What do people think of mandatory sentencing for sexual assault?

**cheapprick** · June 30th, 2008, 05:33 PM

I was reading a discussion about a legislator opposing "Jessica's Law" type legislation on another site. What do ZP'ers think about mandatory minimum sentences of 25 years to life for everyone convicted of sexual assault of a minor?

I think this thread would have the most potential for chuckles if everyone waited to comment until the anal-retentives start screaming about chemical castration.

Clearly there are a few issues wrong with such legislation, no?

**HelenaP** · June 30th, 2008, 05:39 PM

Voted.....

**mountain_rage** · June 30th, 2008, 06:00 PM

Every situation comes with their own outcome, I think the judge should have final say. Theirs just too many questions to be asked about the minors implications in the acts. You can argue about how someone should have the foresight to know someones age, and clearly get their intentions, but people can be deceived. The other issue I have is what is considered sexual assault. For rape I have little issue with a mandatory sentence, so long as their is definitive proof, such as semen samples (It should also be proven that it was involuntary). Someone groping an individual, I'm not so inclined to give mandatory sentence, especially not 25 years.

**rainbowdemon** · June 30th, 2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by cheapprick

I think this thread would have the most potential for chuckles if everyone waited to comment until the anal-retentives start screaming about chemical castration.

Chemical castration is no good anyway. Testosterone shots counter it, and Ol' Junior is standing tall and proud again. Physical castration is better. With a dull knife. And no pain killers!!

**Malakai1911** · June 30th, 2008, 07:01 PM

I am firmly opposed to all forms of mandatory minimum sentencing regardless of the crime. There should be 'guideline' sentencing, with judges at full use of discretion, and maximum term limits.

**CCSDUDE** · June 30th, 2008, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Malakai1911

I am firmly opposed to all forms of mandatory minimum sentencing regardless of the crime. There should be 'guideline' sentencing, with judges at full use of discretion, and maximum term limits.

very true since even the term 'where theres smoke theres fire' with respect to arson using MM sentencing results in complete bullshit

a kid could light a freakin' harmless smokebomb (ya know those lil cherry lookin' suckers or a psudo-dynamite looking big smokey one) in some public place as a joke 'n end up with a 2 year sentance for starting fires

same goes for all the sexual offense shit since all tred lightly on kids stuff has been pushed IE we don't want the kid to say what happened in front of 12 peers so as to actually give an idea of wtf happened instead the bias is in favor of the paperwork 'n the child isn't forced into showing true colors on the stand

example of that would be some 20ish dude meeting some 15-16 what have ya year old girl hitting it off having sex then breaking up for whatever reason 'n she decides to shout rape or vice versa older chick young dude who has been hurt by her enough to get revenge any way possible

since situations are never the same minimum sentences cripple the judge's appointed right to decide

then again many judges in the system are probably too harsh or too soft but this MM shit only covers the soft ones while crippling all the sane ones

**cheapprick** · June 30th, 2008, 07:55 PM

The people that blindly advocate this law are the same people that 2 or 3 years down the road will voice their amazement that 18 year olds are going to prison for 25 years for having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends.

It's a lack of foresight. The minute you bind the judge's hands the sentences are no longer tailored to fit the crime.

edit - and as was mentioned in said "other forum", once there is no possibility of a plea deal being made defence attorneys are going to have to re-victimize every one of the victims on the stand to try and beat the rap. The elimination of plea bargaining will emotionally cripple some kids.

**El Comandante** · June 30th, 2008, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Malakai1911

I am firmly opposed to all forms of mandatory minimum sentencing regardless of the crime. There should be 'guideline' sentencing, with judges at full use of discretion, and maximum term limits.

I agree completely. Mandatory sentencing guidelines are usually knee jerk reactions by politicians who want to appear tough on crime. In reality these laws take power from Judges and place power in the hands of prosecutors who coerce pleas and even make innocent people plead to lesser crimes despite being innocent.

Judges are best equipped to consider the individual circumstances of each case/defendant when imposing sentence. Mandatory sentences remove all nuance from justice.

I would also think that these laws are a form of unfunded mandate. Imagine the expense of having to lock people up for 25 years for ANY kind of sexual assault... hell ... you don't even have to touch a person to be charged with assault.

**moneoa** · June 30th, 2008, 11:02 PM

Liberal pussies you all are with your judges discretion and chemical castration or even these assholes with their Manditory Sentencing.

The solution is simple:
Line up each piece of shit and fucking execute every single sexual offender out there with a bullet to the back of the head. Once we wipe out the majority of these sick bastards the rest that rise to the notice of the proper authorities can be more easily dealt with and tagged for tracking

**HelenaP** · June 30th, 2008, 11:05 PM

"Tagged for tracking" sounds so...quaint.

It has potential.

**moneoa** · June 30th, 2008, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by HelenaP

"Tagged for tracking" sounds so...quaint.

It has potential.

Indeed as the rest would be useful for agricultural farming and extracting resourses in labor communes. Cheaper to maintain than machines and easy to replace. Tracking is needed to prevent escape

**wingnut2600** · June 30th, 2008, 11:38 PM

Interesting thread.

I agree with Malakai's assertion regarding mandatory sentencing, although I do believe in harsher sentencing than the average for majority-age sentencing.

The difference for sentencing is based upon the pathological or compulsive nature of some crimes, and the degree to which a person can be directed away from re-committing the same offense. A habitual predator of people the same age is as dangerous as a child predator, but those that prey upon children are more often unveiled as those with a particular predilection; more difficult ot treat than the public at large.

Treatment and monitoring of those that can be reincorporated into society is the goal. Those that will continue to prey upon others should be prevented from doing so...

Until when? God, that is a hard question... the legal system is missing the point in its very purpose in the current legal-political climate. Rehabilitation is key, punishment is medieval.

**moneoa** · July 1st, 2008, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by wingnut2600

Interesting thread.

I agree with Malakai's assertion regarding mandatory sentencing, although I do believe in harsher sentencing than the average for majority-age sentencing.

The difference for sentencing is based upon the pathological or compulsive nature of some crimes, and the degree to which a person can be directed away from re-committing the same offense. A habitual predator of people the same age is as dangerous as a child predator, but those that prey upon children are more often unveiled as those with a particular predilection; more difficult ot treat than the public at large.

Treatment and monitoring of those that can be reincorporated into society is the goal. Those that will continue to prey upon others should be prevented from doing so...

Until when? God, that is a hard question... the legal system is missing the point in its very purpose in the current legal-political climate. Rehabilitation is key, punishment is medieval.

My bullshit and sarcasm aside sir as a man of intelligence will you at least concede that rehabilitation for some is not possible...indeed from a psychology stand point you are the person your going to be well into your 20's

**HelenaP** · July 1st, 2008, 04:30 AM

Maybe some of you have heard of "No Lie?"

It could be useful in creating and outlining some guidelines, but is an ethical question unto itself...

**wingnut2600** · July 1st, 2008, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by moneoa

will you at least concede that rehabilitation for some is not possible...

Unfortunately, I agree that some people are sociopaths and have no hope for rehabilitation. The penal system doesn't differentiate the types of people that commit crimes, because it is, in essence, an industry of punishment, but some people should be separated from society so that they cannot prey on others.

I am for much higher sentencing for those that prey upon others. My statements were regarding the idea of mandatory sentencing, which may take away from the efficacy of those involved int he legal system to make decisions based upon the case and the individual charged with a crime.

Personally, I would choose to decriminalize drug use and treat and give support to drug offenders rather than penalizing them. This would allow more resources to better deal with violent crime in a preventative manner.