Sex offender registries - yes/no?

[jooxis]

Do you think people should have the right to know whether their neighbors have been in jail for child molestation, rape or some kind of sexual abuse? Or do you think that this is a violation of privacy and human rights (considering they have served their sentence) and would just lead to vigilantism?

People tend to have different views in this debate - in either case, someone HAS to lose, so what is the lesser evil in this case?

[supersimoholic]

I would like to know, yes. To be honest, I think that if they didn't want to be known as the "pedo/rapist that lives down the street" then they should have thought about that before they committed such a crime. And people who do those kinds of things usually seem to carry on after they get out...

I have the right to know who they are, AND what they did, so that I know weather I should make sure my children don't go near them, or if I should watch myself.

I am wondering who would think that people who have done such awful things should be able to go about there buisiness without knowing, I mean, they could ask a neighbour if their kids could "help them with something in the garden, and he'll give them some pocket money for it" and they'll be none the wiser. OR, you could be invited out for a drink with your new neighbour and think nothing of it, and then wake up the next day with no idea what happened that night, only that you are extremely "sore" and bruised everywhere. But if you knew who these people were, you'd know to be extra careful.

perverts don't deserve a life, after stealing it away from someone else. Rape/abuse can be so damaging to a person that they are practially dead inside, So why should they get to just go one with there lives? I mean sure, they would have spent a few years in prison, but then what? They get there freedom! Victims of rape/abuse can sometimes be helped, but many of them will never be free! They will live the rest of there lives in fear and be constantly tormented by there own memories.

I also think anyone done for child abuse should be chemically castrated. Like any woman would want to sleep with a man (or visa versa) that had done that to a child anyway!!

[Vanito]

Kid molesters should not come free that easily. That is the main problem. The question should not be: "are we gonna tell the hood" but "why would we let this insane person go free". Too often they go repeat again. After one child abuse they should get a long sentence, are they caught after already molesting several kids, or many, why eber let them free ever again? They have already proven they cant stop.

If they ever are set free people should know, and warned and they should be explicitly forbidden to go near schools, work in swimmingpools, work at scoutings, become teachers, child sport trainers etc. Do they ignore these rules, back in jail. Problem is they cant have their lust satisfied anywhere - sucks for them but it does makes them very risky. Ideally pedophillia should be less of a taboo thing so pedos can anonymously seek help how to handle their lifes so they are the least tempted to molest kids.

Ideally women-rapers are not put in hoods with women anymore, but since 100% male gay hoods do not exist, we cannot dump them there.

I am against the death penalty, but pro longer punishments. Especially for repeaters.

[Petchy]

If in Jail they seek therapy and they determine that the offender is at a high risk of committing the crime again.. Yes. For safty.
If not, and they have changed, and that's definite and monitored, then no. That's just wrong.
Either way, I think people should be looked at by therapists in Jail, a LOT, and then made to see them every so often when they are outside; put on a ban from certain locations; and maybe even placed into a much lower security prison.
I'd also like to think people should be moved from prison to prison, about the country, for High Risk offenders. That way, they are unable to make connections, or even be around people they have hurt... And it gets them doing something.

[Clashfan]

I do think that sex offenders should be registered and kept track of for the very reason that they do re-offend a vast majority of the time. We do this in the US and while the system is certainly not perfect it is preferable to it not existing.

There have been some cases where I feel this might be unjust but those have all involved statutory rape cases which are not very cut and dry. There was a case in Alabama recently where the boy was 18 and his girlfriend was 16, her parents screamed rape and he was sent to prison. His life is effectively over not only because of the traumas a fairly young man will endure in the penal system but he will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. However the real fault lies in the laws governing statutory rape and the age of consent itself rather than the sex offender list.

[sandymdh]

Yes I'm talking about my neighbours who have children but I let my kids go and play round their houses and vice versa and being a sex offender doesn't prevent anyone from having their own children so YES of course ANY parent would like to know. I personally feel that anyone who is capable of doing this with CHILDREN is not going to just lose that urge after a jail sentence.

[Vanito]

I do think that sex offenders should be registered and kept track of for the very reason that they do re-offend a vast majority of the time. We do this in the US and while the system is certainly not perfect it is preferable to it not existing.

