When a man gets only nine years for raping a young girl, the justice system has failed. You cannot argue over something like that. The man was sick, and because of the mom there is one less freak in the world. The man was not innocent, and he did not regret the crime if he openly taunted the mom over it.
Of COURSE you can argue over appropriate punishments for crimes. These sentences are arbitrary, they're judgment calls, and for every 100 people you ask, you might get 100 different answers. Some people would think this guy should've been executed from the start. Other people would call for castration. Others wouuld say 50 years, 100 years, or "just" 20.
To me, the more important question that needs to be asked when dealing with the ped-os is how we can ensure that they won't re-offend. 9 years seems too little, but for a non-fatal crime, what is too MUCH? Is 100 years reasonable? Perhaps he should have been relocated to another town than the one where the girl lived, and had an ankle monitor to enforce that, for a few years, maybe more, I don't know...
I'm actually NOT a fan of vigilante justice, but in this particular case, again, ASSUMING that the woman absolutely had no doubt who this man was, I can't find much sympathy for the creepy guy, but then perhaps death is an extreme punishment for that crime, even as awful as it is...
:dunno:
arty:
