Jessica's Law

[kornkitten42]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371344,00.html

Long story short- There was a 9 year old girl in florida who was abducted by a sex offender and buried alive in a garbage bag.
Now her father and congress are trying to set a mandatory minimum sentence on sex offenders.

My problem with this isn't the mandatory minimum sentencing but the fact that this scum bag defense attorney had this to say if this turns into a law. "I'm gonna rip them apart," Fagan said of young victims during his testimony on the bill. "I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they’re 8 years old, they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody.”

I understand that you want to give your client the best representation possible but to say you are actually going to destory a childs life for coming forward about a sexual attack, you should be disbarred. If a judge sees this type of cross examining coming from the defense I hope he stops it.

You can get information out of the victim like you would any other instance. You can discredit them and their story without trying to emotionally destory them. There is a difference between making sure you are representing your client to the best of your ability and then in my summation- making them puke, cry, not sleep, and become unable to have relationships later in life" - To me it seems like he is trying to make each and every child that comes forward a possible future predator, schitzophrenic or sadist. Hey it will most likely drum up more business for him. Or on the other hand, it may make his business dwendle due to the fact that already victims tourtured themselves over telling someone/ going to the police, This lawyers actions will just make people not want to report it.

It also seems to me that "he protests too much". I think he has something to hide. Edited July 2, 2008 by kornkitten42

[Spotless]

people like that shouldn't be involved with law making. period.

[Johnny_D]

I Notice his email and phone numbers were published there.

Thanks for this story. It's been forwarded to some rather unpleasant characters that lurk around the web.

What a silly man...

[Ron Perlman]

I'm not sure about across the pond but over here, lawyers have a duty to the client, to the court, and to make sure that everything that they do is in the interests of justice. He would also be under an obligation to make sure that the profession was not brought into disrepute in the minds of the public.

His professional association would be investigating him right now...


Contrary to the OP, I think minimum sentencing is a bad idea. The judge should be able to set the sentence and minimum tariff on a case-by-case basis and not be constrained by populist policies of politicians. The Dutch have it right.

[Kalutika]

I Notice his email and phone numbers were published there.

Thanks for this story. It's been forwarded to some rather unpleasant characters that lurk around the web.

What a silly man...

Second.

[TheScotsman]

The real problem is that minimum sentencing, combined with a state/cops/prosecutor willing to suppress exonerating evidence, and spend an unlimited budget on achieving a conviction, regardless of guilt is completely wrong.

It doesn't matter if the "victim" is a child, or an adult, the accused has a right to face the accuser in open court, and to cross examine them... it is the duty of the defense attorney to complete a cross examination to the advantage of the accused. If the "victim" ends up bawling about it, so be it.

Just like the "repressed memory syndrome" that was such a big thing a few years ago, then found to be more of a false memory, than repressed... it was the defense atty's job to protect his client then too. The results were allot of bawling 18 year old women that accused relatives/friends of perverted stuff. Can you imagine being one of the people falsely accused, that knew they weren't guilty? More, how about being accused, knowing you were innocent, but some douche canoe said you couldn't cross examine the "witness" to get to the truth. Ya, good idea guys.

If you don't think false accusations of abuse are not a common tool of revenge, and child custody cases you are a complete fool on every level.

Mandatory sentencing just tales the whole mess a step farther, in the past a judge had the final say, he could be lenient in cases where he felt the conviction may have been wrong, or the prosecution excessive/questionable. Remember, the judge gets ALL the evidence, including what the jury never saw. Mandatory sentencing takes that tool of final justice away. Throwing all the crooks in jail forever just takes away any family/support/home they may have, and guarantees they will repeat the crime.

[Kalutika]

The point was not if false accusations exist or it minimum sentencing was a good idea.

The point is that this man stated that if minimum sentences were passed he and every other defense attorney would take every step they could to ruin the life of the child on the stand regardless of actual guilt.

That is unethical and immoral.

[Kalutika]

The real problem is that minimum sentencing, combined with a state/cops/prosecutor willing to suppress exonerating evidence, and spend an unlimited budget on achieving a conviction, regardless of guilt is completely wrong.

It doesn't matter if the "victim" is a child, or an adult, the accused has a right to face the accuser in open court, and to cross examine them... it is the duty of the defense attorney to complete a cross examination to the advantage of the accused. If the "victim" ends up bawling about it, so be it.