There have been some cases where I feel this might be unjust but those have all involved statutory rape cases which are not very cut and dry. There was a case in Alabama recently where the boy was 18 and his girlfriend was 16, her parents screamed rape and he was sent to prison. His life is effectively over not only because of the traumas a fairly young man will endure in the penal system but he will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. However the real fault lies in the laws governing statutory rape and the age of consent itself rather than the sex offender list.
16 and 18? Barbaric. I have heard from a friend about her 15 year old daughter who messed with a 16 year old. The dude is in jail now too and the mom off course never sex-educated her child. Thats just ridiculous. Those moms should be sent to education camps: "how to raise a kid".

[Clashfan]

It is indeed insane. In this particular case it was completely racially motivated. The boy was a young black male and the girl was white and it was Alabama. However due to the way the law is written the girl had absolutely no say in whether charges would be pressed or not.

[jooxis]

Yes I'm talking about my neighbours who have children but I let my kids go and play round their houses and vice versa and being a sex offender doesn't prevent anyone from having their own children so YES of course ANY parent would like to know. I personally feel that anyone who is capable of doing this with CHILDREN is not going to just lose that urge after a jail sentence.

Just wanted to make it slightly clearer - of course we would ALL like to know, there is probably no parent on Earth who wouldn't - but the question was more do you think we have the right to know?

[fakepeeps7]

Just wanted to make it slightly clearer - of course we would ALL like to know, there is probably no parent on Earth who wouldn't - but the question was more do you think we have the right to know?

I don't think we have the right to know. Not the way the system is set up at the moment. As Clashfan pointed out, there are kids who end up on the sexual registry simply because they were sexually curious and did stuff with a partner who was slightly younger. If those people end up on a sex offender registry, then no, I don't think we have the right to know who's on that list. That problem needs to be sorted out first. 18-year-old kids don't need their lives effectively ruined because they had sex with someone six months before it was legal.

Once that's taken care of, though... I'm still not sure about having the right to know. It would be nice to know, sure. But I'm not sure if knowing if there are pedophiles in the neighbourhood is an actual human right. And I don't know if it would make that much difference, considering that so many of these guys have committed crimes of opportunity with children they already knew (family friends, relatives, etc.). Parents need to take responsibility and make sure they know what their kids are doing, who they're talking to, and where they're going... and not rely on the justice system to do all the work in keeping their kids safe.

[el_flel]

To be perfectly honest I don't think we have the right to know at all. Here in the UK it's called Sarah's Law, after Sarah Payne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Payne), and whilst I think her mum is absolutely amazing and realise that she has done this because parents want to keep their children safe, we also have an obligation to the ex-offender to keep them safe and I don't think is a very good way to do it. There are already cases of vigilante groups going out and attacking people they merely suspect of committing a sexual offence, with offenders details available to the public then it is very probable that these will increase. And whilst people might think "well, they did something wrong so they deserve everything they get", it is not the public's place to take the law into their own hands.

I also think it carries the assumption that these people are still guilty and that they will never be free of their crime, despite having served their sentence. Yes, paedophilia is disgusting, but not all sex offenders are paedophiles and not all sex offenders will reoffend (about 8.5%). I think that when this law is applied it should be done so on a case-by-case basis. It's simply too simplistic to apply it to every single case, irregardless of the situation and circumstances.

I'm also not entirely sure what it hopes to achieve. In the majority of cases, victims actually know their sex attacker already. Will knowing that there is a sex offender in your neighbourhood actually make your child any safer? I'm not convinced.

[sandymdh]

In some cases we should have the right to know. I think if our children spend time at a particular persons house we should be able to have them checked out so in that case we have a right to know. As far as I know that's what Sarah's Law entails - being able to check out someone who may look after your children or even a potential partner if you're a single mum who has a new boyfriend. I agree with this. What I'm not condoning is lists of sex offenders in the neighbourhood being widely distributed among the community. There's a difference.

[TRIriana]

To be perfectly honest I don't think we have the right to know at all. Here in the UK it's called Sarah's Law, after Sarah Payne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Payne), and whilst I think her mum is absolutely amazing and realise that she has done this because parents want to keep their children safe, we also have an obligation to the ex-offender to keep them safe and I don't think is a very good way to do it. There are already cases of vigilante groups going out and attacking people they merely suspect of committing a sexual offence, with offenders details available to the public then it is very probable that these will increase. And whilst people might think "well, they did something wrong so they deserve everything they get", it is not the public's place to take the law into their own hands.

