As expected, the usual knee-jerk reaction to a horrific crime, punish all sex offenders more for the crimes of a few. So when are we going to treat all criminals as serial killers, since a couple are indeed serial killers?
SALISBURY - Maryland lawmakers will debate tougher laws for child sex offenders when the General Assembly session opens Wednesday.
Suzanne Collins reports it comes as a result of the abudction and murder of an 11-year-old girl on the Eastern Shore.
- That is my point. Do we punish all other criminals because some other criminal committed multiple crimes? No, so why are we punishing all other sex offenders for the crime of one person? Punish the sole person who committed the crime, not all offenders.
The man charged in the abduction of _____ had already sexually abused one child and raped another. Now lawmakers want to know what they can do to change the law to prevent a case like this.
- You can do NOTHING to prevent future crimes. If a person is intent on committing a crime, they will. Hell, history has proven that in any other situation, yet when it comes to sex offenders, all common sense is thrown out the door and people are blinded. Plus, this man was a KNOWN sex offender, and did the registry or any of the laws prevent it? Nope, and it never will.
_____'s body was found days after being taken from her bed in the night. The man charged, _____, had dated the girl's aunt who was her guardian.
_____ had been convicted twice in the past with sexual child abuse.
- So lock him up for life!
"If we lose one child to murder, that's one child too many in our state. Whenever these things happen, it inspires all of us to ask one another what can we do, what additional things can we do to safeguard lives of our children," said Governor Martin O'Malley (Contact).
- Nobody wants a child or anybody to be killed, but nothing you do can prevent it. You just want to "look good" to the people, and protect your career as a "savior of children," IMO.
The governor says he thinks lawmakers will debate a slew of bills after the horrible crime hoping to prevent something similar in the future.
- Hell, pass one million laws, it still won't prevent anything.
"I'm sure we will revisit the notion of periods of civil commitment after criminal sentences are completed," said O'Malley.
- Why not, if they are so dangerous, leave them in prison? Civil commitment is just a waste of tax payer dollars, and I'm sure no tax payer would want to know they are spending their hard earned money for this.
Right now when a child sex offender serves his full sentence, the state can do no more. But there is talk that civil laws could be used to commit a person who can be proven still dangerous to children to a mental health facility.
- That is how it has always been, it's called ex post facto laws, which are forbidden by the constitution, but this proves to the people, the constitution is not worth the paper and ink it's written with, so why have it? And is this actually a "mental health" facility or a place to send them (concentration camp) to punish them further after their sentence, thus violating the ex post facto clause?
The head of a non-profit that advocates against child sex abuse says laws are important but alert family members who also educate their children are the best protection.
"To explain, strangers are not the biggest danger, that often times we know that people who know the children pose the greatest risk to them," said Pat Cronin.
- As in this case, this man knew this child and family, and they knew he was a sex offender, and did it stop anything? No, and it never will.
Two years ago, Maryland passed Jessica's Law which requires 25-year sentences for child sex abusers, but the sponsor says inmates get good time credits in prison, also known as diminution, and they get out early anyway.
"Diminution credits is another good idea. I'd be willing to sign a bill like that, but that wouldn't have prevented this case from happening sadly," said O'Malley.
- Neither would more laws! We should be working on prevention and education, but, you want to keep the prison business raking in the cash, so you just pass more insane, unconstitutional laws to keep the business running.
Civil commitment of sex offenders in a mental facility after they've serve time is costly -- about four times as much as housing an inmate -- because treatement is required.
- And to this date, I know of no sex offender who has been released from civil commitment, so this is basically another money making scheme, IMO. It's a modern day concentration camp. Treat them in prison, but if they have done their time, then they have done their time. If we can get a way with punishing someone, after the fact, then who is next? Are we going to go back and repunish all the other criminals as well? If not, why not? Fair is fair, right?
The supreme court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders in other states.