Just like the "repressed memory syndrome" that was such a big thing a few years ago, then found to be more of a false memory, than repressed... it was the defense atty's job to protect his client then too. The results were allot of bawling 18 year old women that accused relatives/friends of perverted stuff. Can you imagine being one of the people falsely accused, that knew they weren't guilty? More, how about being accused, knowing you were innocent, but some douche canoe said you couldn't cross examine the "witness" to get to the truth. Ya, good idea guys.

If you don't think false accusations of abuse are not a common tool of revenge, and child custody cases you are a complete fool on every level.

Mandatory sentencing just tales the whole mess a step farther, in the past a judge had the final say, he could be lenient in cases where he felt the conviction may have been wrong, or the prosecution excessive/questionable. Remember, the judge gets ALL the evidence, including what the jury never saw. Mandatory sentencing takes that tool of final justice away. Throwing all the crooks in jail forever just takes away any family/support/home they may have, and guarantees they will repeat the crime.

By the way, Jessica's Law applies when the victim is under 12 years old.

[TheScotsman]

The point was not if false accusations exist or it minimum sentencing was a good idea.

The point is that this man stated that if minimum sentences were passed he and every other defense attorney would take every step they could to ruin the life of the child on the stand regardless of actual guilt.

That is unethical and immoral.

Of course they will, the bigger the risk, the more aggressive the defense has to, and will be. Just like your traffic ticket takes 30 minutes in court, and a murder trial takes 3 weeks. What, you are expecting the attorneys to just present a lame, weak defense when any conviction is going to be a minimum sentence? That is stupid.

Apply the same logic to your Dr.
Just because you could only use a finger, they don't need to take the same care, and precautions against infection as if you risked your leg. I can hear it now... Dr: "It's only a nasty finger cut, gimme that unsterilized suture, and the hemos I was using to pick my nose, save the clean ones for that guy with his calf tore open." Ya, if that works for you, whatever.

Age doesn't matter, guilty is guilty, innocent is innocent.

[Apoc Genesis]

this whole subject is heartbreaking =( when were people sick in the head like this?

personally i'm not a fan of laws named after victims, because it dosent become about justice and becomes about politics. but i mean come on this is disgusting on so many levels

prediction: the guy who killed his 12 yr old niece will be re-christened as "Shelly" in prison. what goes around come around

[Kalutika]

The point was not if false accusations exist or it minimum sentencing was a good idea.

The point is that this man stated that if minimum sentences were passed he and every other defense attorney would take every step they could to ruin the life of the child on the stand regardless of actual guilt.

That is unethical and immoral.

Of course they will, the bigger the risk, the more aggressive the defense has to, and will be. Just like your traffic ticket takes 30 minutes in court, and a murder trial takes 3 weeks. What, you are expecting the attorneys to just present a lame, weak defense when any conviction is going to be a minimum sentence? That is stupid.

Apply the same logic to your Dr.
Just because you could only use a finger, they don't need to take the same care, and precautions against infection as if you risked your leg. I can hear it now... Dr: "It's only a nasty finger cut, gimme that unsterilized suture, and the hemos I was using to pick my nose, save the clean ones for that guy with his calf tore open." Ya, if that works for you, whatever.

Age doesn't matter, guilty is guilty, innocent is innocent.

I am not debating that conviction and practices of a defense attorney. That is a subject in and of it's self. I am stating that it is immoral and un-ethical to openly state that you would intentionally ruin a child of 6 mentally to the point of creating a sociopathic and mentally unwell person for any reason. This is not a justafiable act adn to say that is something I can not agree with.

[SimplexCoda]

people like that shouldn't be involved with law making. period.

Law Making, or life either one really. How would that guy like it if that happened to one of his kids and someone ruined their life over it?

I'm not sure about across the pond but over here, lawyers have a duty to the client, to the court, and to make sure that everything that they do is in the interests of justice. He would also be under an obligation to make sure that the profession was not brought into disrepute in the minds of the public.

You see ron, over here in america its not about justice, its about getting a paycheck and lawers will do whatever it takes to get a paycheck.

