Body of Missing Maryland Girl Found Near State Border

[chanel]

I agree CG. As much as I believe sterilization would save millions of children each year, I only vent about it. I don't think I'd really want to live in a country that did that. Now voluntary would be nice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I suspect not.... but he should be. There is no need for the faux outrage though... no one needs to spout about how they take this seriously... I'm quietly confident that most Americans take this sort of thing seriously. It's the 'let's torture him first' brigade that annoy me also... No need for it.

Actually since medical help does little to stop pedophiles perhaps horrific treatment will curb some of their more outrageous actions. If they KNOW they will be tortured and probably killed for their actions and that it is certain not a remote maybe, perhaps some of them will find the inner control to NOT act.

I am past tired of the bleeding hearts that claim deterrence does not work. Our Legal system deterrence does not work because it is so watered down and so long to even remotely go into effect that there is no deterrence at all.

Protect their basic legal rights to a fair trial but stop the insanity of treating them like children when found guilty.

Nothing deters these people. All that kind of behavior does is damage society. Let's not kid outselves that it would be anything other than revenge. I am all for the Death Penalty - not as a deterent but as a just punishment for certain depraved individuals who cannot change their behavior. But I see them as animals to be put down, not tortured for some sick vengence.

I am certainly not a bleeding heart. I am just not a believer in lowering society to the behavior of vigilantes.

And I disagree, there ARE people out there that fear for their lives and if they KNOW their action will result in their death in a very relatively short time they won't do the crime.

Anyone that tortures a small child is not worth compassion or concern. Put them down like a rabid dog.

 

[California Girl]

Actually since medical help does little to stop pedophiles perhaps horrific treatment will curb some of their more outrageous actions. If they KNOW they will be tortured and probably killed for their actions and that it is certain not a remote maybe, perhaps some of them will find the inner control to NOT act.

I am past tired of the bleeding hearts that claim deterrence does not work. Our Legal system deterrence does not work because it is so watered down and so long to even remotely go into effect that there is no deterrence at all.

Protect their basic legal rights to a fair trial but stop the insanity of treating them like children when found guilty.

Nothing deters these people. All that kind of behavior does is damage society. Let's not kid outselves that it would be anything other than revenge. I am all for the Death Penalty - not as a deterent but as a just punishment for certain depraved individuals who cannot change their behavior. But I see them as animals to be put down, not tortured for some sick vengence.

I am certainly not a bleeding heart. I am just not a believer in lowering society to the behavior of vigilantes.

And I disagree, there ARE people out there that fear for their lives and if they KNOW their action will result in their death in a very relatively short time they won't do the crime.

Anyone that tortures a small child is not worth compassion or concern. Put them down like a rabid dog.

Those who do this kind of thing are not going to be stopped from temptation for fear of a severe beating before they're executed. That's just kidding yourself. Society, as a whole, must be better than those we seek to sit in judgement on. That is the point. If we torture them, we are no better than they are. I have no problem with a quick, painless execution... torture enough to sit in a cell while appeal after appeal is turned down until the day they run out of options and are put down like the animals they are.

The rest of it is just emotional crap.

 

[chanel]

Hopefully there will be lessons learned about allowing "high risk" offenders to live with other peoples children, But I'm certain any future precautions will be fought by the ACLU. The crystal ball is pretty clear on that one too.

 

[judyd]

I live near Salisbury and my husband and I went to the stadium yesterday to help with the search. They had thousands of people show up and took our names to be on standby until they had a free officer ready to put a crew together. As it turned out, it wasn't necessary.

The real tragedy here was the girl's life. Neither of her parents had custody of her, she was being raised by the father's sister. He was just released from jail on 12/23. Her mother had previously been charged with reckless endangerment of a child, and various other charges. It had seemed odd to me that no family members had made any statements during this whole nightmare.

