So this has been bugging me for awhile now, and I wanted to see where others stand on this...
Honestly I live in a very, very, very, conservative state so most peoples opinions up here that I talk to, are pretty much the same as mine are...Soooooo you guys are my only other points of view LOL


The stories go something like this, A Child Molester is convicted on a crime he is sentenced for 12 years in prison, he does not ever ask for parole he serves his time and comes up for release, which means he is a free man, no PO to check in with, he is out of the system.... Now the states are stopping these inmates release, and trying to have them civilly committed because they are sure these people will be repeat offenders and rape or molest again....

So yes I know my stand here is the death penalty for a repeat offender, period no other penalty can be handed down by a judge or jury....
In my eyes any violent crime that you repeat should earn you the death penalty no if ands or buts... You get a free pass the first time with prison but if you do it again you get the needle... I know I am pretty harsh but hey I warned ya I am pretty conservative that way...

So the question here to ponder is not what punishment should be handed out but is it right that if the Courts screw up the first time and they are getting out to repeat their crime, to me it doesn't sound fair that a man serves his full sentence but the Court wants to still put a leash on him.... See a true conservative here, rights are rights in my eyes... If a man serves his sentence, then he is a free man when he gets out, the courts should not get a do over....

So what do you think on this????

Civil Commitment: another tool to keep them on a leash..??
Civil Commitment: and unfair practice...??
Civil Commitment: the proof that we need a death penalty...??
or something else..???