[Larry_OHF]

I could not believe it when I heard yesterday that New York reported that they had been giving Viagra to convicted sex offenders of children as young as 2 years old, being payed for by taxpayer money. Now that they realize their mistake, they will begin working on fixing that loophole, but sheesh!

To answer the first question, the US does not have strict enough punishments in the law for sex offenders of minors, and it is just wrong for me to consider that a convicted man still has the right to things that he should not in my opinion. This conversation has come up many times in the past on these forums, and we are no closer at solving the matter.

I would have the parents of the child be given a choice in the matter as to what should be done to a man that has harmed a child of theirs. It just seems right to me, since I do not like how the law prevents those wounded by criminals from having any active part in the sentencing. I suppose I say this for one reason. If somebody were to harm my child, I would not wait for the law, I would live by the "old ways" and hunt the man down myself, and carry out my own form of execution. I would have to. It was my child, not the judge's. I'd then flee to Mexico, where I have friends.

But you did not read that last bit, right?


And to confirm what Link just asked of you, a decent 1, you have proven that you write very good in English, so the laziness of incorrect abbreviations is really annoying and hard to read sometimes. We do not like that stuff on these forums. Please try not to write in such a manner.

[ 05-24-2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]