I also think it carries the assumption that these people are still guilty and that they will never be free of their crime, despite having served their sentence. Yes, paedophilia is disgusting, but not all sex offenders are paedophiles and not all sex offenders will reoffend (about 8.5%). I think that when this law is applied it should be done so on a case-by-case basis. It's simply too simplistic to apply it to every single case, irregardless of the situation and circumstances.

I'm also not entirely sure what it hopes to achieve. In the majority of cases, victims actually know their sex attacker already. Will knowing that there is a sex offender in your neighbourhood actually make your child any safer? I'm not convinced.


There was a case of a man here being beaten up by vigilantes recently, because of an article in one of the tabloid newspapers. He'd been suspended from his job, had been publicly named in the newspaper and then hounded after reputedly touching children. They screamed paedophile. He was a paeditrician, and had done nothing to harm children, ever. His life was almost ruined because of an article incorrectly printed.

The problem with alerting everyone in the surrounding area when a man or woman on the sex offender's list has moved in, is that the severity of the crime varies and you are not informed what the offender has done. You can be placed on the register for running naked in the street, or stealing underwear from a clothesline. As El flel pointed out, not every person on the register is a paedophile, and yet a vigilante group would only see "sex offender". Mobs don't stop to ask questions.

Yes, the potential victims also need to be protected, but if a man or woman who has served their sentence has been released, it is because they are deemed capable of returning to society under strict conditions. It's not as though they are not checked, or given specific barriers not to cross: i.e ex-offender A must not live within x miles of a school or ex-offender B must not live within x miles of a retirement home.

The other thing is that mistakes are made. Someone can be charged, serve time and be placed on the register, only for it to be later discovered that they were in fact innocent. It's a little too late if by that point they've been the subject of a hate campaign for several years.

[Rawra]

People who do these things have NO HUMAN RIGHTS!!! I won't care if my stupid old woman would go to jail, I wouldn't be interested why she got there. But not because of human rights. For example, terrorists have no human rights, they're not humans, they're demons! I'm not saying about Islamic terrorists, because there are enough Christian terrorists to be worrying about in our countries, rather than blame every Arab or Muslim, they're not all terrorists. I mean, that Catholic priest overreacts saying that he will burn the Muslim's holy book on every september the 11th. And after that happens, Obama wonders why Muslims kill americans. Well, that's why. Again, coming back to what I was saying, leave me alone with those molesters, they aren't humans!

[fakepeeps7]

They're not demons. They're human beings with problems.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

funny how when death is involved, i read a lot of " oh no but what if they're really innocent " ( and this IS referring to people who've already been convicted of the death-worthy crime, as this topic also seems to play on the idea that the person is already convicted as well )....but in this topic it hasnt occurred ( seemingly ) to even one person ( before TRIriana ) that someone could also be wrongly convicted of sexual crimes.
somewhat off topic, but i thought id point that out to help get people thinking a bit more. especially after the comments in the other rape-related topic concerning people who were falsely accused, much less falsely convicted.

but, more on topic: yes and no. yes i think we have a right to know, but no not unless it directly concerns us.
as in, i dont think it should be broadcast on national television, but any neighborhood that is receiving a sex offender among its ranks should be notified.

[sandymdh]

That should improve - your boyfriend's past record would show in the UK on the CRB check for employers which isn't the same as the sex offenders register but I get what you mean - the whole CRB thing is being overhauled over the next couple of years to become an ISA or something like that - can't remember offhand but it will actually give the employer more detail of the crime which will be a lot better for a lot of people with minor convictions/cautions. Not sure if anything's likely to improve with the Sex Offender's register though to be fair would you want someone who had sex with a 15yr old girl at age 18 working with teenage girls in any capacity? It'd definitely have to come up with regards to certain jobs/youth work etc. That's certainly a very grey area.

[Honeywell]

My first knee jerk reaction is of course I have the right to know but I think it does more harm than good. Like others have said, the law doesn't differentiate between a pedophile and a twelve year old who got caught playing doctor with the neighbors little girl. Or even the twenty something year old who thought the sixteen year old was the eighteen she claimed.

