Public Safety
63-year-old Marion man charged with sex abuse of 4-year-old
Posted on Aug 13, 2009 by Admin.
Steve Robins, 63, of Marion, was charged Wednesday with second-degree sexual abuse, according to a criminal complaint filed in Linn County District Court.
He is accused of sexually abusing a 4-year-old girl who was in his care July 30.
MrComment
13. Aug, 2009
I'm a little tired of reading about perverts this week. Not much information here to go on.
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Do we have any elections coming up?
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
OK Dems/Libs, he sexually abused a 4 year old. My solution would be castration but that is a little harsh over your rehab solution. Lets protect this poor old man and make sure the rest of his life he has the support he needs to be a part of your society.
ttm
13. Aug, 2009
Why turn it into politics? No matter what party we are I think we can all agree he is sick and disgusting. My solution would be a prision/island of sexual abusers and let them have at it. There should be no chance of parole or re-introduction to society ever. Just get the the heck away from me and my kids.
oneandonly
13. Aug, 2009
We almost agree on something
queenofbabble
13. Aug, 2009
How is this a political issue? Either you want to effectively prevent repeat offenses or you don't. Castration doesn't work. It's been proven not to work. Want to know why? Sexual abuse doesn't only occur with one body part. Let's say he's castrated and goes to prison and gets out 20 years from now…he still has hands. He still has an internet connection. He's still able to sexually abuse children. Your suggestion isn't a solution to the problem. Your suggestion would only provide people with a false sense of safety.
We have a Constitution we have to follow which provides people with civil rights. We have to protect those rights. It seems to me the way to fix this problem is to adjust the sentences. At this point, sex abusers get sentenced to a few years in prison. If there's no rehab and no way to prevent recission, then they need to stay in prison, or at least some type of facility where they are accounted for.
Are you interested in solving the actual problem, or are you MORE interested in taking cheap shots at Democrats? Sounds to me like it's the latter and to me, that makes you part of the problem.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
You might want to look at the real life facts of sentencing for offenders and what is considered a offense. A teen who has sex with a few days under age girlfriend is labeled a violent predator and sentenced to years in prison. The labels are misleading because they lump all sorts of behaviors together, as if they were the same crime.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
nice. they took my comment down. I guess the gazette didnt agree with me either.
queenofbabble
14. Aug, 2009
Try rereading my comment. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest rehab. And try reading our Constitution while you're at it – it provides inalienable rights for all Americans regardless of their crimes – and a right to due process and a fair trial are some of those rights.
This is the problem with Republicans…you don't want Democracy, you want authoritarian rule by a Republican dictator. You claim to love your country, but you have no idea what democracy really is.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Once punished, sex offender have the lowest recidivism rate of all crimes, only 3.3% will re-offend, especially if they get treatment.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
So, you have no problem letting a convicted sex offender that has successfully completed rehab watch your 4 year old daughter? If you believe in the system then your answer should be 'yes'.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
You wouldn't get someone like that near a kid if it was getting killed next door. Nor would any man who knows what's good for him. Thanks to all you vigilantes.
You ever dump a woman? Walk carefully then, especially if she has kids.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
From the looks of this site it is more like 52%
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
even when you prove them wr0ng they give you downers
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
where did you get them figures Bullsh it.com
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Try the US Bureau of Justice, and the many other recidivism studies that don't have a financial motive.
mre0125
17. Aug, 2009
Are you for real. Wow. So, you can suppress the urge better now, the hunger.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
It really was not a cheap shot at Libs. Just like you mentioned, lets protect the m0 lesters rights and put him in rehab. Why are you guys always concerned with the bad guys? I'm as suming you are female by your user title and not once did you mention anything about the defenseless 4 year old that was used as a sex toy. I personally have 0% tolerance for sexual predators and I was being civil by offering castration but in reality I could go well beyond that. I see no reason for protecting rights to those who steal them away from others.
mre0125
17. Aug, 2009
"castration don't work", ma'am you ever been on a farm saw actual animals castrated, takes the P*** and Vinegar right out of them. Steers, Geldings, they lose the sack, they lose the drive. Chemically castrating is so expensive, cheaper solution is a good ol banding ring, and than we know they don't miss a prescription. I dont care what liberals, mess with a kid once you lost your right to what a guy holds dear.
queenofbabble
17. Aug, 2009
Our Constitution doesn't work like that. Try reading it.
