You have got to be f-ing kidding me.

[Miss P]

I might be totally off base though.

No, I think everything you said is very sharp and makes perfect sense!

[aerynn]

I might be totally off base though.

No, I think everything you said is very sharp and makes perfect sense!

Thanks!  I genuinely appreciate it.

[SCgrad]

There is a constitutional basis for protection against "cruel and unusual punishment" (like getting sodimized against your will). Sending someone to jail could constitute cruel and unusual punishment, ergo, find an alternate method to prevent him from harming others and exacting punishment.

There is no basis for setting someone free because they might create a cruel and unusual environment for others.  That is the reason we lock them up.

Yes, aerynn, you're totally right.  But aside from the killing machine's 8th Am. rights, might the pragmatic jurist also consider the rights of the other inmates to be free of cruel and unusual punishment?  I think both of these questions (how to sentence an especially dangerous defendant and how to sentence an especially vulnerable one) point to concern about prison conditions.  We need to find a way to manage prison violence better.

yeah, this is the point i'm getting at.  would this judge have let Jeffrey Dahmar go with no prison time?  his fate should have seemed rather obvious. 

in the case i described.  to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, maybe the judge could order all sex offenders in the prison I am in to be set free.  i wonder how that would go over?

[aerynn]

You can lock up a Jeff Dahmer into a solitary confinement for eating other prisoners and the extra punishment is justified by his extra bad behavior.

You can't confine someone to solitary punishment (seen as excessive for a molester in the eyes of our current sentencing guidelines) because they are not extra bad but being sodimized by other prisoners.  It is unconstitutional.

Just to sum that idea up more clearly.  I think it was muddy in my first post.  But I think this is what prevents the judge from setting Jeff Dahmer loose.

[Julie Fern]

at very least, should take away dahmer's fork.

[SCgrad]

You can lock up a Jeff Dahmer into a solitary confinement for eating other prisoners and the extra punishment is justified by his extra bad behavior.

You can't confine someone to solitary punishment (seen as excessive for a molester in the eyes of our current sentencing guidelines) because they are not extra bad but being sodimized by other prisoners.  It is unconstitutional.

Just to sum that idea up more clearly.  I think it was muddy in my first post.  But I think this is what prevents the judge from setting Jeff Dahmer loose.

1. Dahmer did that?

2.  how is that unconstitutional (in the case discussed in this thread, not Dahmer)?  That guy who was convicted in the 9/11 case got solitary confinement (presumably because he would be targeted.  I doubt he would be a threat).  I guess they should let him go too?

what would happen if you put this guy in a special prison with nothing but other child molesters?
would this guy be safe in any prison system where he was with a general pop?  should they make midget prisons, with tiny cells and tiny beds and tiny bars and maybe some tiny gaurds?

[aerynn]

You can lock up a Jeff Dahmer into a solitary confinement for eating other prisoners and the extra punishment is justified by his extra bad behavior.

You can't confine someone to solitary punishment (seen as excessive for a molester in the eyes of our current sentencing guidelines) because they are not extra bad but being sodimized by other prisoners.  It is unconstitutional.

Just to sum that idea up more clearly.  I think it was muddy in my first post.  But I think this is what prevents the judge from setting Jeff Dahmer loose.

1. Dahmer did that?

2.  how is that unconstitutional (in the case discussed in this thread, not Dahmer)?  That guy who was convicted in the 9/11 case got solitary confinement (presumably because he would be targeted.  I doubt he would be a threat).  I guess they should let him go too?

what would happen if you put this guy in a special prison with nothing but other child molesters?
would this guy be safe in any prison system where he was with a general pop?  should they make midget prisons, with tiny cells and tiny beds and tiny bars and maybe some tiny gaurds?

I don't think Jeff Dahmer ate other prisoners.  I was just saying that if he was bad in prison, he could get extra punishment for creating a cruel and unusual environment for others.  What are you saying?  I think I missed your point.

The 9/11 guy was under suspicion of what? Treason?  He could be put to death for his crimes.  Solitary confinement is appropriate for that level of criminal.  Compare to our tiny molester, who I am going to call "Flea."  Flea molested a 12 year old girl.  Let's say the max punishment for that crime in his jurisdiction is 15 years in prison, in the general population.  You can't up the punishment to 15 years solitary confinement just because you can't keep him safe.  It is unconsititutional, since for that crime the punishment is excessively cruel and therefore unusual for that crime.  Likewise allowing him to be sodimized for 15 years.  While emotionally it may feel like just punishment, that is not what the law reads. 

As for building a child molester prison, I'd have to ask how many child molesters there are at any given time in prison.  Is that state or federal prison?  If state, you would need a child molester prison for each state . . . it just seems a tad expensive.

[veg]

I'm shorter than that guy. I hope I get that judge if I ever get convicted of a crime. js.

[SCgrad]

You can lock up a Jeff Dahmer into a solitary confinement for eating other prisoners and the extra punishment is justified by his extra bad behavior.

You can't confine someone to solitary punishment (seen as excessive for a molester in the eyes of our current sentencing guidelines) because they are not extra bad but being sodimized by other prisoners.  It is unconstitutional.

Just to sum that idea up more clearly.  I think it was muddy in my first post.  But I think this is what prevents the judge from setting Jeff Dahmer loose.

1. Dahmer did that?

2.  how is that unconstitutional (in the case discussed in this thread, not Dahmer)?  That guy who was convicted in the 9/11 case got solitary confinement (presumably because he would be targeted.  I doubt he would be a threat).  I guess they should let him go too?

what would happen if you put this guy in a special prison with nothing but other child molesters?
would this guy be safe in any prison system where he was with a general pop?  should they make midget prisons, with tiny cells and tiny beds and tiny bars and maybe some tiny gaurds?

