What happens when the state turns someone out of prison, won't let them live anywhere near anyplace children might be, but doesn't want them living under a bridge, either?
Look, if they're such a danger to society, leave them in the pokey. If they're safe to be turned loose, leave them the hell alone. But please make up your mind, because now every time I drive over a bridge, I'm going to wonder if it has real-life trolls underneath.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You've never freight hop'd, I take it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKxQoN3EAzI
Lot's of trolls living under bridges...
Actually, if they're such a danger to society, kill them. Put them out of our--and their--misery. This isn't some wierd vengance thing, as so many liberals seem to think, it's just that the alternative to letting them go is locking them up forever, and that's "cruel and inhuman." Not to mention expensive.
"The Catch 22nd Street bridge."
Excellent title!
Bridge trolls are real and some can be scary. I encountered one with a bad attitude about 3a.m. while on my morning walk.He never knew how close he came to being gutted and thrown into Chickamauga Creek. et45
Here's an idea, let's move them all to Manhattan Island.
Then we dynamite all of the bridges leading into and out of the city except for the 69th street bridge...
Don't forget, those trolls were in shape as well!
What's the acronym that comes to mind? Oh yes, NIMBY.
And bsp, shall we call you Snake?
I'm in agreement that we are too simplistic-- all sex criminals aren't alike.
But the law is what it is, and I PROMISE you that those guys in the interview would both be in prison yet, if the fullest extent of the law had been dealt to them.
As for the guy who protests his innocence to having flashed a little girl, let me share this observation: in all my career in law enforcement, not one ex-con with a record of Indecent Exposure ever owned up to doing it on purpose. Meth heads who burgle? Sure. Car theves? Sure. Wife beaters? Sometimes. But weinie-flashers? Never. Every damn one of 'em had a robe that fell open or a towel that dropped as they were answering the door, and someone across the street happened to catch a glimpse, and.... :rolleyes:
One thing that I can tell you that my observations working in the jail taught me-- some time in non-segregated housing teaches any man to be able to properly conceal his dingus with a little hand towel.
Whoops, closed out before mentioning: To be convicted of Indecent Exposure, the state has to prove up that it was "with
intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." Guess how they prove that?
Actually, in Texas, if the victim is under 17, it's Indecency With A Child, which would be a 3rd Degree Felony. Again with the "with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person," "knowing the child is present." That's a pretty high standard, which isn't met by "the towel slipped off."
Sex offenders? Sometimes, they lie.
Hard to know how to deal with these people (not all are men). They do have a pretty high rate of repeat offending. I think it can be hard to prove you didn't do certain things though...remember a few years back, when a bunch of adults were accused of sex crimes by a bunch of kids? Turns out the accusations were false, but by then a lot of lives were ruined. But on the other hand, you don't want to take chances if the accusations are true, the price is too high.
Maybe the parole officers could box them up and send them off to live in Pedophile Acres instead.
Pedophiles have a 100% recidivism rate, so yeh they lie about it all the time. I don't think they should ever be let-out, but what we do in California is return the muggers and burgalers and stick-up artists back to their broken f*'d up homes - so Oakland stays Oakland, because it's traditional and that's how the Democrats run the penal colonies.
We reduce crime by not punishing criminals.
Post a Comment