When you add in the fact that pedophiles are going to offend again with or without the notification it just seems like a useless law that's designed to cater to the "protect the children" at any cost mentality and make parents feel better. We'd do much better to spend our time, effort and tax dollars making sure once a pedophile is identified they're never given the opportunity offend again, imo. But just because that's not going to happen doesn't justify these supposedly "better than nothing" laws that tend to pass because they're gold for the politicians who support them and political suicide for those who don't.

[tizerist]

Theres no excuse for keeping paedophiles alive once they have disclosed useful information.
Match. Petrol. There you go, he won't do that again.

But I will add, that this can't be used for every example, like an 18 year old who dated a mature looking 15 year old. There are different shades of evil and not every situation is like this. But someone like Pedro Lopez is just wasting good clean air every second he's allowed to share the same blue sky as the good people out there.

[fakepeeps7]

Hey, I have an idea! Let's just kill all the victims of pedophiles, because they're probably going to become pedophiles themselves one day. Easy-peasy. Saves time and money, and if you kill 'em young, you can prevent future abuse.

No?

[Oaktree]

I would say that I'd like to know in some cases, such as pedophilia, but I don't think I have the right to know. The cops should know who's committed what crime, but I don't think anyone not working in the criminal justice system has the right. First off, people have mentioned the problems with the vague application of the registry and vigilantism. Even criminals are deserving of certain basic human rights, such as the right to life, and the registry endangers those rights. It can't be blamed entirely, as it is the responsibility of the pitchfork-wielding townsfolk as well, but that sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged. It also violates the right to privacy. A lot of people seem to ignore this right nowadays, but it is an important one.

It also essentially extends the punishment for whatever crime it was indefinitely. Once the criminal has done the time, he shouldn't be legally treated as if he still isn't deserving of his freedom. If the jail time given to pedophiles or rapists isn't long enough, extend the maximum sentences, but don't tack on what is essentially cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, what makes sex offenders any different from any other convict? Why is someone convicted of rape worse than someone convicted of murder? A murderer literally takes away someone's life, which a rapist at best does so figuratively. I don't have any statistics on the matter, but it seems that employers are even more likely to reject applications from people on the sex offender registry than any other type of convict. Some of these people are only on it for peeing on the side of the road, are they really that much of a threat? Actually, that is the last point. If the sex offender registry is going to stick around, only those who commit the truly heinous sexual crimes should be placed on it. No 18-year-olds sleeping with their 17-year-old girlfriends, no streakers. Just the truly violent acts, such as rape and child molestation.

[TRIriana]

And finally, what makes sex offenders any different from any other convict? Why is someone convicted of rape worse than someone convicted of murder? A murderer literally takes away someone's life, which a rapist at best does so figuratively. I don't have any statistics on the matter, but it seems that employers are even more likely to reject applications from people on the sex offender registry than any other type of convict. Some of these people are only on it for peeing on the side of the road, are they really that much of a threat? Actually, that is the last point. If the sex offender registry is going to stick around, only those who commit the truly heinous sexual crimes should be placed on it. No 18-year-olds sleeping with their 17-year-old girlfriends, no streakers. Just the truly violent acts, such as rape and child molestation.

I was commenting on this debate to my fiance, and I wondered that myself. If everyone is informed of when a person on the register moves into a neighbourhood, why not for other types of heinous crimes? Perhaps it's simply how some minds work: if you're on the register, you're automatically a pedophile; some people would apparently prefer to know when a sex offender is next door than a murderer. There isn't a murderer's register, for example.

The latter, bolded part doesn't effect the UK, because we don't have the statutory rape laws, but I definitely agree. From what people have said on here, that law does more harm than good.

[el_flel]

We do have statutory rape laws here (UK). The age of consent is 16 though.

And finally, what makes sex offenders any different from any other convict? Why is someone convicted of rape worse than someone convicted of murder?I agree with Oaktree's entire post, but this specific part is something I was thinking about. Why is this information only available for sex offenders? Will this pave the way for details of other criminals to be released to the public, such as burglars? If not, why not?

[TRIriana]

We do have statutory rape laws here (UK). The age of consent is 16 though.

