Child-Rapist Priest John Geoghan killed in prison

Remove all ads!

Good point. However, it does not take two to tango when it comes to terrorism. I doubt the people in the World Trade Center ever met or uttered a word to Al Qaeda leadership. The same can be said about the children murdered by suicide-murders in Israel.

Second, if you are referring to the War on Terror, then you don't understand why the U.S. went to war in the first place. For Americans, it was seen as a defensive war. The logic was:

"Saddam is a brutal, third-world, dictator who supports terrorism. If we wait he will strike us or give the means to someone else to strike us."

The American view of the world changed drastically on 9-11. Before, many states were just poor or unenlightened, but something to be pitied, not feared. 9-11 changed that.

I'm curious if the first-world states (the founding states: Europe, Russia, etc...) changed their views as well. I'm also curious if the second-world states (Canada, Australlia, Brazil, U.S., etc...) were affected.

I study the criminal mind. It is possible to rehabilitate minor criminals that commit crimes out of necessity - and without thinking. They may never be worth much to society, but it is possible.

Most criminals in prison are either violent anti-socials, sociopaths or psychopaths. These three types of personalities cannot be rehabilitated. It sounds sad, and it is.

In the case of the psychopath, there is little about the person that you can deem "human".

 

@ Blackhawk

I think you are a little misleaded. It does take two to tango but the third one (civilians or better yet simple citizens) pays the broken glasses. Because the acts of their goverments these innocent people paid and nothing more. And don't forget that innocent victims exist on both sides not just "our" side
On topic now i found this article and i wanted to share it with you

And as it seems the guy has psycological disorders

And now they say that if it is proven during the investigation that the wardens did not do what they could in order to avoid this incident they will be hold responsible too.

 

*patiently waits for more people to start answering Blackhawk and turn the topic into America bashing*

If those wardens are proven neglectful, what will they be charged with?

 

I can hardly think of an animal that would do such a thing, so he is more human than you wish to admit.

 

negligance?

Anyhow, I personally would like to congratulate the person who killed him. People like that aren't needed on this planet, or if they are, I don't want them here!

 

Capital punishment can be very humane when used correctly. Unlike living decades in a jail (getting raped), it doesn't make the criminal suffer. It's a swift, merciful solution granting the criminal a fast and easy death, and making the rest of the world permanently safer (including the jails). It's also guaranteed to make bearing things easier for the victims, as they know that the criminal who assaulted them will never do anything anywhere again. Although it's not spoken often, many people suffer knowing that the person who ruined their lives is still alive there somewhere. Certainly someone who obviously can't or won't coexist with the rest of the society, cannot be allowed to live at the emotional and material expense of people who never deserved his kind to begin with. I for one would never pay a dime for a criminal. If it's a disease of mind, then we would do them a favor by executing them. If it's something else, then we'd do ourselves a favor. Generally speaking even, people today forget that there are numerous ways in which life can be the more inhumane thing to choose from.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Though I'm not a fan of Hammurab's law or anything, I know the world would be a far better place if the 4-part criminal punishment system was put in use:

1. Breaking of common rules / light crime, something very little harmful to others. = Fines. Pay the bill and that's done and over with. Just like speeding tickets.

2. A clear crime, though not a severe one, or then several #1's. Attack against a person, or some non-physical crimes resulting in very substantial material damage / monetary loss. = Jail and rehabilitation, jail conditions are to be moderate. Purpose of this is to deny a person his freedom, and separate them from others. Not to make them suffer in the traditional sense of the word.

3. Either several of #2's combined, or one more severe crime such as causing significant danger and injury (possible death) to other people by own choice. Generally something that speaks of the person being a danger when free. = Penal Servitude. The criminal may survive to redeem himself or just so that his life might be of some use to the society yet. He will be forced to work under circumstances dangerous or otherwise unfeasible to normal humans. This will fund at least some of the maintenance cost of the criminal system in whole.

4. Either an extreme deed resulting in massive human death / suffering, or somesuch. Or then someone who has been sentenced to #3, but cannot be used there because they are too dangerous even there, or because they downright refuse to co-operate and pay for their crimes and lives to the society. People that clearly are nothing but a parasite to the society, it's people, and it's economy, in every single way. = Death Penalty.

[ August 28, 2003, 14:12: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Getting a little more back on topic here. Being both a catholic and from MA, I know a lot about what's going on. And although John Geoghan was currently in prison for a term of 9 years, that wasn't his full punishment. There were several more cases planned where he was going to get MORE punishment added on. Besides that several other lawyers in different cases (mostly the ones prosecuting the preists who moved Geoghan from church to church) were hoping to use his evidence. While I do not feel sympathy for his death, he now cannot help give evidence in any of those cases or be further convicted.

