No, they were not innocent. They were found guilty, and a jury of their peers decided what the appropriate punishment for their crimes would be. They decided this after listening to all the facts and situations in a formal trial. They decided on a punishment that would fit the crime, because they knew what the crimes consisted of.

Do you know what the crimes consisted of? Did the murderer? No, I sincerely doubt either of you know the details of the matter. These men paid for their crimes in the matter dictated by a jury of their peers, and now, as they sit in their homes, another man comes in and executes them based only on his opinion of their actions.



Depends. Was the child a victim of abuse of of the treatment? Did the child know something bad was done, or did the child have to be told (and which of these would have caused more harm)? Are these children afraid of seeing these men again...or of never seeing them again?

We just don't know.



You do not know that. Frankly, the man sounds more like the makings of a serial killer than any sort of justice seeker. If the other men in the house hadn't been child molestors, would the killer have spared them? Did he even know they were child molestors?

A petty thief, a dried up has-been junkie. His life, nothing but a washed up mess, somewhere between the stars, the trash and lost innocence.

He needed focus, he needed vision but most of all he needed.. redemption!

Hallelujah.
Hallelujah we don’t mean to fool yah.
Hallelujah.
Hallelujah we don’t mean to fool yah.

He had a better idea! It’s all so clear. Yes, He would touch the divine!
Become, not a God..for that would be blasphemy, a sin.

His vision was clear and just; like Jesus before him was a carpenter, mullen would become an artist! And what an art statement he would make!
Instead of paint brushes he would use a samurai sword, instead of canvas, he would use pedophiles.
He would not just pray to God, He would prey for God!

I like that.

The differnts between the murderer and the rapists

Murder= Bad
Rapist=Bad

Once a murderer always gonna kill

once a rapist not always a rapist

actually that's not accurate. I was listening to a therapist on the radio speaking of this very topic, he's a psychiatrist in a correctional institute, and according to him, a child molester or rapist always has those tendencies inside him, unless he's castrated, that stops it a bit, but not completely.

So.

Once a murderer......... always a murderer? What if a woman kills an abusive husband out of self defense, does this mean she's addicted to killing now?

Sorry, your point is not valid.

People say the the families and children's lives were ruined by the rapist, but don't you think the family of the rapists are now ruined. Aquatus maked a very good point.

I have heard pretty much the same thing, that being that, whether or not they actually do anything about it, a pedophile while always be a pedophile.

So ultimately, what do we have? We have a group of people with a specific sexual orientation that we are considering to be immoral and sub-human. Let's play a little thought game **WARNING: THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT QUOTES, BUT PARAPHRASES":













You know, we can substitute the words with 'homosexual', 'jews', 'negroes', and pretty much any given minority, and the arguments would be incredibly similar to ones that have already been made in days past, and that are still made by certain hate groups.

Very True Aquatus...I aplaud you for your logic. Some people don't get this though.

What makes a murder better than rape? And vice versa? Nothing! They both are crimes, and need to pay the consequences. No matter how low someone is, they STILL are human

hold on, hold freaking on, i cannot applaud such logic aquatus because none truly exists there. raping children is not a sexual orientation, nor is it a religious practice or an ethnicity therefore i don't think that you could actually substitute any of the terms as mentioned. and i for one find such phrasing to be bigoted (I'm not saying you are, for you have just raised those points hypothetically, however those that do believe such views are prejudiced). can a person be bigoted or prejudiced against a horrible offence like rape? I don't think a person would be called down for saying "rape is bad" therefore disdain towards child rape shouldn't be viewed any differently now should it? I must say Aquatus you certainly have a gift with words, and are a very talented orator by the sounds of things, not to mention convincing. however your logic just seems...flawed to me...

Well, perhaps there is. When dealing with a topic such as this, it is very easy to get fired up and start assuming certain things are factual and logical when they are, actually, really only assumption and opinion. Let's take things slowly and one step at a time. This is the kind of opic that gets people labeled as either pedophiles or pedophile sympathizers, and such things, once said, are difficult to take back (not that you have made any sort of accusation, of course, but I can feel some people in the wings waiting to fire of a napalm charge ).



