Reply #18: A response

[varkam]

I've never understood why people argue for lighter sentences for evil child rapists---by
pointing out that harsh sentences for the worst of society would be unfair to the 18-year old males
who have sex with a 17-year old girlfriend.

I think categorizing people who commit crimes as "evil" only further obscures any productive discussion on the topic. But, more to the point, I'm not arguing for lighter sentences but rather trying to bring reason and evidence to bear on the discussion.

This is solved so easily--because sexual predator crimes and "Romeo and Juliet" crimes are not
related anymore than murder and jaywalking are related.

From a legal standpoint, they are related in that they are both sex crimes.

You deal with the sexual predators and molesters separately than the "R& J cases. You could have cut off ages.
For example--the law could state that if there is 5 years difference between the victim and
the perp--with the perp being 18 years or older---then the perpetrator does a life sentence.

I would agree except for the fact that you seem to be pushing for a one-size-fits all solution to, again, a very heterogeneous group.

We're trying to stop 40-year old men from forcing 8 year old girls to perform oral sex on them.
We're trying to stop stepfathers and fathers from crawling into their 12-year old daughter's
beds and sexually terrorizing them night after night. Those crimes should be punishable by
life in prison.

I agree that we are trying to stop those things from happening, but my contention is that making life sentences mandatory will at best do nothing to stop it via general deterrence and could make things even worse.

It is a red herring to suggest that we should have lighter sentences for sexual predators who
prey on 5-year old children---because we might over-punish some high school senior had sex with someone who was a
year younger than him. The 40-year old man raping his own child repeatedly for a decade has
NOTHING to do with the high school senior getting a blow job from his sophomore girlfriend.

And it is a straw man to suggest I am arguing we should have lighter sentences for sexual predators because some high school senior has sex with his minor girlfriend - no where have I suggested that as my reasoning. I merely pointed out that case to show that sexual offenders are a very heterogeneous group - and thus casting a wide net makes little sense insofar as sentencing is concerned.

That's the equivalent of lumping together all traffic crimes with a blanket punishment of 30 years,
then arguing for lighter sentences for those who intentionally run over people because it's unfair
to the poor guy who just ran a stop sign.

Again, this is a straw man.

The best answer is to make a dry distinction between R & J cases. The best answer isn't to make
it easier and less punitive for these soul-stealing, predators who believe that they have the right to sexually
violate any child they want--including their own flesh and blood.

Again, straw man.

Did you know that pedophiles truly believe that children want to have sex with them? They "groom" their
victims into accepting sexual behavior. This calculated plan of attack often takes months before they
rape. They'll show them pornography, tell them that "all little girls do this" or promise them treats,
candy or toys if they can just touch their leg, then touch their underwear, etc. Pretty soon, the child's
emotional and physical boundaries have been systematically broken down and they are too afraid or confused
to say no. The predator deludes himself into believing that the eventual sex was the child's idea, and that
they, in fact, are the victim of a precocious or evil child.

Yes, I am familiar with how some predators operate. It is important to keep in mind, however, that not all predators or child molesters follow that protocol. Moreover, what you describe seems to me to be a perfect example of mental sickness and various delusions - which in many cases can be correct via appropriate treatment.

Pedophiles---any adult male or female having sex with a minor child--is a sexual terrorist. In addition to violating
the child, they often threaten, lie and ingrain in the children that something awful will happen to them,
their pets or their families if they "tell". Load of anxiety and trauma are heaped onto these children. Ninety
percent of children who are molested never tell. They are traumatized into silence. If they do get help,
it's often well into adulthood--and they battle eating disorders, addictions, depression, self injury, anxiety
disorders, PTSD and loss of full potential.

Victims get life sentences. So should the predators. We should legally separate the "Romeo and Juliet" cases
from these horrendous, evil pedophile crimes----so no one can ever justify giving one of these perverse
child predators anything less than a life sentence. EVER.

You're conflating pedophiles, predators, and child molesters. A pedophile, according to the DSM is an individual who has a primary sexual attraction to children. A predator could be defined as one who poses a risk to society at large in that they will try to find children to rape. A child molester is one who has committed a sex crime against a child. There may be some overlap in certain individuals, but it is important to note that you are using words interchangeably that have distinct meanings.

As I noted in the OP, perhaps some people wish for these life sentences to be enacted solely on the basis of retribution. If that is the case, then I simply wish they would come out and say that rather than try to disguise it as some scheme to protect the public. It would make things a lot more honest.