[SmogSUX]

Whoa....that was definitely excessive...I'm shocked to hear that. After reading the article I can kinda see what he is defending, but he sure didn't do a good job by saying what he did. What I'm referring to when I say I can see what hes defending is: I know someone that was accused of raping a girl, when all the girl was doing was trying to blame her failing all of her classes on that....It's complete crap and makes me sick since things like that stick with you forever even if you're found innocent. But yeah...that sen. is stupid.

[kornkitten42]

Ok... First off.... Thescotsman, My problem is with what this douche is saying. He is saying he is going to rip a child apart. That he is going to ruin a childs life. That he is going to make them cry, throw up and never have a relationship because they will be unable to cope with the trama that they experienced and the way they were treated on the stand during a trial.

There is the right way to do something and then there is the wrong way. To scare tactic a kid, to "destroy them" on the witness stand should get your license taken away and you disbarred. to do something TACTFUL, TO DISCREDIT THEM PROFESSIONALLY is another story. That is how you are supposed to do your job. You find out the truth, you find out the inconsistancies.... If they cry , reinacting the event, if they get upset because they were caught in a lie , FINE. but to blatently try to ruin a kids life just for the hell of it is another story. I'm sure he is going to blame the child for every instance/ every attack, say he brought it on himself, that it was his fault. You know, to make it seem like the little kid asked to be raped or molested by a sick f***** pervert.


It is your duty to get truth, and DISCREDIT, the accuser and exhonerate (sp) the accused. That is your job, to study your case, to know your client, to be SMART. Not being an ass hole to a kid who just got abused and is going through more trama by turning in his rapist/ molester/ whatever and then again testifying against him.

I'm sorry if you mess w/ a little kid, and rape them, molest them, you should have a minimum sentence. You don't deserve compassion if you abuse little children. You are sick in the head and you need help. If you are found guilty of it, you should have a minimum sentence. Too many people get out on probation and go back to endagering little children again after a few year in jail.

You shouldn't "fight harder" because of the minimum sentences, THEy SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THAT ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!! That's the oath they take when they become a lawyer I'm sure a few old clients will sue in light of "fighting harder" since that's what they paid the lawyer to do in the first place....... ....

Him torturing little children is NOT justice in anyway shape or form!

I seriously think that he protests to much and that this sicko really is hiding something. I mean who SAYS THIS ? Who says this about little children? I mean this guy needs some serious psychotic evaluations and a serious Job performance evaluation from his superiors after making a statement such as this.

More, how about being accused, knowing you were innocent, but some douche canoe said you couldn't cross examine the "witness" to get to the truth. Ya, good idea guys.
Direct qoute from you thescotsman- OF COURSE you'd be able to cross examine the witness! You have the right to face your accusor!!!! . That's due process! Nobody ever said you couldn't unless I missed something in this thread posted.. You're taking it WAY WAY WAY out in left field . We're not taking away the right to a fair trial! Just that this lawyer is insane. What he is saying is unfair, and shouldn't be allowed or advocated in any way! Edited July 5, 2008 by kornkitten42

[Johnny_D]

I'm afraid I totally agree.

Anyone touched any of my daughters they will suffer. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Big Boss]

I don't have any children, but if anyone did something to my niece I honestly believe I would kill them in retribution.

[TheScotsman]

In the end what we end up with is simple... avoid children.
http://menstuff.org/issues/byissue/avoidingkids.html#avoid

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0022.htm An attorney doing her job, by threatening the witness with the truth, found the truth. Maybe the innocent people needed to go to jail to avoid that, eh?

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_1_4.htm Just for more "light" reading

Before you attack this guy too hard go read Behavioral Disorders and Antisocial Behavior / Psychology's responsibility in false accusations of child abuse, Robert L. Emans, The University of South Dakota. Realize that if you are #1 male, #2 working with children there is a 1:45 chance you will be accused of abuse of a child in any 20 year period. Realize that that with the current laws, even if you were 100% exonerated in the first interview, under this law the prosecution WILL continue... by law it must, and the prosecutor will use all legal means to convict you even though they know you are innocent. Great law guys, keep talking about how good it is... while you are at it keep in mind 165 people on this forum will be falsely accused of a crime that will cost them thousands if they are lucky, and the next 25 years if they are not. Role those dice! you are every day, like it or not.


