Why don’t to put the f*cker back to prison?
Nietzsche was right. When society becomes soft and gentle, it is on the side of those who hurt it.

guess…future victims…animals…Sick

So I bet Connecticut deserves a blue ribbon in its handling of this case? Don’t twist my words around.

We’re already dealing with what we deserve by not immediately dealing with our problems, instead, locking ‘em away for thirty years. Overcrowded prisons, a clogged criminal justice system which ignores high-risk criminals, and cannot accomplish meaningful corrections or rehabilitation due to lack of funding and staffing.

Anyways, what irrational fear-mongering propaganda you direct towards high-risk sex offenders: Maybe these sick animals must be euthanased in a gas chamber since they’re “undesirable”. No, that’s too painless, why not torture these animals to “protect the children”. Where are you headed in your quest to eliminate “future victims”?

Maybe you should stop your guesswork, accept the reality that we live in a government bounded by the rule of law and the constitution, and propose a realizable solution?

You can’t go with some pie-in-the-sky “lock ‘em up forever” scheme, as this doesn’t play out well in our system of plea-bargaining charges down. Victims don’t want to testify. Evidence can be inconclusive. This means, in essence, most criminals are let back out.

Now, this is why treatment in prison is crucial:

You identify the criminals who are highest at-risk to re-offend, and separate them from the ones amenable to treatment.

For the compulsive and repetitive offenders, you find their triggers, their behavior pattern, psychological profile. Monitor the progress in therapy. Keep them in civil commitment if they are uncooperative.

Once out, keep them on a tight leash. Eliminate sentences such as, thirty years to serve, followed by nothing, no aftercare or monitoring. It leads to trouble.

The people of the State “deserve what they get”.

That says it all. Mark, you are one sick puppy.

Yeah, you usually deal with the consequences of your actions. That’s what we tell criminals. It’s no different for the public at large, as they speak with a vote.

Taxpayers and elected officials decide “No residential facilities for high risk sex offenders”, “No new prison facilities”, “No reentry services for inmates”. So let the guy go, with no support system, no treatment while incarcerated, no transition back to society.

You want the cheap solution, you get what you deserve.

I’d rather have a comprehensive solution. Not feel-good mandatory sentencing, not lock ‘em up and throw away the key.

Treatment does work, but it’s difficult to make it mandatory when, among other things, there’s absolutely no incentive to be a willing participant in any program (good time credit doesn’t apply in many states). So treatment doesn’t get applied until after release–when the registrant can’t find a place a live or work, but must pay for therapy.

We know what reduces recidivism among high-risk offenders. Circles of Support and Accountability is an excellent example. Trouble is, the public simply doesn’t like the answer, evidenced by the continual cutting of funds to similar programs.

We also know what increases the risk factors associated with recidivism: unstable employment, unstable living arrangements, and social isolation. Most lawmakers know this, too. They’ve done an excellent job so far of hitting each and every one.

That says it all. Mark, you are one sick puppy.

I’m not surprised the MSM is paying more attention: more “stranger danger”/”predators among us” sensationalism.

As always, the trouble lies not in determining the strategy, but in implementing the logistics of it. While life imprisonment is a popular strategy, its logistical needs may far exceed its benefits. “If it saves one person” is not an acceptable justification if, to implement the policy, resources are taken from policies that may save two.

More and more cities are placing restrictions on where sex offenders can live. In some places as much as 75% of the city’s area is off limits. Many offenders will be forced to drop off the map in order to have a roof over their head. They HAVE to live somewhere.

I’d sure as hell rather know a sex offender is living in my neighborhood - than NOT know about the one who’s been forced into ’secretly’ living next door to me.