And the problem with pedophiles isn't only the sexual desire. That was the point of my initial comment – it's a MENTAL desire and they don't need "the drive" to continue having the desire to sexually abuse children. There are examples of pedophiles who have been chemically castrated who go right back out and abuse children after they get out of jail.
I'm not interested in suggested solutions that don't solve the problem.
LolaA
13. Aug, 2009
Hang him high!!! Of course, as soon as he is proven guilty in a court of law.
earthdog
13. Aug, 2009
Don't worry, he will be. Juries are made up of people like you who disregard the fine points of the law and such things as a preponderance of the evidence when it comes to alleged "sex crimes"
LolaA
13. Aug, 2009
I do believe in looking at all the facts, before determing guilt. Perhaps I should have worded my response differently to "if he is proven guilty"
earthdog
13. Aug, 2009
One of the facts: Neither I, nor any other man I know will help a lost child for fear of being accused.
A few months ago, a two year old girl who wandered away from home drowned, because a man who saw her on the road was afraid to stop and pick her up. This happens all the time now, remember it .
torimagic
13. Aug, 2009
Mr Comment – I am so with you. It is really disheartening to read about this nearly every day. HOWEVER this is proving what many have said – the problem is much more prevalent than what is usually reported, more incidents ARE being reported meaning the perpetrators are being identified and prosecuted and children are getting the help they need and, most importantly, our law enforcement and Child protection workers are doing their jobs. Generally criminal charges aren't filed unless they have irrefutable proof.
FullStop
13. Aug, 2009
So, by your logic then, there is little or no need for a trial. If you find yourself in court, you must be guilty. That is what some would like you to believe.
torimagic
13. Aug, 2009
Actually that isn't what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is that generally criminal charges aren't filed in THESE types of cases unless the Cty attorney is more than reasonably assured that they have the proof they need to prosecute. It is up to the jury to decide if the evidence presented is accurate and beyond a reasonable doubt. Thank you for pointing out that perspective – I didn't want to give that impression at all
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
You couldn't be more wrong. Read the abstract I posted here. Those who are accused of a sex offense are easy targets for prosecutors and others in the criminal justice system.
Politicians are promulgating insane and expensive laws against sex offenders that help them get elected and nothing more.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
I love how you stick up for these perverts. I don't know what is worse the perverts or the people whostick up for them.
torimagic
14. Aug, 2009
Actually – I'm more than right as I speak from personal experience.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
OK, so even though he has not been convicted of this crime, would you let him babysit your children?
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
They will not reply to this comment. That is because they know you are right
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
That's the problem isn't it. Theres nothing but a lot of suspicion and fear to the point where men are suspect just because they're men.
Read and think about my posts. Men are becoming alienated from children, depriving them of important developmental needs. Children who are out alone will not be helped by any man, due to fears of being accused.
There is such a thing as using a little bit of common sense.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
Do you gamble? ever? Give me some odds that you believe this guy is innocent and you would let him watch your 4 year old daughter.
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
"Witch Hunt," a film by Dana Nachman and Don Hardy, executive-produced and narrated by Penn delves deeply into the unraveling of a Bakersfield after the injustices of the justice system are exposed when several parents are wrongly convicted of child molestation in 1980s.