I agree with Oaktree's entire post, but this specific part is something I was thinking about. Why is this information only available for sex offenders? Will this pave the way for details of other criminals to be released to the public, such as burglars? If not, why not?


Perhaps a better phrasing would have been, it doesn't exist in the UK in the same capacity as it exists in the States.

[el_flel]

I figured that was what you meant! It makes a bit more sense than the US's system and isn't as readily applied. Having sex with an under-13 is classed differently to having sex with an over-13 and the defendant's age is also taken into account.

[fakepeeps7]

Ending up on the registry is obviously not much of a deterrent.

Studies by the Population Reference Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics found that about two-thirds of children born to teenage girls in the United States are fathered by adult men age 20 or older. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy#Age_discrepancy_in_relationships)

What's the point of putting these guys on the registry again? Won't that just mean they'll have to stay away from children (even their own)? What a great way of decreasing the number of deadbeat dads. :rolleyes:

[Oaktree]

The bigger problem is that there are many cities that outright keep sex offenders from living there, usually due to the zoning meaning that there is no place in the city where a sex offender is far enough away from things like schools and libraries. In these cities, what will often happen is that people will go off the radar. They might be homeless, or maybe have some sort of arrangement where they aren't the name on the lease, or something along those lines. This means that these people aren't anywhere where the cops can find them if they do something wrong. It really makes more sense to make the information available to the police so that the police can find them when necessary, but to not have it restrict them otherwise, because that only makes them more slippery.

[edejan]

I live in an area where sex offenders (I don't know the criteria...I don't think all of them) are not released to the public after their sentence is served. They are sent to another prison-like facility where they must remain indefinitely. And I've actually worked in facilities where sex offenders are evaluated on court order so I've seen how "charming" and "normal" many of them can appear. On the other hand, I know people who have been labelled sex offenders for having "consenual" sex with a 16 year old when they were only 18 or 19...so that doesn't seem like a crime to me. I guess harsh treatment of the really violent offenders serves to protect society from any further crimes they might commit, but it is not right that less egregious offenses mean a lifetime of incarceration/stigmatization.

[Oaktree]

edejan: If you don't mind me asking, where do you live? That sounds like a very unjust system, as well as a rather scary one. It makes me wonder what they do to other criminals.

[animenut31]

i feel it is important for everyone's safety if they DO register especially for the sake of the kids. i also feel it is a step over the line if they place a sign that says : WARNING! SEX OFFENDER! on the front lawn to their house (i know this because i saw it on the news. im sorry i dont have a link to a website) that person has served their time and they want to get back to a normal life. im no way defending what they did, but they lost all privacy rights when they did malicious things to a minor (or minors). its for safety reasons that i support the sex offender registry.

[el_flel]

edejan: If you don't mind me asking, where do you live? That sounds like a very unjust system, as well as a rather scary one. It makes me wonder what they do to other criminals.Louis Theroux did a documentary about an institute in the states for sex offenders which attempts to treat them via various methods. Basically, when the offenders were sentenced they had the option between prison and this institute. With prison they get given a specific amount of years to serve. In the institute they stay there indefinitely. So, perhaps edejan lives somewhere where they have something like that.

[edejan]

edejan: If you don't mind me asking, where do you live? That sounds like a very unjust system, as well as a rather scary one. It makes me wonder what they do to other criminals.

This is in the Chicagoland area of Illinois in Will County. And they don't do anything out of line to "other" criminals. The system is an attempt to deal with offenders who are believed to be unable to control this aspect of their personality going forward, no matter what the consequences are. And, yes, it is scary and seems to be very extreme, but this program was on an experimental basis I believe.

[Oaktree]

Ah, well, I still don't understand why anyone would choose that over a definite period in regular prison, but, if it is a choice, I suppose that isn't quite as scary. Edejan, your post makes it sound like it's more aimed at the criminally insane. Is this something that the family of the criminal chooses, or is the criminal given the choice?

[el_flel]

I would imagine they are safer in the institute than in prison. Prisoners don't like paedophiles.

[fragglerocks]

I know that perpetrators of certain types of crime can be given a choice when entering prison. They can either be put in the general population, or in segregation. It's their choice, but they have to stick with it the entire sentence. I can't remember which crimes they do this for, but if I'm not mistaken, I think many sexual crimes fall under this.

