unusual punishment, I was offering an example of a right that incarcerated persons have, just as the rest of us have.

You do advocate death for this individual. This would be a step backward from even the relatively uncivilized situation in the US at present, where, I believe, capital punishment is available only for the crime of murder.

And the rules that the civilized world lives by say, at a minimum, that capital punishment for any crime other than murder is cruel and unusual.

You said:

... I can honestly say I feel NO REMORSE for such a creature.

The entire point is that what you or anyone else feels is of the utmost irrelevance. There are people who would feel no remorse if we atheists were burned at the stake.

The entire point of RIGHTS is that no one's opinion is a controlling factor in whether someone else gets to exercise his/her own. How a person convicted of a crime is treated must be determined by the rules, not by what anybody else thinks of him/her.

The rules that the civilized world live by also say, pretty firmly at this point, that capital punishment is in all cases an UNJUSTIFIED violation of the right to life. Imprisonment is a justified violation of the right to liberty.


I advocate such procedure be carried out in the quickest and least painful manner

If only someone had figured out what that is.


Me, I just can't figure out why anyone feels the need to have someone else killed.

[varkam]

84. !

The entire point is that what you or anyone else feels is of the utmost irrelevance. There are people who would feel no remorse if we atheists were burned at the stake.

The entire point of RIGHTS is that no one's opinion is a controlling factor in whether someone else gets to exercise his/her own. How a person convicted of a crime is treated must be determined by the rules, not by what anybody else thinks of him/her.

The rules that the civilized world live by also say, pretty firmly at this point, that capital punishment is in all cases an UNJUSTIFIED violation of the right to life. Imprisonment is a justified violation of the right to liberty.

Excellent post.

[BadgerLaw2010]

24. Fair trial followed by fair hanging, imo.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. Hanging isn't used anymore. Does this make you sad? -nt

[Phillycat]

34. Nah, I don't think he would go through enough pain being hanged.

Maybe being castrated first, THEN burned alive, THEN hanged. Yeah, that should do it.

[ChickMagic]

37. I'm with you

Castrated, burned alive, hanged, buried. Then dig him up
and kill him again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. I say we stab him!

YEAHHH!

I say we hang him!

YEAHHH

I say we stab him...

YEAHH!

And then we hang him...

YEAHH!

And then we tattoo him...

YEAHH!

And THEN we kill him!

YEEEEEAHH!

(I say we let him go)

NOOOOOOOO!

[dubyaD40web]

28. Fugitive accused of raping toddler captured

Source: USA Today

Fugitive accused of raping toddler captured

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A fugitive accused of raping a 3-year-old girl on videotape was arrested quietly during a traffic stop, telling the officer, "I'm tired of running," police said.
Chester "Chet" Arthur Stiles, 37, was pulled over late Monday in Henderson for not having a license plate. He admitted his identity after police said his license looked suspicious.

"He said, 'I'm Chester Stiles, the guy you're looking for,"' Henderson police Officer Mike Dye said. "He said, 'I'm tired of running."'

Las Vegas police Capt. Vincent Cannito said Stiles has been wanted since Oct. 5 on warrants issued for 21 felony charges in connection with the acts seen on the videotape. The charges include lewdness with a minor, sexual assault and attempted sexual assault.



Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-16-sex-tape_N.htm

[Phillycat]

33. His name is actually Chester. Chester the molester.

Good lord.

Anyway, if the state of Nevada wants to save a couple of bucks, I'm very happy to put a bullet in this shithead's brain for them. Let me know! :hi:

[Ignis]

51. You can't make this stuff up! (nt)

[olddad56]

43. Was he a republican politician?

[varkam]

47. Let's drink his blood and feed his flesh to hell-hounds!

:eyes:

[CoffeeCat]

57. That's the last thing that I would want...

As a survivor of a pedophile--who, to this day--believes that he
did NOTHING wrong--the last thing I would want is anyone "drinking his
blood and feeding his flesh to the hell hounds" as you described.