Besides that all of you proclaiming vengance, the victims of Ex-preist Geoghan's crimes did NOT want him killed and they now have to suffer the very wrong guilt from his death. Of course they shouldn't feel guilty but they do because they put him in prison where he was then murdered by a murderer who "sympathized" with them. It's not rational, but it's there. And rape and sexual assault victims are often more emotionally unstable with things like guilt. (And don't tell me they're not, I do know that they are though I won't say how) And the last thing I'd want is for ANY of the victims to feel guilty for his death. I think it's the last thing in the world anyone would want. Besides that it also makes it harder for the victims to reconcile with their past. When they still had the ability to pile crimes on his head and sentence him to very very long terms in jail, it was also somewhat emotionally healing. Now his victims can't do that. And it also brings up the point that he now becomes only a shadowy traumatic image that the victims vaguely remember from triggered responses and grow to hate -- something that isn't healthy for them to do. Because now the traumatized victims with suppressed memories can't put a face to the horror and so they might just grow to hate him without ever being able to come to terms with their hatred.

So to all of you who feel bad for the victims and so felt Geoghan SHOULD have been killed, try next time to think more about the victims than your own moral vengences.

 

Blackhawk wrote:

What a horrible thing to say! Would you have raped the old man if you had the chance? Probably not.
Do you think rape as punishment is a good idea in our society? Perhaps you do, but I hope not.

I'm shocked, but not too surprised, that so many here think killing people is a good idea.


Here are some facts:
- John Geoghan was sentenced to 9 to 10 years in prison for indecent assault and battery.

What this meant was that Geoghan once squeezed a 10 yo boys buttocks at a swimming pool in 1991. There might be - and IMO probably are - other things he might have been convicted of, but this was the thing he was actually convicted of.

- John Geoghan had no previous criminal history, but he had a history of admissions of pedophilia and no willingness to enter treatment for sex offenders.

Note that it's not criminal to be a pedophile, since that only represents your sexual orientation, just as for example homosexuality or heterosexuality. Very often the media uses the term pedophile the wrong way. Saying that a pedophile is a child rapist is just as wrong as saying that a heterosexual is a rapist.
"Rape is any act of sexual penetration against the will of the victim". Rape is a criminal act, not a sexual orientation. (note: According to law minors are not capable or allowed to decide over their own sexuality so normally any sexual intercourse involving a minor is rape.)

 

When dealing with sexual sadists, especially ones with so many victims, they are jailed as quickly as possible. This is so they do not flee to another country.

Geoghan committed forced anal rape of over a 100 little children and used the fear and authority of "God" to commit his crimes.

The ammount of suffering and horror he as created will reverbate throughout Boston and the United States for a long time.

It was Geoghan's crimes that started the review of the Catholic Church in the United States and the discovery of some horrible facts:

1. Geoghan was not alone. Other molesters and child-rapists were moved around from diocese to diocese to cover up crimes. Bernard Law of Boston did this. Even my home town of Sacramento was a victim.

2. The Church sent the pedophile priests from around the world to the United States - the Republic of Arizona to be exact. For some reason, we can the abyss that the Vatican put its problems.

3. Documents show that money was far more important than stopping rape of children.

After the controversy erupted, there was talk of the United States taking the stand that the Vatican had committed an ACT OF WAR against us.

... but back to Geoghan. He RAPED little kids.

I am very serious about him suffering. If there is a "God", heaven and hell, I hope that Geoghan is in hell right now being raped. I hope his screams for help and mercy are being met with laughter and glee.

 

Wow, this makes me think of the Nietzsce quote in BG

 

Haven't we had enough lynch mobs in history?

Where are we if we don't have faith in the legal system? Anarchy? If this roleplaying youth of SP shares the general view of the world by taking the law into their own hands, we aren't anything but savages. Go ahead, people, eye for an eye, retaliate and make criminals feel your fury. Morgoth found a quote that sums it up nicely.

What is the best to do with child-rapists for the world? Alienate them from the world or cure the world of them? The real battle to be fought against this horrible crime is not in prisons.

 

@Blackhawk

Kindly provide some evidence/links to back up your statements.

This link gives the background and charges brought:
http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/geoghan/background_ctv.html
(Btw, I assume you use the word "forced" to emphasize that these alleged anal rapes were non consensual... as opposed to consensual anal rapes?)

Which psychological evaluation says Geoghan was a sadist? You aren't using the term sadist just to invoke negative emotions, are you?

Ah yes, of course this is part of the great papist conspiracy.

Hopefully you realize how silly that sounds.
Here is a link about the murder of Geoghan in prison:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/abs_news_body.asp?section=Opinion&oid=31882

There are a few things we should all keep in mind:
- Be very critical of what the media tells you!
- Be careful of passing judgement based on what the media tells you.

 

Earl Grey -

You evidently are not familiar with the crimes of Geoghan - here is a link
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/geoghan/

I study the human mind on my free time. Sexual predators, unless psychotic, are sadists of one type of another. Please remember that the term "sadist" does not mean torture by hot pokers, electricution, etc....

This is confirmed. Arizona has churches and centers where they put evil priests for rehabilitation. They failed. In the meantime, they attacked more children.

