Reply #39: Indeed, it is.

[varkam]

Child molesters are rarely caught. They are devious, calculated and evil. They intentionally
select children because they know that children don't tell. You can easily terrorize a 6- or 9-
year old child into silence.


Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Also, I would submit that they don't select children because "they know children won't tell", at least not on the whole. I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests a sexual deviancy that could more readily explain why child molesters molest children.

Most offenders implement silencing techniques that translate into 90 percent of victims NEVER
TELLING about the abuse. Perps tell these children that their mommies and daddies will go to jail,
or that no one will believe them, or that they will kill their pets, or kill their siblings. These
children are not only raped, they are emotionally terrorized into a traumatic silence.

90%? Where does that stat come from? I know that there are many cases that go unreported (as is shown by a discrepancy between conviction rates and self-report surveys). I agree with you on some of those techniques, and they are indeed deplorable. But again, there are a few points that you should consider. First, lumping all offenders (even child molesters) into the same category is part of the problem to begin with. While some offenders do these things, it is clear that not all do. If you make the claim that many or most do, then I would like to see some kind of evidence to support that assertion.

So, when you finally do have one of these serial molesters caught--and the parents and children are
willing to deal with a trial--the perps are often given light sentences--sometimes only months.
That's very well documented.

So are we talking about serial child molesters - as in sexual predators and not intra-familial offenders or situational offenders? Plus, I don't know where you are getting your information from, but according to the Department of Justice people convicted of rape and child molestation are often given sentences comparable with manslaughter - which I don't think I would characterize as "light".

These perps deserve life in prison, is there any doubt at all? No one is arguing that a 40-year old
man who molests innocent children--including his own flesh and blood--should not get a life sentence, are they???

Well, if you read the OP...

If everyone can agree with life sentences for these kinds of child rapists and sexual terrorists, then
let's start there. Make it a mandatory life sentence.

Well not everyone can agree, so your conclusion does not follow. As an additional point of interest, prosecutors from across the country have been reporting that an unintended consequence of these stricter laws makes it more difficult to secure convictions as (a) the abuse is less likely to be reported and (b) the suspect is much less likely to cooperate or accept a plea agreement. I don't think that situation would improve if a mandatory life sentence for the first offense were implemented.

This "oh we can't punish child rapists because then Joe-high-school-senior-football-player will go away
for life because he had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend!" is ridiculous.

That is a straw-man, as I have pointed out several times.

Grown men who repeatedly rape their own children have nothing to do with the high-school young man who
has sex with his 17-year old girlfriend.

In the legal arena they have both committed sexual abuse of a minor (which I argue is part of the problem, there needs to be greater differentiation).

If you people want to advocate for fairness and justice--start a campaign to legally separate the "Romeo
and Juliet" crimes from the molester crimes. Then no one will EVER be put in the position to argue that
a sexual terrorist---someone who repeatedly rapes his own children because it fills him with joy and a
sense of control---should be given anything but a life sentence.


I contend that not everyone who commits sexual abuse against a child (even if it is his own child) is a "sexual terrorist"; at least not as you characterize them. For example, what evidence do you have that everyone who does such a thing does so because "it fills him with joy and a sense of control"? For those people - people who see nothing wrong with what they did and cannot be rehabilitated - then perhaps a life sentence is in order. The problem, however, is that the primary justification needs to be specific deterrence or (in worse cases) incapacitation: but that can only be done on a case by case basis, as sexual offenders are an incredibly heterogeneous group. It would seem, though, that you are neither interested in deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation: only retribution. If that is the case, then there are no statistics that I can cite, no studies that I can show you that will deter you from your lust for vengeance. At that point, you have already left the realm of reason.