I was repeatedly molested and threatened into silence by serial pedophiles.
They also took pictures and video. I sometimes pray that I'll turn on the
news, and every law-enforcement agency will be looking for me--wanting to
identify me and save me.

I don't want revenge, and I don't think most of the people on this board
want revenge. However, they are outraged. They are sickened. They
are full of anger and sorrow for this innocent little girl who did nothing
wrong. She was only being a little girl. She had the right to grow up
without being touched, fondled and treated like a sex toy--by some middle
aged man who saw her as an object. The outrage I hear on this board is comforting.
It is just. It is essential. It helps me to feel that people do CARE about victims.
They do care about this little girl, and it makes me feel that if my story was out
there in the news, they would care about me too.

What's so wrong with being disgusted, revolted and angered by a man
who took so much from an innocent child who was probably not even fully
potty trained? She hadn't even entered kindergarten and she believes
in the tooth fairy. Why do you roll your eyes at the sorrow, rage and
disgust, when it is so very appropriate?

No one said anything about drinking his blood and feeding his flesh to the hell hounds, but
what would be so wrong if they did? It's an expression of outrage that we live in a
society where men do these things to children. It's more of a crime to ignore the trauma
that these children endure, than it is to fantasize about the perp suffering, that's for
sure.

I don't want revenge. I would rather have accountability. I would much rather see
my coward perpetrators stand up and take responsibility for their crimes and admit that
they were wrong. That doesn't sound like much, but to a pedophile--it is always the
child's fault. They blame the child. They believe that the child is bad or too flirty
or "wanted it", and that's how they live with themselves. They don't care that their
behavior is repulsive and illegal. It doesn't matter that a child knows nothing
about sex, but the adult absolutely does. In the perp mind, he is doing the child
a favor and the child wanted a middle-aged sociopath to have sex with her.

Pedophiles do not deserve eye rolling or sympathy. The pedophile has sympathy and
feeling for NO ONE. Not even innocent children. I am really failing to understand
how you can chastise people for being outraged at child rapists who have absolutely
no problem discounting the humanity of the unlucky children who meet them and who will
suffer for the rest of their lives through no fault of their own.

I don't get eye rolling--for a group of people who would have no problem having sex
with your kindergartner, then threatening her into silence, ruining her life and
saddling her with a lifetime of pain and trauma.

Pedophile predators don't deserve sympathy and the people who are outraged and
sickened by their sex crimes surely shouldn't have eyes rolled at them--because
they feel the same anger, rage and sorrow that this little girl feels as she
attempts to heal from his crimes.

[varkam]

58. Are you insinuating that I don't care about victims?

As a survivor of a pedophile--who, to this day--believes that he
did NOTHING wrong--the last thing I would want is anyone "drinking his
blood and feeding his flesh to the hell hounds" as you described.

Well I didn't accuse you of wanting that - though many of the posts here are essentially calling for extra-judicial torture and murder which I find just as deplorable as the act that has been committed.

I don't want revenge, and I don't think most of the people on this board
want revenge. However, they are outraged. They are sickened. They
are full of anger and sorrow for this innocent little girl who did nothing
wrong. She was only being a little girl. She had the right to grow up
without being touched, fondled and treated like a sex toy--by some middle
aged man who saw her as an object. The outrage I hear on this board is comforting.
It is just. It is essential. It helps me to feel that people do CARE about victims.
They do care about this little girl, and it makes me feel that if my story was out
there in the news, they would care about me too.

I know many people who have been victims, and I am one myself. I also know perpetrators, child molesters, and sex offenders - none of whom say that they did not do anything wrong. Every one of those people has expressed sincere and deep remorse for the crimes that they have committed. I do not doubt the veracity of your story, or that your abusers do not express remorse as there are those so deluded that they feel no crime has been committed - I do not doubt that.