Please note, I am not anti-Catholic. In fact, the opposite is true. However, I am very angry at the religious leaders in the Church. They are supposed to act with moral integrity. They didn't.

To an American, this does not sound silly. The Church's crimes are akin to Al-Qaeda's. However, while Al-Qaeda commits its crimes being fully aware of the horror caused, the Church just didn't care. That's the worst part of this whole thing - they just didn't care.

You don't know how angry most Americans are over this topic. We have a very negative view of pedophiles. In fact, pedophiles are not safe in prison or out of prison.

In reality, the only thing that Church can do to show it does still has moral authority is to excommunicate all the pedophile priests. They won't do that, unfortunately.

Here's a link to a site dealing with the scandal:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

[ September 01, 2003, 09:14: Message edited by: Blackhawk ]

 

I don't know how anyone can feel sorry for this guy. While I admit that Nobleman has a point about the law and savage thing, I still have kids myself. I hate to think that this could happen to them and what my reaction would be. IMO, this guy was never a priest but a child predator who hid behind a collar and black robes. I think Blackhawk is right on: It may not have been pretty, but I say good riddance to him.

 

Let me point out that legally Geoghan is apparently now completely and utterly innocent of all crimes. Yes, this includes the crime (fondling a boys buttocks) he was in prison for because the appeal for that conviction was pending.

This is the result of "allowing" an inmate the opportunity to kill him.

Blackhawk talks about "moral integrity". Strange words to come from someone who advocates rape and murder as proper punishment.

 

And yet again another verbal lynch mob sits back for a while and then comes back to self justify its fury. Fury which often blinds. Verbal lynch mobs reminds me of those two old guys in the theatre in muppet show mixed with animal the drummer. At least they are harmless. It only gets dangerous if they get a blend of the chef's activity, who is, conveniently for the example, almost blinded.

Whether or not this particular guy is innocent, isn't important to the example. It isn't to verbal lynch mobs anyway, they react all the same nomatter what, now even quicker and more coherrent when the media has a tight grip to a broad mass of people. The internet is the worst. You can put up an url called www.absurdfakenews.com and I'll bet that some people will carry on the rumours as true if the website has a professional layout and articles. And rumours are obviously harder to kill than inmates . Sometimes they end up saying "we told you so". Sometimes they don't, and just shrug and wait for the next victim. Luckily the legal system has more integrity. So I better just *shrug*

[ September 01, 2003, 11:17: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Proof, please. Or example, at least. While it's true they have special facilities for rogue priests in there or that they kept moving those all over the diocese, I still have no idea how could one beget the idea that Vatican keeps flooding US with pedophile priests. Even if they were truly materialistic, deprived of any moral sense etc etc and plotting against anyone else all the time, image would be priority. There simply have been more such priests in US than anywhere else. It strikes me also that there apparently are more gays where they have more freedom. This extends to other perversion, too.

Edit: Yes, they didn't excommunicate him. They didn't even defrock him in the strictest sense of the word. He didn't undergo penalty of degradation (not used for ages, I think he would have been a proper candidate, but this is my private opinion) or even deposition (without stripping of liturgic robes to save trouble with putting them on him again in proper order in case of his being reinstated)... just dismissed him. This meant he wasn't fully a layman, but they could hand him over to civil authorities. Too late, I believe. Forgiveness is forgiveness. Absolution is absolution. But such a priest doesn't have to be priest, let alone parish priest. Someone was protecting the good name of the Church and straying from the path of truth ultimately brought even more harm to it.

 

I have to put my 2 cents in here -- I'm most certainly not sad at all that Geoghan is dead. Nor do I feel any pity for the pain he must have suffered at the hands of a killer. I do feel that the state should have administered a much heavier penalty on the man, though. Everyone here knows I'm in favor of capital punishment in cases such as this, but barring that, a 30 year sentence would have been much more appropriate. Now, if some of what was said earlier was correct, he was only convicted on one count of molestation, and I'm sure other convictions, with similar sentences, would have come down for him. Lets see, for the sake of ease, we'll say he later got convicted of 9 more counts of such behaviour, 9x9=81, he would have never got out. That would have suited me better, but there was no guarantee such convictions would have come about.
Now, as for the state being responsible for his death, perhaps there is some blame to go around here. Security and staffing at prisons is miserably pathetic. On the other hand, if someone REALLY wants to commit a crime, and doesn't care if he is caught or kiled for it, that crime will be committed -- it's just a matter of time. This principle is what makes suicide bombers so dangerous. So even if a guard were to be with Geoghan 24/7/365, if the inmates wanted him dead, he would have died sooner or later.
As for using sex as a punishment, I find that abhorrent. It is poetic justice and all, but is not something we would want, as a society, to countenance in the slightest.

 

That's not true. "Legally", the legal system never finds anyone innocent. Never. Ever. It does find some people 'not guilty' but NEVER innocent.

The whole chuch = terrorist thing though is silly. And I've only ever heard one American ever mention the idea - and it was in this thread.

[ September 02, 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Laches ]