I don't think Jeff Dahmer ate other prisoners.  I was just saying that if he was bad in prison, he could get extra punishment for creating a cruel and unusual environment for others.  What are you saying?  I think I missed your point.

The 9/11 guy was under suspicion of what? Treason?  He could be put to death for his crimes.  Solitary confinement is appropriate for that level of criminal.  Compare to our tiny molester, who I am going to call "Flea."  Flea molested a 12 year old girl.  Let's say the max punishment for that crime in his jurisdiction is 15 years in prison, in the general population.  You can't up the punishment to 15 years solitary confinement just because you can't keep him safe.  It is unconsititutional, since for that crime the punishment is excessively cruel and therefore unusual for that crime.  Likewise allowing him to be sodimized for 15 years.  While emotionally it may feel like just punishment, that is not what the law reads. 

As for building a child molester prison, I'd have to ask how many child molesters there are at any given time in prison.  Is that state or federal prison?  If state, you would need a child molester prison for each state . . . it just seems a tad expensive.

1.  Dahmer actually killed people, so I guess you are saying it was okay for him to be killed in prison?  He was obviously going to be targeted.  They put him in anyway and let him get murdered.  This doesn't really matter anyway.

2.  So the constitution bars cruel punishment depending on the crime?  Something is either cruel or it isn't (look at the CA "3 strikes" laws, which can put someone away for 25 years for shoplifting.  Why isn't that "cruel punishment?).  You can argue unusual, but so many people are put in solitary confinement, I think it hardly could be classified as such.  you also seem to think child molestation is not as serious a crime as I do.  is this true? 

Really, the solitary confinement would be for his own protection.  I cannot imagine a scenario where this guy could be with any general population and be okay.  Many people are put in solitary confinement for their own protection.  It's not like it is much worse than regular prison.  You don't get to hang out with a bunch of scumbags.  That's rough.  If I'm ever put in prison, I hope it's solitary confinement.

3.  Expensive?  Tell that to the girl whose life is forever altered because she was raped.  That is the states number one responsibility, to protect its citizens.  maybe you don't think some people are worth protecting?

[aerynn]

1.  Dahmer actually killed people, so I guess you are saying it was okay for him to be killed in prison?  He was obviously going to be targeted.  They put him in anyway and let him get murdered.  This doesn't really matter anyway.

I don't get what your point is here, so yeah, let's just let it go.

2.  So the constitution bars cruel punishment depending on the crime?  Something is either cruel or it isn't (look at the CA "3 strikes" laws, which can put someone away for 25 years for shoplifting.  Why isn't that "cruel punishment?).  You can argue unusual, but so many people are put in solitary confinement, I think it hardly could be classified as such.  you also seem to think child molestation is not as serious a crime as I do.  is this true? 

Really, the solitary confinement would be for his own protection.  I cannot imagine a scenario where this guy could be with any general population and be okay.  Many people are put in solitary confinement for their own protection.  It's not like it is much worse than regular prison.  You don't get to hang out with a bunch of scumbags.  That's rough.  If I'm ever put in prison, I hope it's solitary confinement.

Cruel AND unusual punishment is defined by the crime.  Some punishments may be cruel in any context, such as torture.  Some punishments are cruel and unusual given the crime.  In some states, murder is a capital crime where a convicted murderer may be put to death.  It would be cruel and unusual to put a theif to death for shoplifting a $5 tube of lipstick, however, even in those states where the death penalty is reguarly used to punish murderers.  The punishment must fit the crime and our inability to operate the prison effectively does not relieve that obligation.

You may think solitary confinement sounds great.  However, in our system it is considered a higher level of punishment.  Psychological studies bear that it is more difficult to serve time in isolation than it is in a social setting, until you throw in that the "social setting" includes rape and murder.  Since the rape and murder are not supposed to be happening, you can't make a legal argument that solitary confinement is a lessor punishment than being in the general population. 

Since I don't know anything about the nature of this particular instance of molestation or what the laws are in that particular state regarding molestation, I can't form any sort of opinion about whether the punishments should be made tougher and the maximum penalties should be changed.

3.  Expensive?  Tell that to the girl whose life is forever altered because she was raped.  That is the states number one responsibility, to protect its citizens.  maybe you don't think some people are worth protecting?

Are we discussing what should happen in magical fairy dreamland where I get to spend whatever I want and do whatever I want?  If so, then your point may be worth discussing in that context.  I was framing my comments in the context of the real world US of A.  So saying "Maybe you don't think some people are worth protecting" is just silly.  Why not build each child a candy castle with a fleet of carefully screened adults to cater to their every whim and protect them from every evil?  Maybe you hate children and don't want them to be happy?  (See how that style of discussion has no point?)

Since lifetime imprisonment isn't an option for molestation I would prefer to see first time offenders, particularly those who don't have criminal records and a low risk for repeating their crime, treated for mental illness rather than subjected to further abuses and trauma, which seems like it would increase the offender's propensity to act out in an inappropriate way.  I think child molestors are probably created not born that way and it seems worth wile to find a way to fix it when possible.  They should also be monitored for life.  If an alcoholic is an alcoholic forever (recovered for 20 years, you are still an alcoholic in recovery), it seems likely that molesters are molesters forever, they are just "on the wagon."

Second time offenders can be thrown in a gator pit so we can stop wasting our time on them.

How's that for pretend scenarios?