But I guess I feel that I am able to simultaneously care for the welfare of the victim without giving into anger for things that have happened to me in the past. I'm not saying that's what everyone should do, but that's what works for me.

What's so wrong with being disgusted, revolted and angered by a man
who took so much from an innocent child who was probably not even fully
potty trained? She hadn't even entered kindergarten and she believes
in the tooth fairy. Why do you roll your eyes at the sorrow, rage and
disgust, when it is so very appropriate?

Nothing - and I never said or insinuated otherwise. I am personally disgusted and revolted by what this man did, and he should be treated appropriately by the criminal justice system. I roll my eyes because he is still, nonetheless, a human being and should be treated as such. He is not an animal. He is not a monster. He is (probably) a very deluded and sick man that has done a terrible thing that cannot be undone neither for himself nor for his victim. Punishment and justice is more than appropriate in this case; it is demanded. But I do not feel that allows us to be just as brutal and inhumane towards him as he was to his victim. If we are, then I feel we lose a significant part of the moral argument. So, sorrow anger and rage are all very appropriate - but what I do not feel is appropriate is calling for the brutal rape/torture/extra-judicial execution of the offender. If this is all venting, well that is well and good but I am still going to express my feelings on the matter.

No one said anything about drinking his blood and feeding his flesh to the hell hounds, but
what would be so wrong if they did? It's an expression of outrage that we live in a
society where men do these things to children. It's more of a crime to ignore the trauma
that these children endure, than it is to fantasize about the perp suffering, that's for
sure.

It absolutely would be wrong, for the reasons stated above. I agree that it is an outrage that we live in a society where things like this happen, but I think a key in developing legislation and social policy to reduce the rate of these crimes is through informed and reasoned discussion - not through emotional rhetoric.

Not I, nor anyone else here, is ignoring the trauma that the victim has suffered. Not I, nor anyone else here, is defending the actions of the offender. To suggest otherwise is a blatant falsehood.

I don't want revenge. I would rather have accountability. I would much rather see
my coward perpetrators stand up and take responsibility for their crimes and admit that
they were wrong. That doesn't sound like much, but to a pedophile--it is always the
child's fault. They blame the child. They believe that the child is bad or too flirty
or "wanted it", and that's how they live with themselves. They don't care that their
behavior is repulsive and illegal. It doesn't matter that a child knows nothing
about sex, but the adult absolutely does. In the perp mind, he is doing the child
a favor and the child wanted a middle-aged sociopath to have sex with her.

I'm sure you would, and in a perfect world that is exactly what they would do. Bear in mind, however, that sex offenders and child molesters are a very hetereogeneous group and hard to sum up with statements like "it is always the child's fault" - as not all of them believe that garbage. Though, as I noted above, I do not doubt that some of them do.

Pedophiles do not deserve eye rolling or sympathy. The pedophile has sympathy and
feeling for NO ONE. Not even innocent children. I am really failing to understand
how you can chastise people for being outraged at child rapists who have absolutely
no problem discounting the humanity of the unlucky children who meet them and who will
suffer for the rest of their lives through no fault of their own.


Again, strawman. I am not chastising people for being outraged, in fact I have chastised no one. Rather, I originally pointed out (rather obliquely) that I think to demand such atrocities be visited upon the offender is just as disgusting, depraved, revolting, and outrageous as what the offender has done to this child. I do not blame people for being outraged or upset, and I too am outraged and upset. As I noted previously, I too, am a victim. But that doesn't somehow grant me extra rights and diminish the rights of my abuser. He is, after all, still a human being. Do I approve of his actions? Do I think he should not be punished? Absolutely not.

And, again, you're making sweeping statements. Your abusers may lack in sympathy and feeling for others, as I'm sure that many do. I am genuinely sorry for your experiences, and wish that they would accept responsibility for the things that they have done. However, there are many who do take full responsibility, who do feel remorse, who do regret what they have done.