If the aunt had been proactive in choosing her boyfriends she could have found the criminal record on the Maryland Court system and seen that he was trouble before getting involved with him. Maryland's records are open and easily accessed. Child abuse by boyfriends or stepfathers has become so common, single women with children need to be more diligent when they bring men into their children's lives.

 

[ba1614]

I agree CG. As much as I believe sterilization would save millions of children each year, I only vent about it. I don't think I'd really want to live in a country that did that. Now voluntary would be nice.

I'd be content with the needle or juice, or if they locked him away for life, with no chance of parole, absolutely none, and make them do their time in genpop where they themselves will go through hell.

 

[WillowTree]

Two ways to stop this shit. Sex offenders get prison for life no exceptions. Or sex offenders get the DP no exceptions. But since our fucked up judicial system keeps turning them loose little girls keep dying. Now that shows you who is more important to society.. Yep sex offenders. Little girls and their lives don't count for shit.

 

[Emma]

His risk level was "high" and he had at least two convictions. The aunt had to have known his history. SHE should be charged with something. Why do people have children they do not want or cannot properly care for?

Why would someone allow a person like that access to a child?

 

[Emma]

He won't be executed. My crystal ball is pretty clear on that.

I suspect not.... but he should be.

MD has the death penalty.

 

[Emma]

Hopefully there will be lessons learned about allowing "high risk" offenders to live with other peoples children, But I'm certain any future precautions will be fought by the ACLU. The crystal ball is pretty clear on that one too.

I have a problem with the sex registries. You've got people like this person who NEVER should have been released from prison mixed in with people who shouldn't even be on the list.

Looking at the registry on people in my area, there are some genuine sex-offenders, but many were convicted of having (I think it's called) "carnal relations" with a minor. Sounds bad... until you do the math and figure out the offender was 18-19 years old and the minor was 14-16 at the time of the offense. Hell, that could be a senior in high school dating a freshman or sophomore. Some of these people are on the registry for this type of stuff 20-30 years after the fact. That's messed up.

I don't think there should be sex offender registries. If they are that much of a risk, they shouldn't be out of prison.

 

[California Girl]

Two ways to stop this shit. Sex offenders get prison for life no exceptions. Or sex offenders get the DP no exceptions. But since our fucked up judicial system keeps turning them loose little girls keep dying. Now that shows you who is more important to society.. Yep sex offenders. Little girls and their lives don't count for shit.

That's good in theory, in practice, not quite so black and white.

 

[chanel]

Yes Emma but I looked it up and it has the strictest standards in the country. I believe only 5 people have been executed in 30 years.

Her parent are living out of state for whatever reason. They left her in the care of someone who lived with a twice convicted sex offender. This is why certain people should not have kids.

 

[ba1614]

Hopefully there will be lessons learned about allowing "high risk" offenders to live with other peoples children, But I'm certain any future precautions will be fought by the ACLU. The crystal ball is pretty clear on that one too.

I have a problem with the sex registries. You've got people like this person who NEVER should have been released from prison mixed in with people who shouldn't even be on the list.

Looking at the registry on people in my area, there are some genuine sex-offenders, but many were convicted of having (I think it's called) "carnal relations" with a minor. Sounds bad... until you do the math and figure out the offender was 18-19 years old and the minor was 14-16 at the time of the offense. Hell, that could be a senior in high school dating a freshman or sophomore. Some of these people are on the registry for this type of stuff 20-30 years after the fact. That's messed up.

I don't think there should be sex offender registries. If they are that much of a risk, they shouldn't be out of prison.

I read an article a while back about the registry and police were complaining that it was too large to work effectively. They were complaining about the large number of people they had to go through before they got to the real sex-offenders.
Ridiculous to have people on a sex registry whose only offence was taking a squirt somewhere they shouldn`t have, not to mention the impact and stigma on that persons life for something that most are likely guilty of at one time or another.

 

[Emma]

Yes Emma but I looked it up and it has the strictest standards in the country. I believe only 5 people have been executed in 30 years.

Isn't that why the beltway snipers were tried in VA first?

