Work For CIA Or DHS? You Can Sexually Assault Kids

[Debater Slayer]

What makes you like that? Seems rather inhumane to me at a first glance.

I would be far less worried about that than the fact that, like all other sentences, the irreversible punishment would sooner or later be imposed on a wrongfully convicted person.

I don't trust any legal system run by humans to be infallible, so I believe that irreversible physical punishments shouldn't exist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Debate issue:
WTF?

CIA Files Say Staff Committed Sex Crimes Involving Children. They Weren’t Prosecuted.
Excerpted...
Over the past 14 years, the Central Intelligence Agency has secretly amassed credible evidence that at least 10 of its employees and contractors committed sexual crimes involving children.

Though most of these cases were referred to US attorneys for prosecution, only one of the individuals was ever charged with a crime. Prosecutors sent the rest of the cases back to the CIA to handle internally, meaning few faced any consequences beyond the possible loss of their jobs and security clearances. That marks a striking deviation from how sex crimes involving children have been handled at other federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Drug Enforcement Agency. CIA insiders say the agency resists prosecution of its staff for fear the cases will reveal state secrets.

The revelations are contained in hundreds of internal agency reports obtained by BuzzFeed News through Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

One employee had sexual contact with a 2-year-old and a 6-year-old. He was fired. A second employee purchased three sexually explicit videos of young girls, filmed by their mothers. He resigned. A third employee estimated that he had viewed up to 1,400 sexually abusive images of children while on agency assignments. The records do not say what action, if any, the CIA took against him. A contractor who arranged for sex with an undercover FBI agent posing as a child had his contract revoked.

Only one of the individuals cited in these documents was charged with a crime. In that case, as in the only previously known case of a CIA staffer being charged with child sexual crimes, the employee was also under investigation for mishandling classified material.

Covering up child molesters, helping to send people to torture-filled prisons overseas, and engaging in shady activities in multiple countries.

Sometimes the CIA literally sounds like a state-sanctioned mafia.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like the Catholic Church, etc.

They do have salient similarities....
- Secretive
- Above law enforcement
- Holding power over the masses

 

[Valjean]

I'd like sexually abusive pedophiles to be chemically castrated in order to keep innocent children safe from getting sexually abused by some habitual child rapist.

Why chemically castrated? Wouldn't that entail a lifetime of medication at taxpayer expense, and a lot of serious side effects?

Why not just surgically castrate them? -- Simple, Quick. Cheap. Permanent -- and more effective, with a greater testosterone decrease than that achieved by chemical blockade. Also, no side effects, other than decreased libido and hair retention into old age. They could lead perfectly normal, happy lives, untroubled by their previous sexual urges.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@Lain Do you think child abuse is humane?

I would have them castrated at the neck.

That is a bit drastic
I would think at waist level would be more effective.

 

[Lain]

@Lain Do you think child abuse is humane?

No.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think sometimes it can become tempting to blame religions, etc, in areas such as child abuse.

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim that something like child abuse lie solely in the purview of "religion." And is the CIA considered a religious organization? Maybe the Department of Homeland Security? I'm just finding myself completely unsure where coming to defense of religion fits into this subject at all. Was religion even mentioned in the OP? Seriously... drawing a complete blank here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not just surgically castrate them? -- Simple, Quick. Cheap. Permanent -- and more effective...

And very unconstitutional (cruel & unusual thingie).

Why presume that all sex offenders are male?
Female offenders are there too.
Give them hysterectomies?
Never pass legal muster.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

And very unconstitutional (cruel & unusual thingie).

Why presume that all sex offenders are male?
Female offenders are there too.
Give them hysterectomies?
Never pass legal muster.

No need to be all "equality" about it.
just castrate those that you can, it will not be an unusual punishment for long, there are too many candidates.
As for the females, put them to work in the trade.

 

[Revoltingest]

No need to be all "equality" about it.
just castrate those that you can, it will not be an unusual punishment for long, there are too many candidates.
As for the females, put them to work in the trade.

Castrating female sex offenders seems useless.
Law shouldn't presume guilt based upon gender,
& impose punishment based upon gender.
But if you want balance, how about full blown FGM?

 

[Valjean]

And very unconstitutional (cruel & unusual thingie).

Why presume that all sex offenders are male?
Female offenders are there too.
Give them hysterectomies?
Never pass legal muster.

I was commenting on the chemical castration thing, which might be hard to apply to women.
Cruel? Not as cruel as prison or being on a public register. Unusual? Harrumph! -- didn't used to be.

Haven't we come up with novel punishments all the time? Electric chairs, gas chambers, &c? In fact, if you look at it as a "treatment," the cruel and unusual thing might not even apply.
Besides, Men might like the fact that they're unlikely to go bald.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim that something like child abuse lie solely in the purview of "religion." And is the CIA considered a religious organization? Maybe the Department of Homeland Security? I'm just finding myself completely unsure where coming to defense of religion fits into this subject at all. Was religion even mentioned in the OP? Seriously... drawing a complete blank here.

Defence of religion isn't really my strong-suit, and wasn't my intent, so my somewhat rushed post might not have been clear. Our high-profile cases in Australia of late have been around faith-based organisations (churches, schools, etc) and there has been evidence of gross negligence and abuse over long periods of time. This has resulted in a lot of media play, protests, etc (somewhat dampened by COVID).

Rather than seeing my post as a defence of religion, I'd prefer it to be seen as an equal-opportunity slap. ANY organisation that hides this sort of stuff away should be the subject of our ire, and we should mandate/force change to prevent such systemic abuse. As a former primary school teacher, I was one of a group mandated to report any signs of child abuse in Australia. Clergy in confessionals has always been a controversial topic in that area. I would stand strongly in favour of keeping things simple, and not giving special protections to the church. I also (sadly) got to see the impacts of sexual and non-sexual abuse on multiple occasions.

My point wasn't that the CIA is a religious organisation. My point was that they were exhibiting some of the worst traits that religious organisations have in this area over the years, by a lack of transparency to outsiders, and a belief/defence that they'd deal with things 'in-house'. It's not appropriate, not enough and shouldn't be accepted.