[molly!]

This thread is so relevant to me, as a rapsists/murderers brother lives in my street, and the incident happened years ago when I was a child, at the bottom of my street. Because they didnt have the sex offenders register that long back, he hasn't been placed on it, and I think thats completely wrong. If you can commit such a hurrendous crime, you should pay the consequences. Also he is applying to be placed in an open prison, I personally think they should lock him up and throw away the key.

This is the article of the story, http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2010/07/27/new-probe-into-child-killer-richard-blenkey-84229-26939409/.

He was sentenced to life with a mininum of 20 years, which means he might be released in 2011, he should be there for his entire LIFE.


(He raped and murdered a little boy by the way, I forgot to mention that) :wtf:

[fakepeeps7]

Ah, well, I still don't understand why anyone would choose that over a definite period in regular prison, but, if it is a choice, I suppose that isn't quite as scary.

Sounds like a pretty good deal for the pedophiles... especially if it's an institute with lax security and "family days" like this one (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/alleged_family_day_incident_at.html).

[spotlight-shure]

I'm going to say one thing about this topic and one thing only. Rapists and child molesters should be hung by their fucking balls. The end. No registry needed.

[HarlequinnRomance]

I personally think that every violent one should be killed,really. Not the ones who had sex with a 16 year old and they were 18 and the mom found out and turned him in kinda thing. The ones who were violent. There is NO excuse or any reason to do such a thing. They should be registered and keep title for life. If people want them to have rights,they should think of the people,not just the victim whose life they affected. I'd really love if they just sent them somewhere else and we never saw those people again. People can change,but who wants to go to their next victim and say "we thought he had changed, he acted normal,sorry"

Being an 18 year old girl that soon has to move outta my parents house,I'm very aware and a little paranoid about where I live and who will live around me.

[Tricit]

Because it is really difficult to put into practice a program that would ever by fair that discriminates between those we think "are now cured of pedophilia" and those that are not, we need to go a different route. It is in my opinion that laws in the United States as they currently stand, surrounding this issue, are a gross violation of privacy. Therefore, we cannot continue to have these short sentences we currently have while at the same time switching over to a system by which we do not violate the privacy of those we think might be cured of pedophilia. Bottom line is that I think it's reprehensible that we even continue to consider violating the privacy rights of individuals.

Pedophilia is wrong for a many number of reasons listed here:
1. it take's advantage of an individual who has not been given proper time to learn socially evolved tactics of safe sex (primarily good love makes a safe relationship)
2. it involve sexual intercourse with an individual who is not physiologically developed enough to withstand it, and can possibly get hurt
3. and then we all just seem to think deep down that it is wrong (probably as a result of biological evolution related to the safety of our young).

So pedophilia is so bad, but I am arguing for giving back the full privacy rights of individuals accused of pedophilia? Well the problem is that pedophilia is extremely bad. We're treating is almost like a misdemeanor with an additional writ that follows them for the rest of their life upon release. To be honest, it seems like our current punishment for pedophiles seem influenced by those who would like laws not to be so harsh against pedophiles to begin with. Simply put, they should get a moderate to long sentence (no more than 20 years, probably a bit less than 10) for their first attempt, and unquestioned retention of privacy rights, and then a second offense should come with a life sentence.

This is just how I feel about it.

by pedophilia, I mean actually using real life children (including actual porno). I don't mean people that feel the desire to be a pedo but release that into art. They have a condition that society does not agree with and choose to regularly relinquish it in the best way possible (with fake porn).

This thread is so relevant to me, as a rapsists/murderers brother lives in my street, and the incident happened years ago when I was a child, at the bottom of my street. Because they didnt have the sex offenders register that long back, he hasn't been placed on it, and I think thats completely wrong. If you can commit such a hurrendous crime, you should pay the consequences. Also he is applying to be placed in an open prison, I personally think they should lock him up and throw away the key.

This is the article of the story, http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2010/07/27/new-probe-into-child-killer-richard-blenkey-84229-26939409/.

He was sentenced to life with a mininum of 20 years, which means he might be released in 2011, he should be there for his entire LIFE.


(He raped and murdered a little boy by the way, I forgot to mention that) :wtf:

In this case, I would have recommended a death sentence.