A law dealing with child abduction

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm just curious how you know the opposite is true.

Read the paragraph above the last one

What if someone kidnaps a child, keeps them for years and really looks after them and then get bored of the child and gives them back. Should they be punished for the years of worry and sadness the parents have been put through or shoudl the kidnapper just be let off the hook because they didn't hurt the child and eventually gave the child back?

We could put a time limit on the amount of time they are allowed immunity.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm just curious how you know the opposite is true.

Nothing is more important to me than my child. Your scenario is so far-fetched that it wouldn't apply to 99% of the kidnappings that happen. So, no, I'm not putting the safety of my child over revenge.

Would be worth it in that 1%, and wouldn't effect the other 99%. So why not?

 

[justmee]

Good for you. You would kill the guy who returned your child. You would also probably end up in prison for the rest of your life and leave your kid alone, but hey, that's your choice I guess

your right, he should invite him over for dinner and then give him a nice back rub afterwards

 

[Laure]

It doesn't seem to me like there are enough kidnappings that take place for the sole purpose of getting ransom to even give the argument much thought. If the time, energy and money that would have to go into getting a law such as this passed were given instead to finding missing and endangered children, or imposing harsher punishments on those who do intend to hurt the child they kidnap, much more good could come from it.



"The harsh sentences imposed and the poor risk-to-benefit ratio compared with other crimes have caused kidnapping for ransom virtually to die out in the United States. One notorious failed example of kidnap for ransom was the Chowchilla bus kidnapping, in which 26 children were abducted with the intention of bringing in a $5 million ransom.[7] Kidnappings for profit that do occur in or into the United States today are often connected to other ongoing criminal activity, such as human trafficking."


Kidnapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dt3]

Good for you. You would kill the guy who returned your child. You would also probably end up in prison for the rest of your life and leave your kid alone, but hey, that's your choice I guess

Yes, I would. Gladly. I'd even plead guilty and save them the trouble of a long drawn out trial.

What's the alternative?

Having to look my son in the face every day and tell him "I know that man did terrible things to you, and I'm sorry, but they let him go and I have no problem with allowing someone to inflict severe emotional trauma upon you."?

Yeah, not gonna happen.

 

[dt3]

We could put a time limit on the amount of time they are allowed immunity.

Kidnapper: "I was going to turn him in yesterday, but I forgot. Oh well, immunity is gone so I might as well kill him now". :24:

 

[Sneakiecat]

My reasons for them being less likely include: They are on probation and monitored. The community is aware of them because they are on the sex offenders list. They know there is no second chance this time and don't want to attempt it because of that.

How many people on probation commit the same sort of crime while on it? I'm not willing to take a chance that a person might not kidnap again because they're on some sort of list (which are complete jokes, by the way).

 

[Dakota Jim]

Bri, I love ya. You are clearly mature beyond your years. Just comparing you with others on here in your age group you stand out as mature. Your heart is good. In this case you are wrong in believing that someone who would take the step to abduct a child is capable of an effort to mediate his crime, he is driven by motive, sexual or whatever and will not be turned back by your idea. The harm of even floating such an idea is that it gives the potential abductor a "second chance" immediately upon committing the crime in their minds. You know me well enough to know I don't kiss ass around here so when I say I respect you as mature, I mean it.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Kidnapper: "I was going to turn him in yesterday, but I forgot. Oh well, immunity is gone so I might as well kill him now". :24:

Dumb point.

 

[Abcinthia]

Good for you. You would kill the guy who returned your child. You would also probably end up in prison for the rest of your life and leave your kid alone, but hey, that's your choice I guess

But you are forgetting the long term effects of the abduction. The child is going to be traumatised psychologically. It could be years before they start to get over it.

And what about the effect on the parent? Do you think those parents you see weeping on tv becuase their children are abducted are going to be ok when their child is returned? They are going to be blaming themselves for letting it happen to their child and guilty as fuck even if it isn't their fault. And then to add to that, the abductor has just been let off with a slap on the wrist and a "don't do that next time".

 

[dt3]

Dumb point.

Why? If the time limit is two weeks, and the guy has a change of heart after 15 days your incentive is gone anyway.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Bri, I love ya. You are clearly mature beyond your years. Just comparing you with others on here in your age group you stand out as mature. Your heart is good. In this case you are wrong in believing that someone who would take the step to abduct a child is capable of in effort to mediate his crime, he is driven by motive, sexual or whatever and will not be turned back by your idea. The harm of even floating such an idea is that it gives the potential abductor a "second chance" immediately upon committing the crime. You know me well enough to know I don't kiss ass around here so when I say I respect you as mature, I mean it.

See that's the only good point I've heard, along with what Laure said

 

[Goat Whisperer]

But you are forgetting the long term effects of the abduction. The child is going to be traumatised psychologically. It could be years before they start to get over it.

Seems to me that murder has a longer effect then mental trauma :dunno

 

[Sneakiecat]

Would be worth it in that 1%, and wouldn't effect the other 99%. So why not?

Because in most ransom cases (since that seems to be the ones you're stuck on), the child was never going to be returned anyway. Even impulsive kidnappings, I'm willing to bet.

 

[GuesSAngel]

Like a said before, Jaycee was kidnapped but she was also kept for years AND sexually abused AND returned against the kidnappers will--not even handed over.

Totally has nothing to do with this law or thread.

Still the same thing as me saying:

"We should legalize Marijuana"

You: "Meth kills people"

Me: "That has nothing to do with this thread"

You: "But, but they are both drugs"

like i said before if he would have handed her over, your law would have let him go free

So you would choose attacking the kidnapper over saving your child.

Your such a great parent :clap

you know nothing of what it takes to be a parent, so i really don't think you should be giving him sarcasm that you're giving.

 

[dt3]

Seems to me that murder has a longer effect then mental trauma :dunno

Well in that case I guess we should stop treating rape so seriously. Mental trauma is no big deal, he let you live!

 

[Goat Whisperer]

So DJ, (since no one else here seems to be capable of hypothetical conversation)

What if we made it a law allowing parents to offer immunity to someone who had kidnapped their kid, as a part of a deal, like a ransom?

 

[dt3]

So DJ, (since no one else here seems to be capable of hypothetical conversation)

What if we made it a law allowing parents to offer immunity to someone who had kidnapped their kid, as a part of a deal, like a ransom?

If we're putting parents in charge of the justice system, why not make kidnapping a capital offense and allow the parents to carry out the sentence however they choose.

 

[Zorak]

I can see where you are coming from, the concept of the law is to protect the innocent, over the punishment of the guility. The famous quote from English Law, paraphrased, "It is better for 10 guilty to walk than 1 innocent to suffer" supports this.

However, I don't feel that your argument constitutes anything near that, because it concentrates on the pardoning of the guilty after the suffer of innocents. You remove the deterrance utilised by crime vs punishment, the staple principal on how the whole system of protecting the innocent rests upon.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

like i said before if he would have handed her over, your law would have let him go free

My law would have done nothing of the sort, unless if he had returned her before she was sexually abused and held for years.. I'm thinking that would have been a good thing, though, right?

you know nothing of what it takes to be a parent, so i really don't think you should be giving him sarcasm that you're giving.

Wow I can't believe your using that same point against me AGAIN.

"I'm an adult, and a parent, so I know best, you stupid little child!"