Repeat Molestation=Death Penalty?

[Malachi]

In Texas, I heard that they are now trying to pass a law making
repeat offenders of Child Molestation eligible for the death penalty.
While many people agree with it, there are a few problems.
For one, they say a child molester is never 'cured'. So when you
get imprisoned for the 24 year sentence they want for a first
offense, when you get out, you will still, theoretically, want to
have sexual contact with minors.
Also, in my opinion, having a child molestor in prison for
twenty-four years will only make those wants grow; a desire
left to simmer for a quarter century.
Another problem is people who are wrongly convicted. If someone
is wrongly convicted, when they get out, they might have the whole
'You get me for molestation? I'll show you molestation' thing in their
head and end up dying for something they didn't originally do.
For example, I was almost taken to court for rape last August. It
wasn't molestation, but if I did go and I lost, I'd be pretty pissed.
I didn't rape the guy, so if I got into trouble for it, when I was done
with my punishment, I'd rather make the guy pay. Some people
can't control such urges.  

[Nebetsu]

I think if there is concrete DNA evidence, then they should not kill them. I think a surgery to remove the testicles should be the punishment for a first offense (plus the hefty restraining order, of couse). Then, if the person does it again, then the death penalty would be the ideal solution for those kinds of people.

I really stress that there should be concrete evidence. If it's not 100% (like sexual fluids and such), then a lesser sentence would have to be enforced, just in case the person is innocent.

That's just my sadistic opinion on it though. I'm probably a horrible person or something for thinking the ***** should have their testicles removed, but I stand by it.  

[Lake Sam]

Thank God that I do not have those urges, having my testicles removed would be... unbearable. I hope that it would not be anything like horror-torture movies, where they make you go through the "process" awake and not drugged.

Back on the subject, I do think that the death penalty is harsh. Now life in prison would be my option for ***** convicted with child molestation, even though it is costly and really just a slow death... um, yeah.

As a first offense, obviously a large fine AND an even larger retraining order, both in distance and time. Possibly, remove one testicle? gonk  

[Emperor Fluffzorz]

Nebetsu

I think if there is concrete DNA evidence, then they should not kill them. I think a surgery to remove the testicles should be the punishment for a first offense (plus the hefty restraining order, of couse). Then, if the person does it again, then the death penalty would be the ideal solution for those kinds of people.

I really stress that there should be concrete evidence. If it's not 100% (like sexual fluids and such), then a lesser sentence would have to be enforced, just in case the person is innocent.

That's just my sadistic opinion on it though. I'm probably a horrible person or something for thinking the ***** should have their testicles removed, but I stand by it.

Aye, I'm gonna have to go with you on this one. Though the removal thing is likely going to inspire as much unholy vengeance as a quarter-century in a cell. Though I do agree on the death penalty for a second offense, I really think that the options for the first offense are just too revenge-inspiring. Ten years seems a fairly long time to me, or surgical sterilization. Rather than up and taking off someone's testicles, a crude and inefficient means, why not just use a chemical means? And seriously, 24 years would be a long time for me to simmer if convicted - I'd come out of jail with about a half dozen plots to destroy North American society just toexpress the scope of my rage. Ten years... well, I'd probably just euthanize a small town in Colorado. See? Lower-scale. Still, death on the second, no doubt.  

[FaithEmblem]

Nebetsu

I think if there is concrete DNA evidence, then they should not kill them. I think a surgery to remove the testicles should be the punishment for a first offense (plus the hefty restraining order, of couse). Then, if the person does it again, then the death penalty would be the ideal solution for those kinds of people.

I really stress that there should be concrete evidence. If it's not 100% (like sexual fluids and such), then a lesser sentence would have to be enforced, just in case the person is innocent.

That's just my sadistic opinion on it though. I'm probably a horrible person or something for thinking the ***** should have their testicles removed, but I stand by it.

Having their testicles removed I agree with, and I couldn't imput much that hasn't already been stated but. . . what would you do in the first offense for a woman? It would be difficult to remove her testicles 3nodding .
Anyway, I completely agree with a sentence of death for repeat offenders. It's a vicious cycle that just doesn't end.
But as the vice versa requires I give the bad effects of that suggestion. . .
Half of the common prisons are repeat offenders of child molestation. I'd give an estimate of at least 35-65% of them. This would lead to a long stream of deaths. {I present this estimate from the fact that both of my parents work in a prison. I have basic, broad information.}
Continuation of what I was saying, It would cause a bit of an upset, especially in small towns.
I suggest that the death penalty just be given to cases that are repeatedly violent and unusual molestations and rapes. Yes, all rape/molestation is bad, but people are capable of getting over it with proper punishment for the criminal and thereapy. Death wouldn't be necessary for all cases. . . So says I.