That would depend on what "rape" is defined as, wouldn't it? In some states, a 19-year old having sex with an 18-year old a week from her birthday will be brought up on rape charges. Is a child molestor a rapist? By legal definition, yes, but child molestation can run the gamut from fondling all the way to rape. To speak of all child molestors as if they were all dirty old men who hide in bushes and viciously assault children on their way home from school would hardly be an accurate perception.

But we aren't really talking about rapists, are we? We are talking about pedophiles.
Whether or not a pedophile has consent from their partner, we will view it as molestation at the very least, and promoting it to rape is quite easily done. Regardless of what actually has taken place, what actions were actually performed, we tend to not differentiate between child molestors, rapists, and pedophiles. Indeed, as the past responses have indicated, it is very easy to think of a pedophile and a child rapist as having the same definition.

So, no, child rape is neither a sexual orientation, or a religion, or an ethnicity, it is a crime. But it is not a crime defined by a particular action or intent, but rather by the sexual orientation of the person commiting it. Not legally, of course; in the court of law, a man is not guilty of pedophilia, but of child rape. But child rape is such a flexible term that it can encompass a multitude of things. In this case, we aren't even talking about a court of law, but rather the court of public opinion, and in this matter, particularly to this killer and to the people who support his actions, the act of being a pedophile is the same as the act of aggravated child rape, and the punishment for being a pedophile, and by definition a child rapist, is death, regardless of whether the actual deed was a fondle or a rape.



It does seem flawed, but at the same time, the flaws do not seem to stem from the logic, but from the outcome that it leads to. It seems flawed because I am speaking of sexual orientation, just as the therapist was speaking of, but mentally, the sexual orientation of pedophilia is being equated with the actions of a rapist.

When all is said and done, if pedophilia were mainstream, then what crime would have been committed by these three men? None at all. The only reason it is a crime is because the sexual orientation of the people is a crime. Just as homosexuality was once (still is, in certain states) a crime. If this man had broken into the homes of three homosexual men and executed two of them, sparing one only because he truly regretted being a homosexual, would his actions be seen in such a glorious light?

Let me pose this question: If a 30-year old man has consentual sex with a 12-year old girl, and the parents both know about it and approve of it, is there a scenario in which this would be considered legal? Certainly, there is. Now, whether or not you consider it moral is a different matter, but if this couple has met all the requirements of the law, then does anyone have the right to break into their homes and execute the man for what he has done?

You know, regardless of how our opinions may differ on this subject i must commend you for being calm and rational in displaying your opinion and views (i must apoligize if i have strayed to far from the path of reason in this, you are correct, pedophilia does get people, myself included, a bit tense) you have not said "all people who support mullen are scum! or anything of the sort, you are merely making a play for the rational argument, so before i say anything further, i must commend you. I do agree with the very bottom line of your argument though (unless i am in fact reading your argument wrong, if so i do apologize) There is far too much speculation, far too much opinions leaking into this discussion. to base this on the pure side of the law, mullens acted in a way against the law, more so than the pedophiles, all true. i do agree with your sentiments that assuming anything without proper information is in fact doing something blindly and without proper thought. So after i stepped back, distanced myself from this a bit, and realized that stating right and wrong in such an event is truly a pointless endeavour i can certainly see where your points are coming from. great posts aquatus.

I would love to know how you decide whether a sex offender is reformed or not. I believe you can never reform one, once you commit crimes like this, you'll always do it if you have the chance. FU** reform, sex offenders should be taken off the streets for life.

soo, leets see. I am 23. I meet a gril, she seens to be a 18 years old grown up. She is pretty, intelligent and nice. I had sex whit ther. IN the morning her father fin us and he acuss me of raping because his gril had only 16 ....ups. I am chaged whit the raping of a minor, even if it was concensual. I go to jail, and after a toime i come out. Acording to the logic that the people how supported this nut, i am a sex offender how never will go strigh again...a eternal danger to society, soo this nuts had all the right to kill me in cold blood. Bravo!!!!! You are trowing away all for you ancestors fight....a logic society were an acussed had the oportunity to defend himselfs. These guys had this rights, and pay the crime. and after getting out of jail, these guy shiited over their rights, and he odffice off witness, judge and executor.....bravo, he abandon every senbalnce of civilization!

rapists can change anyone can but murderers have a higher tendency to kill again and again hence serials killers exist

so do serial rapists exist and unfortunatly there are so many more rapists than murderers out there. For that matter, vigilanties are too few and far between. Rapists get a mere 5 year jail sentence. then they are out again, only to continue on.