 

[Emma]

Hopefully there will be lessons learned about allowing "high risk" offenders to live with other peoples children, But I'm certain any future precautions will be fought by the ACLU. The crystal ball is pretty clear on that one too.

I have a problem with the sex registries. You've got people like this person who NEVER should have been released from prison mixed in with people who shouldn't even be on the list.

Looking at the registry on people in my area, there are some genuine sex-offenders, but many were convicted of having (I think it's called) "carnal relations" with a minor. Sounds bad... until you do the math and figure out the offender was 18-19 years old and the minor was 14-16 at the time of the offense. Hell, that could be a senior in high school dating a freshman or sophomore. Some of these people are on the registry for this type of stuff 20-30 years after the fact. That's messed up.

I don't think there should be sex offender registries. If they are that much of a risk, they shouldn't be out of prison.

I read an article a while back about the registry and police were complaining that it was too large to work effectively. They were complaining about the large number of people they had to go through before they got to the real sex-offenders.
Ridiculous to have people on a sex registry whose only offence was taking a squirt somewhere they shouldn`t have, not to mention the impact and stigma on that persons life for something that most are likely guilty of at one time or another.

If they're going to have a sex offender registry, then it should be of true sex offenders. Not some guy who got drunk and pee'd in public, or whatever. That's ridiculous.

 

[judyd]

Yes Emma but I looked it up and it has the strictest standards in the country. I believe only 5 people have been executed in 30 years.

Her parent are living out of state for whatever reason. They left her in the care of someone who lived with a twice convicted sex offender. This is why certain people should not have kids.

I looked up her parents on the Maryland court system. Her father is the guardian's brother and he has been in and out of jail for years--he just got out again on 12/23! Her mother also has a criminal record, the worst offense being reckless endangerment of a child. Neither one is a fit parent, and I find it interesting that NO ONE in the family has made a public comment through it all, or thanked all of those who looked for their child. I truly wonder if any of them are going to bother with a funeral or memorial service.

 

[chanel]

Wow. Our wonderful foster system. I wonder how much auntie was getting paid to take care of this girl.. Despicable. The family will be out looking for sympathy soon enough. They'll probably even set up a "charity" in her name. Scumbags.

 

[chanel]

I have a problem with the sex registries. You've got people like this person who NEVER should have been released from prison mixed in with people who shouldn't even be on the list.

Looking at the registry on people in my area, there are some genuine sex-offenders, but many were convicted of having (I think it's called) "carnal relations" with a minor. Sounds bad... until you do the math and figure out the offender was 18-19 years old and the minor was 14-16 at the time of the offense. Hell, that could be a senior in high school dating a freshman or sophomore. Some of these people are on the registry for this type of stuff 20-30 years after the fact. That's messed up.

I don't think there should be sex offender registries. If they are that much of a risk, they shouldn't be out of prison.

I read an article a while back about the registry and police were complaining that it was too large to work effectively. They were complaining about the large number of people they had to go through before they got to the real sex-offenders.
Ridiculous to have people on a sex registry whose only offence was taking a squirt somewhere they shouldn`t have, not to mention the impact and stigma on that persons life for something that most are likely guilty of at one time or another.

If they're going to have a sex offender registry, then it should be of true sex offenders. Not some guy who got drunk and pee'd in public, or whatever. That's ridiculous.

I agree Emma, but her in NJ we have a tiered system. A tier 3 offender is considered high risk. They should base the laws on the threat level.

 

[Samson]

Thank's for making my night worse. Some really bad things happened to my daughter, not this bad but pretty damn close. I have always felt that it was my fault because I wasn't there all the time to protect her, so you just answered it for me.

Well, I'm not aware of whatever your situation was. Obviously we cannot be surgically attached to our kids. Apparently this girl's father was in jail, possibly the worst of excuses.

