In which I disagree with the Hyacinth Girl

I can't recall when I have ever really/deeply disagreed with the Hyacinth Girl. Till now.

April, the Hyacinth Girl, writes:

How many women and girls have to die before our society realizes that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated? They will reoffend-the numbers support this. It’s too early to say if the monster who killed Chelsea King also killed Amber DuBois as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised. He gamed the offender registry system, he was unapologetic about his previous offense, and the area from which Amber disappeared was apparently Gardner’s hunting ground.

The year-long hell Amber’s parents have been through is not over, it has just turned into a different kind of hell. It is now the hell of knowing. It may be somewhat of a relief to be able to bring her home, but there is no true peace to be had. I’ll be praying for them. This sort of loss is so brutal, so unfair, so excruciating as to be unimaginable.

Sex offenders must be taken out of society. I’d prefer that they were executed after conviction, but I understand that this will be hard for the bleeding heart crowd to stomach, so I’m thinking long-term medical experimentation as standard sentencing for offenders. We can test various medications and surgery techniques on them, as well as the effects of radiation exposure. There are plenty of uses for sex offenders, as long as we keep them out of society.

Once we as a society see the benefits of vivisecting child molesters, it will be much easier to put them away for life after the first offense. We could even use them as organ donors, a la Ninni Holmqvist’s The Unit.

I’m the farthest from kidding I’ve ever been. These bastards cannot be trusted. Take ‘em out before they destroy any more lives.

This is the response I posted on April's blog:

Rapists and child molesters have placed themselves outside society.

But they are still bearers of the image of God ... to use them as you suggest demeans us!

And, even if it didn't, how do we distinguish the *real* rapists from those some wicked female has falsely accused because she knows with a high degree of probability she can get away with it?

And, even if it didn't, how do we distinguish the *real* child molesters from the innocent men (and women) whom wicked politicians use as stepping-stones to advance their careers?


I suspect you're too young to recall the daycare molestation hysteria of the 1980s, in which *obviously* innocent men (and women) were sent to prison, and their lives ruined, in prosecutions for which a civilized society would have sent the prosecutors [themselves] to prison for even attempting to prosecute the[ accused].

I frequently disagree with Lawrence Auster (especially in his race-obsession), but in this I agree with him. While it is true that specific wicked persons (usually of male sex) murder the girls and young women who regularly turn up raped and murdered, on a deeper level, it is "liberalism" which murders them. And, it is "feminism." For it is "liberalism" and "feminism" which trains them and their parents to be blind to, and to deny, reality.

And, it is "liberalism" which gives us the therapeutic approach to "criminal justice," in place of the proper just approach to "crime and punishment," toward the enormity of which therapeutic approach April is initially expressing a proper and righteous outrage.