What you are missing is that before this child has hit the witness box they have been told what to say, coached, and basically brainwashed by social workers and the prosecution. Like it or not, even a psychologist will tell you that the only way to actually get to the truth is to tear that conditioning down. (go read the above article.) The child has spent weeks, sometimes months, even years having what may, or may not be true reinforced in their minds, They have been threatened covertly, "gently" intimidated to say what the social workers want. The accused has for his first, and last hope, an attorney that needs to get to the truth in 10 minutes. The luxury of a long gentle talk is just not afforded. This guy acted a bit of a tosser with his statement, but go read the rest of it in context. He is just verbalizing what will happen. When the stakes are raised, the fight gets harder. First time minimum sentences are stupid. The system catches too many innocents. In the F.B.I.'s Behavioral Science Unit's study on False Allegations conducted in 1983 of 556 rape investigations, a total of 220 of these reported rapes turned out to be false.

If you don't like it become a social worker, and change the buggered system.
By the way, if any of you really think any judge would allow any action like this fellow is talking about you are mad as a hatter.

[kornkitten42]

In the end what we end up with is simple... avoid children.
http://menstuff.org/issues/byissue/avoidingkids.html#avoid

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0022.htm An attorney doing her job, by threatening the witness with the truth, found the truth. Maybe the innocent people needed to go to jail to avoid that, eh?

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_1_4.htm Just for more "light" reading

Before you attack this guy too hard go read .................

By the way, if any of you really think any judge would allow any action like this fellow is talking about you are mad as a hatter.

Ok... First off.... You're contradicting yourself. You tell me to read and research before i attack this guy and then you say that if i believe what I read, and that a judge might allow this in his or her court, then i'm mad as a hatter? Nice. Sorry that a scum bag lawyer [that probably touches little boys] is screaming at the top of his lungs about how he is going to rip little children apart.

Also your articles, didn't really look like they come from reputable web sites. I did read them for the most part but what about all the children that don't come forward about their abuse? but didn't search their authenticity and and their research don't have the time att he moment.

I'm sorry that there are a few bad apples that fasley accuse, but in EVERY instance/ circumstance in life, there will be people who falsely accuse/ lie. to make themselves feel better, to get attention, to be the victim or whatever!

Working in a police department, I see the children / women/ men coming in here talking about/ reliving their abuse. I handle the 911 calls that have frantic parents/ or victims on the line. Trust me I understand their pain and for someone to say that they are going to verbally mind fu** a child [in a lamence term- just my personal interpretation of what he said] and drum up future business for themselves, when the grown victim starts a violent pattern down the road and needs a lawyer.

I'd be pissed and I'd sue the shit out of any lawyer if he did that to my child. For mental anguish and emotional distress or whatever. Like I said. You can discredit another way...... you dont' need to shred them. Yes, i understand there are barriers to break down, but don't you think the defense is coached as well? COME ON! Even if he did it, the defense will LIE and say he didn't..... Scum bag lawyers who know their clients should be remanned and serve hard jail time get WALKS where the guilty walk on technicalities. hell look at OJ, not a sex crime, but still a coached defense for a liar.... Far more guilty inmates say they are innocent than innocent inmated who are sentenced who actually are!

It's super hard to come forward if you've been sexually assaulted or abused. It's embarrasing, and hard, not only do you have to reinact the event over and over and over again, you have people trying to tell you that you brought it on yourself. Do you understand how hard it is for a child? Especially since children are so quick to please? and normally have no clue what's going on? So it seems that your advocating this lawyers actions and what YOU both are advocating, is wrong.


BTW..... Women can be and will be held accountable by this law too...... not just men will be affected by this law....


I don't think this makes any sense, i'm at work and I keep getting bugged by my job.
I can't keep reading and typing, i got to get back to work.

i'll read/ correct later.
Edited July 6, 2008 by kornkitten42

[Johnny_D]

I think the Scotsman makes a very interesting rebuttal. And a fair point. His first reference @ Menstuff.org was interesting and enlightening reference.

However I believe that KK's initial reference was to the wording and apparent vitriol of his wording.

You can't really expect any other response than that seen here when one uses such language. Almost irrespective of the context.

However, as briefly discussed on the menstuff reference, Men are viewed in an almost predatory nature when dealing with children [Thankfully it appears to be not so prevalent in the UK] But the problem still exists.