I looked up her parents on the Maryland court system. Her father is the guardian's brother and he has been in and out of jail for years--he just got out again on 12/23! Her mother also has a criminal record, the worst offense being reckless endangerment of a child. Neither one is a fit parent, and I find it interesting that NO ONE in the family has made a public comment through it all, or thanked all of those who looked for their child. I truly wonder if any of them are going to bother with a funeral or memorial service.

It seems the mother's (or father's) sister was really no better than the mother (or father): Which begs the question: Does the social service mandate to place children of unfit parents with next-of-kin really make any sense?

I agree with xs, trial, verdict, execution - without the hysterics.

Society, as a whole, must be better than those we seek to sit in judgement on. ...The rest of it is just emotional crap.

Execution without Hysterics and "Emotional Crap"......Something of an Oxymoron IMHO, and an impossibility outside of a slaughterhouse......

Are you proposing we begin lining up the convicted like so many cattle?



Not an all together bad plan: Perhaps the problem with our death penalty is that it is accomplished infrequently and not enmass.

Meh, then we'd need to set up creamatoriums......

I am certainly not a bleeding heart. I am just not a believer in lowering society to the behavior of vigilantes.

Of course you aren't: We are, after all, not Somalis, willing to Stone-to-Death our Adulters.

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

... since our fucked up judicial system keeps turning them loose little girls keep dying. Now that shows you who is more important to society.. Yep sex offenders. Little girls and their lives don't count for shit.

No, they count for a helluva lot. Mine does to me anyway. As I see it, my only purpose on the planet is to protect her, and destroy anyone that harms her. I'm not counting on anyone else to do this basic function for me.

This is why certain people should not have kids.

Yes, but there's MANY people who would like to have MORE people have children for which they have not the slightest interest.

These people are called Anti-abortionists.

 

[California Girl]

Thank's for making my night worse. Some really bad things happened to my daughter, not this bad but pretty damn close. I have always felt that it was my fault because I wasn't there all the time to protect her, so you just answered it for me.

Well, I'm not aware of whatever your situation was. Obviously we cannot be surgically attached to our kids. Apparently this girl's father was in jail, possibly the worst of excuses.

I looked up her parents on the Maryland court system. Her father is the guardian's brother and he has been in and out of jail for years--he just got out again on 12/23! Her mother also has a criminal record, the worst offense being reckless endangerment of a child. Neither one is a fit parent, and I find it interesting that NO ONE in the family has made a public comment through it all, or thanked all of those who looked for their child. I truly wonder if any of them are going to bother with a funeral or memorial service.

It seems the mother's (or father's) sister was really no better than the mother (or father): Which begs the question: Does the social service mandate to place children of unfit parents with next-of-kin really make any sense?



Execution without Hysterics and "Emotional Crap"......Something of an Oxymoron IMHO, and an impossibility outside of a slaughterhouse......

Are you proposing we begin lining up the convicted like so many cattle?



Not an all together bad plan: Perhaps the problem with our death penalty is that it is accomplished infrequently and not enmass.

Meh, then we'd need to set up creamatoriums......



Of course you aren't: We are, after all, not Somalis, willing to Stone-to-Death our Adulters.

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

... since our fucked up judicial system keeps turning them loose little girls keep dying. Now that shows you who is more important to society.. Yep sex offenders. Little girls and their lives don't count for shit.

No, they count for a helluva lot. Mine does to me anyway. As I see it, my only purpose on the planet is to protect her, and destroy anyone that harms her. I'm not counting on anyone else to do this basic function for me.

This is why certain people should not have kids.

Yes, but there's MANY people who would like to have MORE people have children for which they have not the slightest interest.

These people are called Anti-abortionists.

Samson, don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I was quite clear... beating the crap out of someone before executing them is neither necessary nor desirable. It is the 'justice system', not the 'vengence system'. We, as a society, should be better than those who hurt children. What earthly purpose does it serve society to beat the person first? That is an emotional response and the system should not about emotion - it should be about justice. What message do we send the nation's young people if we resort to beating the crap out of someone BEFORE we execute them? It's ridiculous.