Again, a pedofile has it in him to molest children, it's not something he changes 'just cause he wants to'. it's a pretty well-known fact.
a one time murderer does not make a serial killer.

Killing the two men was not necessary.
He could have found a way to keep them at bay, called the local police, and would have been considered a hero when all was over; but what he's done makes things very different.
Taking a human life, no matter how justified you feel it is, is still a shameful and monstrous thing to do.

If he was in such a rage that he was able to kill in such a harsh way, there is no telling what else he might do. He shouldn't be the one to decide who lives and who dies. No one should be allowed to take someone's life into their own hands in such a way, no matter the situation.
He could have incapacitated them and left it to the police, that's the logical thing to do in this situation. It doesn't seem that logic matters to this man when faced with situations such as these, and that is a problem.

No. It's an often repeated assumption. A pedophile is no more compelled to molest children than a homosexual man is tempted to kiss every man he comes across or every straight woman is tempted to spread her legs for every man. Sexual orientation is nothing more and nothing less than a desire for sexual relations with a given subject. It does not mean a person is not in control of those desires.

This is very much what I was referring to above. People will quite blithely equate pedophilia with molestation, essentially equating a sexual biological design with an immoral criminal act, just as was done with homosexuality. What is worse, they will then use that terrible, terrible logic to justify an illegal act, such as breaking into a person home and executing them.

What makes this even worse was that he wasn't in any sort of situation like the one you are describing.

Mullen picked a man at random from the list that law enforcement posts about convicted child offenders in the area. That means that people who were already punished by the legal system are having their crimes being publicly announced to anyone who cares to look. Mullen went to the home of this person, knocked on the door and identified himself as an FBI agent. Entering his victim's home, he found that the man had two guests, and on interviewing them, found out the two were also molesters. He executed two of them, and decided not to kill the other one (because he was the only one who showed regret for his actions). A week later, he turned himself in, hoping to received the death sentence in a bid for martyrdom.

In other words, he had no cause to keep the others at bay; he was the one that was attacking. Nor would he have been consider a hero; he executed a man in his own home. He was not in any sort of rage; he posed as an FBI agent to interview the victim. He was not out to incapacitate anyone; he was out to kill.

I see. Well, you are right, this does make the situation significantly worse. I guess there really is no justifying what he has done. He deserves what he received.

She looked 18? Your judgement was in error.
Providing the father doesn’t kill you first! lol
Yep afraid, so you will be considered a target by mullen. Consider yourself collateral damage.

Very good posts Aquatus.

I wholly agree with you.

This is against the law; what scenario could you possibly consider this to be legal? The parents have placed the child in potential danger. The Child is not considered by law to be of an appropriate age to make that decision.

When someone in your family, your child or someone close to you is the victim. You will feel differently, Especially when they walk out of jail in 2 years free to ruin more inncoent lives.

someone (i believe it was frogfish) inquired earlier as to what it is that makes rape a worse crime than murder. here are my thoughts on that:

a murder, while still an awful crime, results in death. the victim will suffer, but not for long.

a rape victim, on the other hand, is violated. raping a woman is perhaps the most demeaning and violating thing you can do to her. rapists take a part of their victim's soul with them- whether it be their dignity, their innocence, their trust, or their joy. a rape victim suffers for the rest of their life. can you honestly imagine what it would feel like to be violated in such a way? to feel so filthy and so guilty for something that isn't even your fault? to forget how to trust, how to love without fear, and to be completely unable to experience any kind of physical love without memories of terror and pain rushing back to you? rape victims don't have the luxury of a peaceful sleep without nightmares. they don't have the luxury of glancing around in a crowd without searching for their attacker's face... day after day after day, constantly fearing that they will one day recognize that face in the crowd, afraid that they will be violated again.

murders happen... but they happen, and then the victim dies. usually, the deaths are not incredibly drawn out. usually, the victim doesn't even know what's happening to them until it's too late.

rape is a whole different kind of crime. in my opinion, rape is murder. the person may still be physically alive, but rapists kill whatever dignity, trust, and strength the victim may possess. they become a shell of a human, often never recovering from such an event. i firmly believe that rapists should be the first to walk death row. i feel that rapists and pedophiles are incurable. their disesase is much like that of anorexia or chronic depression. there are temporary treatments and therapy to help one dominate such a condition, but there is no lasting cure that i'm aware of.

these are my reasons. i hope that i have managed to convey my points and views in a manner that makes sense...