To be clear, I am not defending actions - rather, people.

I don't get eye rolling--for a group of people who would have no problem having sex
with your kindergartner, then threatening her into silence, ruining her life and
saddling her with a lifetime of pain and trauma.

I have addressed this previously.


Pedophile predators don't deserve sympathy and the people who are outraged and
sickened by their sex crimes surely shouldn't have eyes rolled at them--because
they feel the same anger, rage and sorrow that this little girl feels as she
attempts to heal from his crimes.

And yet again, I'm not saying that anger is inappropriate (nor should my standing up for basic human rights be construed as "sympathy"). Anger is a just emotion to be felt in the wake of these despicable crimes, and I feel it just the same as anyone else here. Anger is one thing, wishing rape, torture, and death on another person is quite another.

[iverglas]

67. and I'm with you too, of course

So, sorrow anger and rage are all very appropriate - but what I do not feel is appropriate is calling for the brutal rape/torture/extra-judicial execution of the offender.

And yet again, I'm not saying that anger is inappropriate (nor should my standing up for basic human rights be construed as "sympathy").

Can't really say it better.

The whole entire point of the criminal justice system that our societies have, that has been developed over centuries of hard work and great thought, is that there must be rules and they must apply to everyone equally. That criminal justice is a public matter, not a private one. That what is done to people within that system is based on publicly agreed to rules, not private emotion or wants or needs.

I'm a victim myself, and in fact I was given too much say in the sentencing of the offender. I would rather the system had just done its job and not placed the responsibility on me of agreeing to or rejecting the agreement that the prosecution and defence had reached. (No one's fault -- a prosecutor many years ago who was unusually sensitive to victims, and also aware that he was dealing with someone who was very knowledgeable and capable of getting quite stroppy, I imagine.) It is simply not the victim's job to determine punishment. It is the public's job.

This is progress. We really no longer allow people to pass sentence on other people and carry it out, at their own whim, and this is a very good thing. Turning the criminal justice system into a private punishment system writ large is not progress, it is regression.

Sentencing and punishment are also not the job of the other inmates of a prison, acting as proxies for all the members of the public who don't have the power to get what they want any other way, or the guts to demand that the state do what they want their proxies to do for them. And allowing such things to happen is quite simply a horrific violation of fundamental human rights.

The rules are made to protect human beings, not just human beings we like. All human beings have rights, and all human beings are entitled to have their exercise of rights interfered with to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the public purpose at issue.

What public purpose is served by allowing convicted offenders to be abused or killed by other prisoners, or by killing people who commit crimes, I will never see.

[Mad_Dem_X]

61. ...

My heart goes out to you for what you've endured. :hug:

I have absolutely no sympathy for child molesters/pedophiles. NONE. The anger I feel toward this man - and people like him - is monumental. Sickos who prey on children have a special place in Hell reserved for them.

[redqueen]

74. Fantastic post...

I don't condone vengeance or torture... but to mock people who lose their cool over issues like this is sick. ALL human beings should be able to sympathize with such a visceral reaction.

[varkam]

78. It is not my intent to mock anyone.

If you read my other posts, I think that will be clear.

[redqueen]

82. I'm sorry... yes...

it was just the rolly eyes that gave merit to that criticism... I'm sorry that I didn't take the time to judge for myself... because I do agree with you that the bloodlust is offputting and should be tamped down... just not in a mocking way... not that you did mock... but... *sigh*

[varkam]

83. And perhaps I could of done it differently.

I let my emotions get the best of me in composing that response, and so I can understand why I would get that reaction.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orsino]

48. This, I guess, is the upside of the looming police state.

A nominally law-abiding citizen with little experience in hiding out is at least going to be caught pretty quickly. Perhaps only the Eric Rudolphs can really go to ground, and only because of the would-be fundamentalist fascists who will help. A suspected child rapist is going to find few friends.