As an aside - It's interesting to note that a report from the UK found no 'date-rape drug' evidence in reported Rapes last year. None. Zero. Nada. Quite interesting how the media can create a problem.

JD

[kornkitten42]

JD is correct, I was upset about his wording, with what he said. Like i said I don't mind if a child is questioned or even cries on the stand or is pained by the retelling of his accounts of the incident. It's in fair judical way to be able to question your accusor. I wouldn't see justice without that. If you didn't get that oppourtunity then your right, lots of innocent people WOULD be going to jail and that would be wrong.

I just don't think a child should be mauled by the defense just for the sake of screwing up the childs mental capacity for the rest of his life, because the lawyer thinks he can.

. I looked more into the menstuff while at work and found it also to be an interesting read and can see that. Men are looked at in a completely different light than women when it comes to children. Women are the natural care givers and nuture'ers (sp) though, i don't think it should be that way, society seems to feel that it's unhealthy for some reason if an adult male seems to take an intrest in a child for any reason I mean males need to be role models. Without men, their knowledge and their ability to teach what they know, our male childen will surely suffer.


Hell when I was in middle school their was a male teacher who almost got fired for helping an female student do crunches because she didn't have a partner and there wasn't another person to work with her. The girl said he innapropriately touched her (from what I saw, he only held her toes and was instructing her and the class almost the whole time she was doing her crunches) and there was this whole investigation on him it was sad. They pulled every child into the office that came into contact with them and questioned them if he had touched them!!!! He was a really nice guy. He was young in his 20's and it almost ruined his career, he never came back after that. He ended up getting a full time job at the local highschool though.

[kornkitten42]

Just to add he was sub in the gym, or normal female teacher, was sick for a few weeks.

[Apoc Genesis]

. I looked more into the menstuff while at work and found it also to be an interesting read and can see that. Men are looked at in a completely different light than women when it comes to children. Women are the natural care givers and nuture'ers (sp) though, i don't think it should be that way, society seems to feel that it's unhealthy for some reason if an adult male seems to take an intrest in a child for any reason I mean males need to be role models. Without men, their knowledge and their ability to teach what they know, our male childen will surely suffer.

Ufortunatly, pedophiles are the latest moral panic going through out society right now. My personal opinion is that the media is beginning to run out of groups of people to blame for the decaying moral fabric of our country and has resorted to barraging us with story after story of men (and incresingly women) who try to have sex with kids. Now that its no longer acceptable to hate a group of people based on race or ethnicity or nationality or criminal status, we now focus on anopther group of people that were never in the social spotlight as much as they are now. Even inner city thugs are portrayed as tragic youth who are victims of circumstance. There is nothing sympathetic about a child molester and the media uses it to our advantage to stir up rather powerful parental emotions that lead us to be easily manipulated. Playing once again on the theme of the "protect our children" bit that seems to be the most popular, even though most child rapes are commited by a parent or close relative.

And as a result, you are absolutly right Kornkitten that any male taking interest in a child's wellbeing is deemed suspicious. I used to work at a daycamp and as part of our job we were supposed to be on the lookout for suspicious men wandering around.

Knowing people that have been raped when they were kids, I can tell you that it is an enormous problem, and watching people close to you have to grow up with those memories is painful. But this whole peodphile thing is just one great big witch hunt. Say you hate blacks or hate whoeveer and your a some sort of antiquated racist montster, but say you'll kill a pedophile if you saw one and you are a man of moral fiber. It won't be the most popular opinion I'm sure, but I truly feel there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with that statement.

There had to be a reason why this sudden upshoot in people who are willing to traumatize their kids for their own sexual enjoyment. Pedophiles are as old as humanity itself but never on a scale like this. Has anybody wondered why all of a sudden there seems to be a pedophile under ever rock and tree looking to snatch your kids away? There definitly are more than there are used to be, and in no way is that good for our communities. But locking away pedophiles and hoping they get a big black stick up the bum is just treating the symptoms of a spreading dissease, but it dosent get rid of the fear that they are there.

I want to start thinking about this now because I tell ya I am definitly not willing to bring a kid into the world with shit like this happening all over the place.