Bravo Rose_ashes I couldn't agree more

So you are saying you would rather die than be raped? Do you not think that the fear murder victims have before their murder is great? Would you rather live or die. Murder is a worse crime than rape...It ceases the existance of a human. They DIE.

and yet murder victims are allowed peace. their fear and pain is not unyielding.

and yes, i would much rather die than be raped. however, i am not too worried about being raped, because i do believe that, after the fight i would put up, any rapist would turn and run the other way. i'm not the most... cooperative person in the world. just ask anyone that knows me. i also carry a pocket knife at all times, which is probably why i have issues getting through security checkpoints...

what about the murder victims families, wheres their peace.... just wondering

they don't find peace anymore than a rape victim's family finds peace... but i'm not talking about the families. i'm talking about the victims.

Where’s the justice in that?
See, the only people who can defend the legal system, are people who have not experienced serious crime.

Mmmh seeing as we’re talking about imaginary justice systems.
I’ve give the Parents of Mullen’s victims 6 years each.
Although, the nature vs. nurture debate has not been settled, I think my judgment is fair;
3 yr for giving birth to the pedophile + 3yrs for raising the pedophile.

murder, in my opinion at least, is not as bad as rape. with a rape scenario, the victim relives the event, everytime they close their eyes, every time they have a nightmare, the event plays over again, and so long as they are alive the victim continues to be hurt from the offense. murder victims die once, rape victims die every minute of their lives.

that's a sad, but good, description of it, glacies.

by the way, your kitties are extremely cute.
they made me smile.

Maybe you should ask aquatus1.
I'm sure he could construct an argument in favor for murderers; maybe they’re merely misunderstood outcasts of society.

you cannot fault aquatus for his views, they are quite accurate (legally speaking), and not done in favour of pedophiles or anything else for that matter. he was merely stating caution must be used when analyzing this case, and emotions should be checked at the door.

Yeah, I guessed he was a law student. I'm sure he could construct a plausible argument for murderers. What about the German cannibal case where the victim agreed to be killed?

you don't have to be a law student to properly take the law into consideration when dealing with such an issue, and while i may not see eye to eye with aquatus, his views are just that, his views, and aren't 'constructed' for the purpose of backing a specific argument.


that said however, if there were a person able to create a plausible argument for cold blooded murder, aquatus would certainly be it...

I'm not questioning his views but I'm questioning the legal system. Many people feel let down by the legal system because their emotions have not been taken into consideration. Like it or not.. to those pedophiles, Mullen was Judge, jury and executioner.
Did he have the right? Yes! he made it his right.
Of course the legal system viewed it a little differently.

Actually, yes, there are places in the United States where this could (and does) occur. The sole caveat is that the couple has to be married, but beyond that, the twelve year old will then be regarded as a full adult.



Again, you run into the problem of setting your emotions before your reason. Why is this so bad? Simply because emotions are personal things, and by putting them first in priority, you simultaneously put second anyone who does not believe as you do. This is precisely why the first argument, that of personal involvement, is not only faulty logic, it is one that is actively guarded against; if a judge or jury has a personal involvement with the case or crime, they are removed for the sole reason that their judgement will be considered impaired on the subject, due to their emotions.



Oh, and please be careful about accusing people who defend cetain viewpoints of being innocent in the matter. It's rude. The only reason I know so much about this topic is because my sister had to defend me in a situation where I broke the law in what I thought was defense
of my goddaughter. Nothing as bad as the case we are talking about, but enough to put the fear of jail in me.



To some, this is a cowardly way out. In the same way that suicide ends the problems for the individual, it neither solves them, nor does it help out the other people involved. Sure, I am certain that the vast majority of rape victims wish to die during the act, just as I am sure many victims of suicide feel no other option just before they jump off the ledge, but it is commonly known by the survivors of suicide that the place they changed their mind was sometime during the fall, when it was too late. A rape victim has a choice: to continue to be the victim and suffer for the rest of their lives, or to confront their pain head on, and overcome it. People such as these, a year from their attack, would likely have much different opinions on whether they wish to live than they did during the emotional period of the attack itself.

Utah no doubt?



