__Kratos__ Posted October 27, 2006 #1 Share Posted October 27, 2006 COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Six years ago, convicted sex offender Kenneth Glenn Hinson was released from prison after a judge rejected prosecutors' pleas that he be committed indefinitely. That same judge was to preside Thursday over a preliminary hearing for Hinson, now charged with kidnapping and raping two teenage girls in an underground room behind his home. Circuit Judge Edward Cottingham's decision in 2001 allowed for the eventual release of Hinson, 48, who was arrested again after a four-day manhunt in March. The girls were sexually assaulted and left bound inside the room, concealed under a shed, but managed to free themselves and get to safety, authorities have said. The dungeon was a chilly, crypt-like space, just 4-1/2 feet deep and roughly the length and width of a midsize car, with the floor and walls lined with two-by-fours. A single 75-watt bulb illuminated the space. State Attorney General Henry McMaster's office previously criticized Cottingham, but would not talk about the judge Wednesday because the office is handling Hinson's prosecution. Hinson was convicted in 1991 of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for the rape of a 12-year-old girl and served just over 9 years in prison, according to McMaster's office. Just before Hinson's release from prison in 2000, two review committees recommended he be committed indefinitely to a Department of Mental Health facility for treatment. One committee even said in its report that Hinson suffered from a mental disorder and could possibly re-offend. At that point, McMaster's office asked that Hinson be committed to the state's sexually violent predator program. Cottingham, a retired but active judge, rejected the request, writing in October 2000 that the appeal had "failed to demonstrate that probable cause exists to find that respondent suffers" from mental incapacity and the capability to sexually offend someone in the future. McMaster's spokesman Trey Walker said in March that had Cottingham not dismissed the case, there was a chance that "those girls would not have been victimized." A phone message left with Hinson's attorney, Frederick Hoefer II, of Florence, was not immediately returned Wednesday. Cottingham did not return messages. Cottingham has told a local TV station in Columbia that he does not remember the case. McMaster said he will tell the judge Thursday that the state intends to seek a life sentence without parole. A trial date could also be set. Souce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal bleeding-hearts are the idiots of this world. What in 'there is no cure' don't they understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohio tsunami Posted October 27, 2006 #2 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Liberal bleeding-hearts are the idiots of this world. What in 'there is no cure' don't they understand? They just want to prove that putting a person that does something as disgusting as this away is not the moral thing to do. Idiots!!! I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, thier opinion would change though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldethyl Posted October 27, 2006 #3 Share Posted October 27, 2006 (edited) I'm glad that judge has to live with the rapes of these girls on his conscience. It should never have happened. Edited October 27, 2006 by coldethyl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 27, 2006 #4 Share Posted October 27, 2006 COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- Just before Hinson's release from prison in 2000, two review committees recommended he be committed indefinitely to a Department of Mental Health facility for treatment. [/b]One committee even said in its report that Hinson suffered from a mental disorder and could possibly re-offend. At that point, McMaster's office asked that Hinson be committed to the state's sexually violent predator program. Cottingham, a retired but active judge, rejected the request, writing in October 2000 that the appeal had "failed to demonstrate that probable cause exists to find that respondent suffers" from mental incapacity and the capability to sexually offend someone in the future. Souce -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal bleeding-hearts are the idiots of this world. What in 'there is no cure' don't they understand? While it IS terrible that the man did re-offend in kidnapping and raping the two girls (I'm truly thankful it wasn't worse), people cannot be imprisoned for things they MIGHT do in the future. If that were the case, everyone would be in prison, for even the best of us MIGHT commit some crime someday. And obviously, the prison system isn't working. Prisons are full to overflowing. Crime is rampant. The thought of being imprisoned if one commits a crime, AND is caught, AND convicted (which doesn't always happen), doesn't seem to stop people from committing crimes. Maybe what we need is a better moral compass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted October 27, 2006 Author #5 Share Posted October 27, 2006 people cannot be imprisoned for things they MIGHT do in the future. Well, most people aren't sub-human sickos that simply cannot be cured. That's why they should be locked up forever or be put to death is because of the fact their un-curable. If some guy touches a child, he loses his rights right there and then to me. I care more about victims and their rights. The punishment should fit the crime, right? Well a victim of sexual abuse will never recover in their life. So why should a sexual offender get a new start after a short period in prison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohio tsunami Posted October 27, 2006 #6 Share Posted October 27, 2006 While it IS terrible that the man did re-offend in kidnapping and raping the two girls (I'm truly thankful it wasn't worse), people cannot be imprisoned for things they MIGHT do in the future. If that were the case, everyone would be in prison, for even the best of us MIGHT commit some crime someday. And obviously, the prison system isn't working. Prisons are full to overflowing. Crime is rampant. The thought of being imprisoned if one commits a crime, AND is caught, AND convicted (which doesn't always happen), doesn't seem to stop people from committing crimes. Maybe what we need is a better moral compass. If a person has already raped a child, then why take the chance on whether they will do it again or not? How many pedophiles have ever been "cured"? Most of these offenders become repeat offenders. Once is too many times. I agree with Kratos, once someone molests or rapes a kid, they should loose thier rights