/rant

[Johnny_D]

. I looked more into the menstuff while at work and found it also to be an interesting read and can see that. Men are looked at in a completely different light than women when it comes to children. Women are the natural care givers and nuture'ers (sp) though, i don't think it should be that way, society seems to feel that it's unhealthy for some reason if an adult male seems to take an intrest in a child for any reason I mean males need to be role models. Without men, their knowledge and their ability to teach what they know, our male childen will surely suffer.

Ufortunatly, pedophiles are the latest moral panic going through out society right now. My personal opinion is that the media is beginning to run out of groups of people to blame for the decaying moral fabric of our country and has resorted to barraging us with story after story of men (and incresingly women) who try to have sex with kids. Now that its no longer acceptable to hate a group of people based on race or ethnicity or nationality or criminal status, we now focus on anopther group of people that were never in the social spotlight as much as they are now. Even inner city thugs are portrayed as tragic youth who are victims of circumstance. There is nothing sympathetic about a child molester and the media uses it to our advantage to stir up rather powerful parental emotions that lead us to be easily manipulated. Playing once again on the theme of the "protect our children" bit that seems to be the most popular, even though most child rapes are commited by a parent or close relative.

And as a result, you are absolutly right Kornkitten that any male taking interest in a child's wellbeing is deemed suspicious. I used to work at a daycamp and as part of our job we were supposed to be on the lookout for suspicious men wandering around.

Knowing people that have been raped when they were kids, I can tell you that it is an enormous problem, and watching people close to you have to grow up with those memories is painful. But this whole peodphile thing is just one great big witch hunt. Say you hate blacks or hate whoeveer and your a some sort of antiquated racist montster, but say you'll kill a pedophile if you saw one and you are a man of moral fiber. It won't be the most popular opinion I'm sure, but I truly feel there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with that statement.

There had to be a reason why this sudden upshoot in people who are willing to traumatize their kids for their own sexual enjoyment. Pedophiles are as old as humanity itself but never on a scale like this. Has anybody wondered why all of a sudden there seems to be a pedophile under ever rock and tree looking to snatch your kids away? There definitly are more than there are used to be, and in no way is that good for our communities. But locking away pedophiles and hoping they get a big black stick up the bum is just treating the symptoms of a spreading dissease, but it dosent get rid of the fear that they are there.

I want to start thinking about this now because I tell ya I am definitly not willing to bring a kid into the world with shit like this happening all over the place.

/rant

I don't agree with all your statements... But This is a key point.

Is there a real surge of paedophilia or is it just we have better reporting?

The Parallel I use is thusly :-

The Falklands war. It was a war that got reported for 10 mins at 18:00, 10 mins at 22:00 and probably took up about 40% of the breakfast news magazines. *

The next war was Iraq #1. It was reported on 24Hrs a day. literally.

We live in a media rich, media lead world.

I believe that is the difference. I am sure there were just as many 'cases' Pre 1990. But how many got such coverage? Local or national?

JD

* - Not exact figures, but you get the idea.

[Apoc Genesis]

I don't agree with all your statements... But This is a key point.

Is there a real surge of paedophilia or is it just we have better reporting?

The Parallel I use is thusly :-

The Falklands war. It was a war that got reported for 10 mins at 18:00, 10 mins at 22:00 and probably took up about 40% of the breakfast news magazines. *

The next war was Iraq #1. It was reported on 24Hrs a day. literally.

We live in a media rich, media lead world.

I believe that is the difference. I am sure there were just as many 'cases' Pre 1990. But how many got such coverage? Local or national?

JD

* - Not exact figures, but you get the idea.

You're right on that. Before the 90's it wasnt as accepted to be open and honest about such things. with that said we'll never truly know how prevalant sexual deviants were back then (taking into account people married and had kids much younger back in those days, im talking about situatuions that were outside normal even for that)

But talking about how it is today, with stories left and right of abused kids all over the media, it is definitly much more in our face than it was in previous generations. It behooves us then to do something about it. Especially when it comes to these rapes. But we dont have the money or jail space to keep them locked up forever, nor are we allowing our governments to execute these people. We have a duty to understand them and how they feel they can do these things to children because we as a society are now traumatized. How are we supposed to function normally if we intend to parent our children in fear?

[nathan_Choi]

GOD I MINIMUM SENTENCES


...and thats all I have to say about that