A law dealing with child abduction

Goat Whisperer said:
First I never said it was okay, they would just have immunity.

Second off: Yep. Because they most likely wouldn't want to do it twice knowing how scared they got the first time, that they wouldn't get a second chance this time, and that they were already closely monitored so it would be even harder to pull off.
Click to expand...
Right now, there is no second chance and people do it anyway!
Goat Whisperer said:
Know the kidnappers would be put into protective custody.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how ridiculously expensive that is???
 
Goat Whisperer said:
I am talking about a specific abduction this would help.

You can't just throw out any example. Especially an example that would have nothing to do with this law if it was put into place. Jaycee's abductor obviosly would have been charged because she was sexually abused. Therefore that example has nothing to do with this thread.

That's like me making a thread saying we should legalize marijuana and you saying meth kills people so no that type of drug shouldn't be legalized :24:
Click to expand...

there are too many open doors and 'what ifs' in your arguements. her story is a story of being kidnapped...you want him to go free according to your law if he would have just handed her over.

Sneakiecat said:
So, it's like say "She was asking to be raped."
Click to expand...

but don't you know, she's not talking about rape now lol
 
Goat Whisperer said:
First I never said it was okay, they would just have immunity.

Second off: Yep. Because they most likely wouldn't want to do it twice knowing how scared they got the first time, that they wouldn't get a second chance this time, and that they were already closely monitored so it would be even harder to pull off.
Click to expand...

Immunity makes it OK. Personally, if I did something wrong and was basically let go, I wouldn't think twice about doing it again. Do you know how many people that are "closely monitored" by the police disappear and that it's as simple as not telling the police you moved?
 
"Yes officer, my blood alcohol is 3 times the legal limit. I was halfway home when I realized I shouldn't be driving, and I was pulling into this parking lot so I could get out and walk the rest of the way."

"Ok sir, since you were about to stop driving drunk, we're gonna let you go."
 
i dont know about anyone else but if someone abducted my child and put me through hell worrying and was able to walk free just because they returned her safely without harm i`d track that bastered down and beat him like a redheaded step child
 
dt3 said:
Then why don't we do the same thing for people who are going to rape and kill somebody, but change their mind after the rape? Hell, drunk drivers never MEANT to hurt anybody, might as well let them go too. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Stupid points. Once again this is a specific example.

How many kidnappers kidnap a child with the intent of returning them? I'm willing to bet that in most cases, not very many. They're abducted for a reason. I believe the vast majority are kidnapped by parents with some sort of custody dispute. Is that person really going to give the kid back? No. I'm also willing to bet that the vast majority of kidnappers who aren't in that group commit the kidnapping planning to kill the child regardless of what happens.

Show me some statistics to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Once again, I didn't say this would fix all kidnappings. Here, I'll make-up some 'statistics' to try and explain this to you

Ten kids are kidnapped. 9/10 kidnappers are planning on raping and murdering them. 1/10 is planning on asking for a ransom. 10/10 get scared and want to end it. 9/10 kids are killed, but 1/10 is returned in place for immunity.

This could save just one kid and it would be worth it to have as a law. No it wouldn't work as an incentive for all kidnapping cases. No it wouldn't save every child. But it could save one--and if it did, it would be worth it.

dt3 said:
So, the first time you kidnap a child, it's a freebie. The second time it's a crime? :24: This would just give them MORE incentive to kill the second child!!!
Click to expand...

Why would it give them more incentive to kill the second child?

It would make it harder for them to kidnap a second child, as they would be more afraid of getting caught having no second chance and they would be on probation.

Zorak said:
You want to reward criminals instead of punish them.

Yeah, good luck pitching that in debate.
Click to expand...

That's not rewarding, it's making them immune. No harm no foul.
 
justmee said:
i dont know about anyone else but if someone abducted my child and put me through hell worrying and was able to walk free just because they returned her safely without harm i`d track that bastered down and beat him like a redheaded step child
Click to expand...

Good so you would be put into prison for attacking someone and leave your child parentless, brilliant really.

If your child got abducted then you would do anything to get your child back--not get back at the person who took them.
 
Goat Whisperer said:
Why would it give them more incentive to kill the second child?

It would make it harder for them to kidnap a second child, as they would be more afraid of getting caught having no second chance and they would be on probation.
Click to expand...
Again...right now, if you kidnap a child there's no second chance. But people still do it. So how would not having a second chance with your law stop anything?

It would be more incentive to kill the second child, because if they turn themselves in they know they're going to jail!

Your law essentially makes the second time they kidnap the child the same as it is for the first time now. And you say there's no incentive to let the child live right now, therefore under your law there's no incentive to let the child live the second time.
 
Back
Top