and be sent to prison where they'll have the same done to them for the rest of thier lives. The prison system is fine. The judicial system on the other hand is completley incompitentant. Proven here as letting this piece of trash back into society to committ this apalling crime yet again. People committ crimes because they think they can outsmart the system and not get caught or pay for thier crimes. And the more you look at cases like the one here ,they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash_Tyagi Posted October 27, 2006 #7 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Liberal bleeding-hearts are the idiots of this world. What in 'there is no cure' don't they understand? Ummm, Kratos speak for yourself, i'm Liberal and i'm aghast that this guy was released Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Skeptic Eric Raven Posted October 27, 2006 #8 Share Posted October 27, 2006 While it IS terrible that the man did re-offend in kidnapping and raping the two girls (I'm truly thankful it wasn't worse), people cannot be imprisoned for things they MIGHT do in the future. If that were the case, everyone would be in prison, for even the best of us MIGHT commit some crime someday. And obviously, the prison system isn't working. Prisons are full to overflowing. Crime is rampant. The thought of being imprisoned if one commits a crime, AND is caught, AND convicted (which doesn't always happen), doesn't seem to stop people from committing crimes. Maybe what we need is a better moral compass. Perhaps they can't, but they should. Sexual offenses of this nature or with children should end with death or life imprisonment. No second chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash_Tyagi Posted October 27, 2006 #9 Share Posted October 27, 2006 At the very least if he was mentally insane they should have put him in a mental institution for life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukie&jim Posted October 27, 2006 #10 Share Posted October 27, 2006 what you talking about ? they have had a cure for this back in the 1800's --it's called --get a rope ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash_Tyagi Posted October 27, 2006 #11 Share Posted October 27, 2006 what you talking about ? they have had a cure for this back in the 1800's --it's called --get a rope ! I don't think we hang people anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 28, 2006 #12 Share Posted October 28, 2006 The way to stop child abuse is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Obviously, the threat of prison is NOT a deterent. I'm not saying that those who do offend shouldn't go to prison, they should be punished, and severely. But the system isn't working. Convicts just learn how to commit crimes in prison. They are not rehabilitated. Sexual abuse is a sickness, whether the abuse is of an adult or a child. What we need to do is teach respect for others, the difference between right and wrong, and why doing wrong is simply wrong. Lessening the huge gap between those who have and those who have not would also help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted October 28, 2006 Author #13 Share Posted October 28, 2006 what you talking about ? they have had a cure for this back in the 1800's --it's called --get a rope ! Oh, I agree. I wish we still had public hangings for criminals. The way to stop child abuse is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Obviously, the threat of prison is NOT a deterent. I'm not saying that those who do offend shouldn't go to prison, they should be punished, and severely. But the system isn't working. Convicts just learn how to commit crimes in prison. They are not rehabilitated. Sexual abuse is a sickness, whether the abuse is of an adult or a child. What we need to do is teach respect for others, the difference between right and wrong, and why doing wrong is simply wrong. Lessening the huge gap between those who have and those who have not would also help. Prevention just isn't enough with some people. Of course they're not rehabilitated... There is no cure for them at all. They'll always be that way. Right and wrong just isn't as easy as teaching it, some people just ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contactismade Posted October 28, 2006 #14 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Somebody just said the perfect solution, for the guilty public punishment, defined by the severity of the crime. People don't need a new moral compass, these people know right from wrong so quite trying to excuse their behavior. They CHOOSE to do these things, nobody makes them. Thats whats wrong here, there is always some bleeding heart saying their past is a contributing factor. Stop making excuses, and start making examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 28, 2006 #15 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Somebody just said the perfect solution, for the guilty public punishment, defined by the severity of the crime. People don't need a new moral compass, these people know right from wrong so quite trying to excuse their behavior. They CHOOSE to do these things, nobody makes them. Thats whats wrong here, there is always some bleeding heart saying their past is a contributing factor. Stop making excuses, and start making examples. I am NOT excusing their behavior. What they do is reprehensible. I fail to see how stating that what we need is a better moral compass is excusing bad behavior. Yes, it's all up to the choices they have made, not their childhood, or the way they were treated at school, or any other thing. I NEVER said their past was a contributing factor, because I don't believe that it is. They know the difference between right and wrong, and have chosen to do wrong, despite all deterents. Since it IS a matter of choice, they CAN choose to do the right thing. If they don't, they should be punished. But putting people in prison for something they MIGHT do in the future is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 28, 2006 #16 Share Posted October 28, 2006 (edited) But putting people in prison for something they MIGHT do in the future is wrong. Absolute, unaduterated, rubbish. Whether or not someone is likely to reoffend should be the first question that is asked an at appeal court, and at an initial trial. I think that crimes someone 'might' commit in the future based on the behaviour they've shown has an enormous bearing on whether or not they should go to and/or stay in prison. Edited October 28, 2006 by Seraphina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 30, 2006 #17 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Yes, that's at an appeal court, when the person is already IN prison, and merely seeking to reduce their sentence, or get released early. I'm talking about people who are out and about now, not in prison. If someone is in prison, and likely to reoffend, let them stay there. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I'm blind in one eye, and every time I drive my car I'm a little worried that, because my ability to see all around me is impaired, that I might cause an accident. For that reason I don't do many things other people do when they drive: I don't listen to music, talk on a cell phone, eat, drink, or try to read a map. But the likelihood that I may be in accident is probably higher than for people with vision in both eyes. Should I be put in prison because of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted October 30, 2006 #18 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Most people aren't put in prison for road accidents... However, it's a rather silly thing to be argueing...when on earth has anything said anything of the sort? The suggestion was that he should never have been released from an appeal court, where he was appealing against his sentance for raping a 12 year old girl. Nobody was suggesting we start pulling Joe Public off the street for something he 'might' do...we were talking about not releasing a child rapist, because he'd probably reoffend, and I fail to see how you made the leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohio tsunami Posted October 30, 2006 #19 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Someone who is a pedophile is likely to re-offend. Why just give them a slap on the wrist or let them out early because of good behavior? These people cannot be cured of what they are, a predator. I don't agree with false imprisonment on anyone. But, like I said earlier how many chances are too many. Teaching them right from wrong isn't the cure. They know right from wrong. The solution is making these people see right from wrong by imposing heavy consequences for thier sick actions. As far as sexual offenders go, don't let history repeat itself keep these people in prison. Treat an animal like an animal, in a cage or put them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohio tsunami Posted October 30, 2006 #20 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) That story is ABsOLUTELY ... arousing ... before I blammed I'd like to point out that anyone who voluntarily posts and reads posts about rape and dungeouns must find it somewhat exciting on some level. So, let me get this straight. You find a story about a man locking a 12 (thats right 12) year old girl in a dungeon and raping her arousing? You're sick dude totally sick. I'd like to point out anyone who finds locking a child in a dungeon and raping them arousing is a pedeophile on more than one level. Disgusting on many more levels. Actually, I do not find it arousing, but I find it very disturbing. So don't think you know everything because you obviously don't. Get a life. *EDITED* Since the post I am referring to has been removed, please feel free to remove this one also. Edited October 30, 2006 by ohio tsunami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 30, 2006 #21 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Most people aren't put in prison for road accidents... However, it's a rather silly thing to be argueing...when on earth has anything said anything of the sort? The suggestion was that he should never have been released from an appeal court, where he was appealing against his sentance for raping a 12 year old girl. Nobody was suggesting we start pulling Joe Public off the street for something he 'might' do...we were talking about not releasing a child rapist, because he'd probably reoffend, and I fail to see how you made the leap. Nowhere in the article does it say that he was appealing his original sentence. I understood that even rapists only do a certain number of years (or months :angry2: ) for their crime, and that this man had done his time and was to be let go. The judge obviously made a error in judgement here, in ignoring the review committees recommendations. However, I repeat, putting someone who is free in prison for crimes they MAY commit in the future is WRONG. We might as well be living under Stalin's rule if we allow that to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contactismade Posted October 31, 2006 #22 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Yes, that's at an appeal court, when the person is already IN prison, and merely seeking to reduce their sentence, or get released early. I'm talking about people who are out and about now, not in prison. If someone is in prison, and likely to reoffend, let them stay there. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I'm blind in one eye, and every time I drive my car I'm a little worried that, because my ability to see all around me is impaired, that I might cause an accident. For that reason I don't do many things other people do when they drive: I don't listen to music, talk on a cell phone, eat, drink, or try to read a map. But the likelihood that I may be in accident is probably higher than for people with vision in both eyes. Should I be put in prison because of this? Nope you just shouldn't drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crouton Posted October 31, 2006 #23 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Well then, people who eat, drink, listen to music, try to read, talk, put on makeup, etc should not drive either. I probably am more aware of my surroundings, despite my disability, than most of the drivers on the road. And I signal when I change lanes, want to merge, or turn. I will continue to drive, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contactismade Posted October 31, 2006 #24 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Don't get all p***y because you asked a question and got an answer, its a by product of asking questions. Its an honest answer, if you feel that you are more likely to cause an accident, then you should as a responsible person remove the danger to others. Any precautions you take are only band aids, the danger still exists because you cannot fully address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Kratos__ Posted October 31, 2006 Author #25 Share Posted October 31, 2006 However, I repeat, putting someone who is free in prison for crimes they MAY commit in the future is WRONG. We might as well be living under Stalin's rule if we allow that to happen. If Stalin put away sex offenders that prey on children and the innocents of society for life... Then bring him on. Quite honestly, I think about the victims and their rights before I do some sub-human's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now