[skip fox]

52. Many intemperate comments about this man. I, too, and revolted, but

think it's not beneficial be be rabid as an O'Reilly on this case. The same way he gets steamed about the traitorous acts of X, Y, or Z ("Why can't the liberals see it? X is a Y and deserves to be Z'ed").

Especially in this case, it does no harm to this person yet adds to the hate pollution in the culture as well as in ourselves. There IS of self-gratification we can get venting and hearing others vent, but it's based on communal hatred. Do we meet each other well under such a banner? (Or under mutual beliefs and desires, etc.?)

This man is an aberration and seriously undermines my rather romantic vision of humanity. We might express our outrage, but wallowing in it (and seeing how vehemently we can express it) is counter productive (especially to ourselves).

My two cents.

(I am extremely glad he has been captured.)

[Le Taz Hot]

69. Here's your change:

2 cents. ONE IN FOUR!

[truthisfreedom]

53. Off the streets, incarcerated, facing justice. Just the right outcome for a horrific crime.

I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

59. Irreconcilable Differences

I don't think this can be solved. I'm not swayed by the arguments against, anymore than the anti-death penalty people have been. I don't see it happening. I think it comes down to a very minute difference in the conception of morality. I think overall, (I would surely hope.) we draw most lines in the same places. What this man did was wrong, that we should sympathize with the child. (I should hope.) The core of the contention lies in the belief that taking life under ANY circumstance is ALWAYS, EQUALLY wrong. I wish I could buy it. I really do. When I think of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Hideki Tojo,....I am incapable of seeing they're lives as precious. I would hope the other side would not be so ignorant as to mistake this for callous, careless indifference to human life, that is precisely what these individuals, and this man who is the centerpoint of our discussion have in common, and precisely why they offend me. If you favor incarceration, and if you don't even support that you're frankly mad, then it's not a question of the rightness of punishment, merely the extent. "such a little thing,...but the difference it makes is great."-Morrissey

[iverglas]

68. nobody's selling it

The core of the contention lies in the belief that taking life under ANY circumstance is ALWAYS, EQUALLY wrong. I wish I could buy it.

You're just putting words in someone's mouth.

I, for instance, have never said that taking life under ANY circumstance is ALWAYS, EQUALLY wrong. In fact, I can think of circumstances in which killing someone is not wrong at all. And circumstances in which it is not very wrong.

The wrongness of something is an entirely different matter from how a civilized society deals with it.

It is wrong to commit adultery. It is wrong to break a promise. In some circumstances, it could be very, very wrong. Off with their heads?

What I do say is that when the state kills someone, or allows someone else to kill someone, it is violating a fundamental human right, without justification.

And I'll say that no matter how wrong what the person did was, or how much I despise the person, or how much pain I feel about the harm the person did to someone else.

If I don't say that, I don't deserve anyone else's concern for my own ability to exercise my own rights.

But of course, people who are concerned about human rights would still be concerned about mine.


When I think of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Hideki Tojo,....I am incapable of seeing they're lives as precious.

Nobody's asking you to. You're the one inserting catchphrases like "sacred" and "precious" into this discussion; nobody else.

Their lives are HUMAN, whether anybody likes it or not. And we really don't get to disregard that fact just because we don't like them.


I would hope the other side would not be so ignorant as to mistake this for callous, careless indifference to human life

Nope. It's apparently very considered indifference to human rights.


If you favor incarceration, and if you don't even support that you're frankly mad, then it's not a question of the rightness of punishment, merely the extent.

Nice try. Unfortunately, killing isn't "punishment", it's killing.

[rocktivity]

65. "They caught that--really really really bad man!"

Well, that's what I HAD to say while watching America's Most Wanted one night when a friend and her young son were visiting...

:bounce:
rocknation

[judaspriestess]

76. He was arrested about a mile and a half from my house

yuck

[mitchum]

77. And he's still got that child molester mustache

what's up with that?