"Witch Hunt" interviews the parents and shows that that each of them was convicted by the same Kern County District Attorney who is still in office. Starting in 1984 at the height of child molestation hysteria, the local district attorney used the sensational crime in order to get himself elected
Bay Area Filmmakers on MSNBC Sunday
Bay Area Filmmakers on MSNBC Sunday
WATCH
Bay Area Filmmakers on MSNBC Sunday
Behind the Scenes of "Witch Hunt"
Behind the Scenes of "Witch Hunt"
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Revising the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: Our Best Hope for Dealing with Sex-Abuse Hysteria in the United States
Richard A. Gardner*
ABSTRACT: The 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act has had unforeseen negative consequences in terms of encouraging false allegations of sex abuse. In order to receive federal funding, states had to pass legislation that mandated specific persons to report suspected cases of child abuse and granted immunity to the reporters. Funding was made available for the treatment of those judged to be victims, but not for individuals who were victims of false allegations. Several suggestions are made for changes in this legislation.
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
t cannot be denied that those who crafted this legislation were well-meaning, and they cannot be faulted for not having foreseen the widespread grief that has been caused by the Act's implementation by the kinds of misguided and incompetent workers described in other publications of mine (Gardner, 1991, 1992). One central problem has been that state and federal money is available for the treatment of children who are found to have been abused, but no monies have been specifically allocated for the protection and treatment of those who have been falsely accused and/or children who have suffered psychiatric disturbances because they have been used as vehicles for the promulgation of a false accusation. Accordingly, an evaluator who concludes that abuse has occurred can justify recommending treatment for which state and federal monies will be provided. If the evaluator concludes that no abuse has occurred, there is no route for requesting funding for further evaluation and/or treatment.
In addition, there is a complex network of interaction and interdependence among mental health facilities, child protection services, and investigatory agencies (including police, detectives, and prosecutors). It behooves all working in this network to "cooperate" with one another because the greater the number of referrals, the greater the justification for the requisite funding. Laws mandating the reporting of child abuse and laws providing immunity from prosecution for those reporting abuse ensure an endless stream of referrals for investigators and "validators." All this predictably fuels sex-abuse hysteria, hysteria in which an accused individual's Constitutional due-process protections are commonly ignored.
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Richard Gardner, PhDThese are the changes I consider crucial:
1. The federal immunity clause must be dropped. Immunity from prosecution is generally available only to specific groups essential to the functioning of the legal system, e.g., judges and prosecutors. It is incompatible with the basic philosophy of our legal system. Such immunity encourages frivolous and fabricated accusations. I would go further and recommend that states that include the immunity provision should not be entitled to federal funding. This change alone would have a formidable effect upon the hysteria we are witnessing today. It would, more than anything else, reduce significantly the flood of false referrals being generated at this time.
2. The clause mandating the reporting of child abuse must be dropped. In practice, it has resulted in the reporting of the most frivolous and absurd accusations by two-and three-year-olds, vengeful former wives, hysterical mothers of nursery-school children, and severely disturbed women against their elderly fathers. Highly skilled examiners, professionals who are extremely knowledgeable about sex abuse, examiners who know quite well that the accusation is false, are required by law to report the abuse to individuals who they often know to be inexperienced and even incompetent. Yet they face criminal charges if they do not report these accusations.
3. States in which suspected individuals are deprived of Constitutional due-process protections shall not be provided federal funding. In order to ensure the implementation of this requirement, states must provide verification that their investigatory and prosecutory procedures provide due-process protections before federal funding is made available.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
Wont it let you copy links?
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
It won't for people who won't bother to access them; you know; the ones that prefer their own opinions over empirical and factual studies.
oneandonly
13. Aug, 2009
Those changes are right on point. Thank you for providing that information. what do we need to do to help get these changes passed
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Contact Iowa CSOR. They are fighting for laws that will keep children safe and restore the Constitution to it's original intent.
The goal is to end the witch hunts and focus on sane laws.
OwenHarper
14. Aug, 2009
Ctiger, here's an interesting related article.
America's unjust sex laws
Aug 6th 2009
From The Economist print edition
An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm...
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Why do you think I'm letting them beat me up here? I am concerned about what this country is turning into.
I must be a glutton for punishment, I am not gay, but I fight for gay rights. I am not a gun owner, but I fight for the second amendment. I am not a sex offender, but I fight against the laws that demonize them and take their civil rights away.