Yet, in the end, we all know the jury decides their judgments based on emotion. Whether the emotions are a rational response is another question. For example, doesn't the Lawyers on both the defense and prosecution, when summing up, ultimately play on the emotions of the jury? Tell me that doesn't happen.



Mmmh 'fear of jail' is that not an emotional response? The fact that you weren't sent to jail implies an emotional prejudice for you to defend the legal system. I'm sure some people would consider your interpretation of justice especially in regards to rape victims as quite rude?

Actually, no. This is a researched fact. Look it up.

You know what, I've often thought that I would rather die than be raped. Being raped, you remain in the 'hell on Earth'. Let me explain what that is for those of you who don't know, being raped changes you, causes personal demons inside of you that unless you have a really good therapist, you remain with them. You can't look at a man the same way, you can't look at sex the same way, you feel anger, hate, shame, guilt and so much more. This does not go away with time, this haunts you forever. That is hell on Earth. Being raped is first the initial violence inflicted on to you, then the poison that it leaves in your soul that inhibits you from feeling true happiness.

When you're dead, you can move on.

I agree whole heartedly. though a question must be asked, should emotions have a place in the legal system? while i am still of the opinion that the child molesters got what they deserved, i am also able to see that in the criminal justice system, feelings like that have no real place and wont serve to help the law much at all.

I think justice and emotion are always intertwined. Is not the very notion of Justice based upon emotion?
Keep the same legal system but add onto it an extra system in cases of serious crime; where the family of the victim (in the case of murder) or the victim themselves (rape etc) can decide the punishment for the perpetrator.
The legal system should decide the extent the family could go in their actions for justice.
Of course no doubt in some cases the family members might go ‘over the top’ but then the burden of guilt will be upon them. But at least they’ll know for sure whether the feelings of guilt are genuine; opposed to just hoping the perpetrator is reformed and feels a sense of guilt.

Kansa, actually, with the 12-year old clause to the normal Age of Consent. Utah does have the same regular Age of Consent, though, if I recall correctly. I would have to look it up to make sure.



Of course it happens. Occasionally. That is what the judge is for. He is the one who tells the jury to "Disregard the last statement", and who decides that a mis-trial has to be declared if he feels their judgement is going to be irrepairably impaired. Lawyers have to dance on that delicate line, getting as much emotional pull as they can without stepping ove the line into illegality.



I have no problem with people who listen to my opinion and consider me rude for it. I do have a problem with people who make an assumption that I do not know what I am talking about and use that assumption to dismiss anything I have to say out of hand.

And, incidentally, this response was not in reference to the emotional content of legal arguments, so please don't try and use it as if it was. The existance of emotional bias is not in question, nor even its presence in any decision. The point is about not letting yourself get carried away by emotion to the point that you ignore reason and law.



I have. I am rather well-versed on the subject. I maintain my position that a pedophile is not the same as a rapist, and feels no more urge to act out on his sexual orientation that a homosexual or a straight person does. Saying that it is inherent in them to molest children is the same as saying that it is inherent in homosexuals to molest other men.




Emotions are an integral part of humanity, and are most definitely reflected in our judicial system. This is precisely why we are judged by a jury of our peers; so that they may be able to understand the situation and carry out a judgement based on a human response. If all we needed were emotion-less laws, we could simply let a computer crunch the numbers and output a sentence, but that is not how the legal system is set up.

The law is not a hard line carved into concrete. It is set up as a flexible, interpretable, system, that will take into account the many different variables and circumstances that being a human includes.

rediculous
why not use the same system for all crimes?
is it because you know people will go "over the top" with the punishments?

because that would be ridiculous.

If you can't tell the difference between murder and stealing a loaf of bread.
I can't really help you.

if someone steals a loaf of bread and the shopkeeper decides fitting puishment is to cut off their hands would you think that was "over the top"?
of course you would
now dont you think people would go over the top with people accused of rape or murder?

They should give him a medal, not a prison sentence. Paedophiles are the boil on the arse of the world and should be got rid of. Children should be able to walk our streets without fear of being abused in this terrifying manner. Rapists should be castrated so that women can walk out at night without fear of attack. As the law and the sentences for dastardly crimes get lighter and lighter the day of the vigilante will dawn. We should all live in peace and without fear of our families or ourselves being systematically attacked by scum.