Out in left field, again

I admit, I tend to think differently than most people. Usually when I verbalize an idea – I just hear groans. I am not sure if its because I said it first or that the idea is just so unrealistic that it won’t even work. But, I have another doozy for you that I have been thinking about for years. It may be so out there and unattainable, but I am sure someone can simplify it for me.

This one is – what to do with sexual predators – no one wants sexual predators in their neighborhood – they live in tents under underpasses, on streets or right next door. Why don’t we invest in some real estate where there aren’t any children around for miles? We give that land a zip code. We pretty much secure the land to keep people in and we ship the men and women (the women will have their tubes tied, so no children will be produced to these monsters.) We provide farm animals, some tools, some lumber and let them live there forever. They could govern themselves and we will no longer spend money on these sick, twisted people.

Now, I know there are those human rights people out there saying this is inhumane and I say, they can easily survive. And, what about those folks who are innocent and have been accused of being a sexual predator? OK – I can compromise – we will start with the folks who were caught in the act – they move to this area first. We will monitor the questionables.

So, tell me – do you think I can get people on board with this one?

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Out in left field, again

  1. I wouldn’t want to live next to, or near a predator either. But I can’t get on board with it. The legal system is set up to have a person serve his time and then be released. In your scenario, they aren’t being released, but basically being moved into a larger, unmanned prison. So what? They deserve it? Then change the laws on jail sentences. And yes, we’d have to pick up the tab, but it would be the cost of keeping our kids safe.

    See, if you release a predator from jail and then put them into a specialized neighborhood just for them, you’re implying they can’t be rehabilitated. Maybe they can, but my gut doesn’t want to take the chance – I have 3 kids.

    However… here’s the rub: It isn’t only sexual deviance that recurs after a prison sentence. The logical conclusion to your proposition is:

    A murder is released, that person should be moved into the murder’s zip code. We aren’t sure which of them will kill again (Yeah! I don’t want them by me, either!) .But what about the guy who beat up his daughter’s molester and the guy died? Fortunately no charges are being filed. But if they did..

    And the assault and battery people would be moved into the Fight Club zip code. They probably have temper issues and will keep assaulting people. (Good. They’re too violent to have around me.)

    And the art thief would be sent to the Art thief zip code. Bet they’ll have great museums there! Also, a hard habit to break. Or, perhaps they’ll be in a general theft zip code. Along with the 18 yr old who stole baby formula to feed his kid because he couldn’t get a job to afford buying it and so had to spend 30 days in jail…

    The “red light” district becomes the red light zip code. do we put in just the prostitutes, or the johns, too?

    And the first time my son spends the night in jail for speeding and running a red light? Sorry son. Love you. I’ll pack your bags. Don’t worry, Mom’s only one ticket away from moving in with you!

    No matter how awful the crime is, if we move one type of offender out of the public system and into a required private and gated sector, we have to do it for all of them because sin is addictive and we can’t tell when a person is truly rehabilitated.

    Of COURSE I don’t want to text a predator’s ability to abstain on my kids. But I’d rather have to pay the taxes to keep them in jail than to start down a road of extremism.

    • What if they volunteered to go to this land? Would that help? What if a corporation put up the cost and we called it rehab? They are living under bridges because there isn’t a place that they can live without having children near them.

  2. I’m actually fine with their living under bridges.

    Voluntary communities are a great idea. But then do we still secure the land to keep the volunteers in? Cause otherwise it’s not really secure if they can come and go. Which means they can still be around kids if they lose the self-motivation to stay in their area. They just get to go home to brag about the activity to their neighbors.

    It’s not a terrible idea. I just don’t know how to do it. Australia comes to mind. It’s exactly what England did. Shipped all the criminals to a desolate island – couldn’t tell now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s