If they ever come for ctigers, I hope someone will fight for them, but I don't think they will.
oneandonly
13. Aug, 2009
With little information to go on here, it's hard to jump to the "castration" theory Bud-Heavy. But for once we pretty much agree on something. There is a special place in H!@# for sexual preditors of small children. I used to say find a patch of land in the middle of the desert. Provide no amenities except a cover, like a big car port, airdrop food to them and let them fend or themselves. There is no acceptable or even semi acceptable excuse for grown men and woman to abuse a child in that mannor, or any other as far as I'm concerned. Oh and throw abuse to the elderly in there as well.
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
If he did molest this baby that's just sick. I don't see how anyone can get pleasure out of sex with a child. I hope if this did happen the child will grow up with out any ill affects from this abuse.
FullStop
13. Aug, 2009
And if you COULD see how someone would get … then would it be OK?
I don't think what you said came out the way you meant it.
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
No, It would not be OK. If I could see how people get pleasure out of molesting little children then I would be sick to. Put me in Jail and throw away the key. I however think that it is an inexcusable crime and the person ( if he did do it) should be punished accordingly.
Hugs4u
13. Aug, 2009
Using Jesus name as part of your nickname on here is just as sick as anything else. So yes you do need to be put away where you can be safe and not harm others.
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
Why is it sick that I say Jesus is the light?
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Did Jesus not tell you not to judge? This man has not even had his day in court. Or do you have more wisdom than your Creator?
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
Let him have his day in court then let the parents of the child decide the punishment.
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
If you will not judge, would you let him babysit your young children?
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
If you will not judge, would you let him babysit your young children? (if you have/had)
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
If you cannot judge this person, would you let him babysit your young children? (if any)
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
I don't think they like us on this site. Oh well I agree with you.
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
Sure they do. Otherwise they wouldnt respond to our endless banter. At least when they give me thumbs down I know some loser cared enough to notice me.
trueblue92
13. Aug, 2009
If it can be proven beyond any doubt, we need the death penalty brought back.
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
This is so true
OwenHarper
13. Aug, 2009
Oh the irony. Jesus is the most famous innocent victim of capital punishment.
LivinInNECR
13. Aug, 2009
My 2 cents: This person is 63 years old – Odds are this isn't the first time he's done this. Probably just the first time he got caught.
With as often as this is happening in our society these days, I think anyone accused and convicted of a crime against children should never be let back on the streets – EVER.
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
Never back on the streets he needs executed
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
ctiger, I said IF. I did not judge this man. That is for the evidence and the court to decide. I never claimed to have omnipotent powers.
oneandonly
13. Aug, 2009
Wow – you can't catch a break. I understood what you said. IF he did it, he has not been proven guilty at this time, he has just been accused. This is a touchy touchy subject and people are very passionate about it. Sometimes that keeps them from understanding what you wront becuse they are reading between the lines, when there is nothing there to read. I am guilty of that from time to time myself.
IowaGal
13. Aug, 2009
Sick!
WWJD1
14. Aug, 2009
One reason why young people are becoming over weight is that parents are scared to death of letting them play outside! The fear of Sexual Predation!
But our Society wants it both ways. Ted Bundy said it best, he could not get enough hard core pornography and started turning to sexual violence. Before his execution, in Ted Bundy's final interview with President of Focus on the Family Dr. James Dobson, Ted Bundy said that without exception, everybody in prison for a sex crime that he interviewed was deeply embedded in hard-core pornography.
How much do we contribute to the dissemination of soft and hard core porn as we financially participate in cable, internet, magazines, movies, jokes etc. that have sexual innuendo and overtones that help to stimulate, motivate, create and form sexual predator's predatory behavior?
In part, sexual predation is created by the cumulative affect of the continual bombardment of sexual innuendo in people's environment, life, heart, soul and mind!
Our lifestyles are helping to create a whole new generation of sexual predators!
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
Ted Bundy said it best………..really? You a fan of his?
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Psychological studies have found that pornography does not play a role in causing sex crimes, but that repression does.
Religion is a significant factor in repressing normal feelings which then turn to unhealthy obsessions.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
For once I agree with you. Religion is a number one factor in many s ex crimes
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Why do you think they're so preoccupied with them.
A_Cogitator
14. Aug, 2009
I enjoy porn. As do many people.
A_Cogitator
14. Aug, 2009
'One reason why young people are becoming over weight is that parents are scared to death of letting them play outside! The fear of Sexual Predation! '
Paalease. What a vapid statement.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
He just has never heard of computer games.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
You're not supposed to say REVEALING, when talking about the religious. It suggests sinful nudity.
A_Cogitator
14. Aug, 2009
Sorry. Me bad. Hope I'm not struck down by the almighty.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
only thenewsman can strike people down
A_Cogitator
14. Aug, 2009
LOL
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
I thought you would like that one
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Stand close to a religious fanatic.
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
I think deep down inside they agree with us but are to scared to come out and say it.
Bud_Heavy
13. Aug, 2009
Small steps…. Most just came out of the closet recently.
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
Look at how negative they all are. You were right negative points = Respect. They sure are respecting us today.
Thenewsman
13. Aug, 2009
keep em coming. At least have the ballz to say something
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
This abstract was created with the assistance of some of my colleagues in the field of psychology, as well as several attorneys.
This abstract was given to the federal government.
ctiger
13. Aug, 2009
Because nowhere in the Bible does Jesus show the intolerance and judgmentalism that you do in His name.
Jesusisthelight
13. Aug, 2009
Oh so you're a Bible scholar now. And there is judgment in the Bible, it's from Jesus Christ him
self. The ultimate judge and jury. But I guess you know that since you seem to know everything.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
come on thats only -1. You can do better or maybe you can't
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
I don't know this man, so how could I answer that.
You are missing my point and that is that we are calling a person an animal who has only been accused. We are pi ssing on the constitutional rights of others and on the Constitution.
That piece of paper does not just apply to people you like.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
So you believe he is innocent? Let him babysit your child then.
Are we talking about the same paper that Sotameyer and Obama want to change? I guess you are right, I'm as bad as them.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
But this is not court. This is public opinion and I am pretty sure our founding fathers would want us to have one.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
are you. Last time I checked my light switch was controled by me
KnightRider
14. Aug, 2009
Hugs4u and ctiger: First go buy a Bible, next READ it. Then come back and talk to some of us who have. Here's a little passage for you from the King James Version of the Bible, Mark 9:42, 43. "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. 43: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:"__The words are printed in red
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
touche.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
But I'm sure it didn't say lets get anyone we just suspect. You can quote the bible all day, but it won't change the fact that most abominationa are committed in the name of religion.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
you lost your edge….getting a little rusty?
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
So do I. But guess what, one shot case studies don't count. The law is supposed to be based on empirical studies.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
If they had wanted mob rule, they wouldn't have bothered with a Bill of Rights.
Do you really want to come across like those villagers in the Frankenstein movies?
If you are male, both you and Bud, have you ever peed in the woods or anywhere in the open? you are sex offenders by our current laws. Have you ever swatted anyone on the butt? Ditto. Would you like to be treated the way you treat this man? YOU WOULD BE, because no one would know the details of what makes you a sexual predator in the eyes of the law.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
never I will try harder
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
If you are out molesting little kids as far as I am concerned you have lost all your rights. I can tell you one thing if it ever happens to one of my kids you can bet I will be in prision because I would torture and kill the POS that did it.
I will ask you again since you seem to avoid the question. What about the victims you don't seem to give a rats a ss about them all you care about is the right s of the molester.
kcrgaddict
14. Aug, 2009
no, if you tourtured and killed the person you allege molested your kids, you'd be dead because the only cure for people like you is a bullet. or even better, if one of our fine vigilante citizens witnesses you murdering someone then they will murder you because they think you are a criminal, and then the person that shoots you gets shot by another vigilante who thinks that person is breaking the law and so on…
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
I see you figured out what's wrong here.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
I need a bullet because I would protect my family? Listen it is punks like you that are the reason this country is what it is today. Liberal infested where criminals have more rights then victims. And if this did happen to my kids yoyu can bet I would take care of this in my home
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Remember that if you ever are wrongly accused. Men right now have an astronomical chance for it.
This pervert will speak out for your right to due process, regardless of what she gets called.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
Again, you are on the side of the 63 year old man. Screw the kid, huh?
Your last two sentences are way off topic, you know nothing of what I have done for this country while the war hating/ peace loving citizens sit back and enjoy their freedom.
kcrgaddict
14. Aug, 2009
your paranoia is facinating. if you actually catch someone in your house molesting your child and you could shoot them, you have the right to do that and protect your family. but unless you witness the crime, can you please show me anything in our constitution or any law that gives you the right to "tourture and kill" someone accused molesting your children? Even if the person is convicted of a crime, you still have no right to kill that person. period. how many years did jack ruby spend in jail for killing l.h. oswald when he was only "suspected" of shooting JFK? also, if the crime happens outside of you house, how are you going to get the suspect into your house to take care of it? just curious.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
Serving in the military evidently does not make you an expert on Democracy.
What part of "Due Process" do you not understand?
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
Pretty sick isn't it. They only care about the perverts never the victims
queenofbabble
14. Aug, 2009
Point me to the part of any of my comments that say I'm on the side of a 63 year old predator/pedophile. Oh wait, you can't because I NEVER SAID THAT. Try READING.
This man should go to jail for the rest of his life. We have a problem with sentencing in this country, so it's possible he won't. We have to fix that problem.
But YOUR suggestion of castration doesn't fix that problem. He's still able to prey on children – even without that functioning body part – because sexual abuse doesn't just consist of actual sex. Sexual abuse includes inappropriate touching. Should we cut off his hands to prevent that? Or should we reform our laws to keep him in jail – as I'm suggesting.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
No I would lose it and wouldn't care what kind of punishment I recieve. Just so you know I am very well aware of gun laws and when I can and can't use whether I am at home or not.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
You liberal s issy views are amazing
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
It was in response to loving your country. Dont read too much into it.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
You claimed innocent until proven guilty. Will you answer my question? Yes or No.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
I have answered your question ad nauseatum, it is you who misses the point.
I don't leave my kids alone with anyone I don't know, and as to those I do know, I act on my own judgment.
Parents know their kids a lot better and should base their decisions on reason, not blind hysteria.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
Your posts seem to circle the subject, you should be a car salesperson.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
Now you are talking. It took awhile to get you warmed up.
ctiger
14. Aug, 2009
We do have a problem with sentencing in this country. There is so much of it, instead of more effective and cheaper interventions that this country is going broke trying to sustain our prison system.
That's what happens when law makers cater to hysteria just to get themselves elected.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
No we should execute them
queenofbabble
14. Aug, 2009
The punishment has to fit the crime and be fair. I am against the death penalty in all cases. This man should go to jail for the rest of his life. Last I checked, you're not God. You don't get to decide who lives and dies. When you attempt to make that decision, you're just as bad as the criminal.
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
You think the people should support a convicted murderer for the rest of his/her life vs the death penalty? It is barbaric to let them live. The sweet people of Texas are not God either, but they decide who lives and who dies.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
Sorry I don't believe in fairy tail characters so no I am not god is there isn't one. But once again no compa ssion for the vitims fvck them right
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
So just as I suspected bullsh it.com. I like indepandant studies.
earthdog
14. Aug, 2009
Seems strange you don't understand straightforward answers. I have no problem getting the point.
Could it be that you're just trying to hector ctiger?
Bud_Heavy
14. Aug, 2009
I am not intimidating tiger. My question was a 'yes or no' answer, not a paragraph on 'what if'.
Thenewsman
14. Aug, 2009
they don't understand a yes or no question. I have asked several and get either the run around or no replies
earthdog
14. Aug, 2009
We can't answer a yes or no question because we don't live in a black and white world that doesn't exist.
Thenewsman
17. Aug, 2009
No its because you know we are right