Vigilantism is wrong behavior, certainly, but rape - a violent crime - is no better, and the "victim" in this case was a repeat rapist.

It's hard to find any moral outrage in the death of a rapist.

This might be more poignant to the readers who are thinking "But I'm not a rapist", when you consider that public urination gets you onto the Sex Offenders registry in the US. And since they've already demonstrated the capability to list people in the wrong class of offence...

This is the very reason why people have campaigned against naming and shaming. Even when the person listed on the database is a child molester there's no guarantee that they don't share their name with someone else living in the same area. There will always be vigilante attacks in every culture and the simple truth is that innocent people WILL be targetted at some point. So this time you have someone who was guilty of an offense, but not the one that was listed on the database. Next time it could be purely because they have the same name as someone on the database.

Much as I find these sort of activities disgusting, it has to be pointed out that it has already been pointed out, that such disclosures were bound to result in vigilante attacks like this.

So will the state be charged with manslaughter (or whatever they call it over there) ? It would seem to be a reasonable question since they took action that could reasonably be forseen to result in this persons death.

Somehow I think the answer is likely to be no.

Whether this guy committed his crimes against children or adults doesn't make him any more or less evil, the tone of the article implies that he was guilty of multiple crimes and probably a recommitter. His killer is no doubt going to go to prison, after all two wrongs don't make a right but as a father I can understand and even sympathise with his point of view. The victims of sex offenders are all condemned to life sentences, the offenders should be too.

Could his name be Buttle?

"The victims of sex offenders are all condemned to life sentences, the offenders should be too."

I used to have a similar opinion, but a point was made to me that made me change my mind:

As long as the penalty for rape is less than the penalty for murder, there is no incentive for the rapist to kill. Once the penalties are the same, it is to the assailant's advantage to eliminate the victim/witness, since doing so can reduce the likelihood of later identification and conviction. And if they DO catch you, they can only hang you once, so you're really no worse off.

I should think the way to avoid vigilante attacks like this is obvious.

Lengthen the sentences for both rapists and child molesters until the recidivism rate is at an acceptable level. Such as 15 parts per million.

Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. If we don't have capital punishment for murders associated with sexual assaults, then a life sentence for rape would encourage rapists to murder their victims. Thus, sadly, we don't have an easy way to avoid exposing women and girls to apparently avoidable risk.

Surely the whole idea with sending someone to prison etc is that the courts have determined a punishment and once that punishment has been served then the person has paid their "debt to society" and they should be accepted back into society with a clean balance sheet.

Is there really any justification for some vigilante deciding that the court's punishment is insufficient and they need to add their extra bit?

That does not only apply to murdering ex-cons, but even to those that just run the bloke out of the trailer park.

As a father you're the person most likely to molest and physically abuse your child (or maybe it's uncle) not a rogue child molester and that is one of the most tangiable facts in child abuse. The whole thing is a smoke screen to deflect from that core issue, most child molestation happens in the family. But it's easier to believe in boogey men. Sure they exist but the hysteria around it shows the poor state of social awarness and journalism.

Also you commit a crime and you go to prison, you serve your time and you leave, possibly rehabilitated possibly not and that's how the world works.

We're master of our domain, us humans. It's a pity, because I'd like to think people that stupid would have died out by now otherwise.

I can console myself with the fact that they're only American.

> Surely the whole idea with sending someone to prison (...) the person has paid their "debt to society"

Yes, spot on. This seems to be a view held by fewer people every day (doubtless aided by a mindless, braying media), many of whom would quietly applaud a lawless, vigilante-style murder/tar & feathering of the "perv" after he's been dealt with according to law. Either accept that due punishment has been handed out or get the relevant legislation changed.

The guy's last offense was 20 years ago. Seems like he had plenty of time to become a little bit less of a rapist.

Good thing they don't publish that suspected terrorists list, as that would obviously trigger quite a few witch hunts.

In the state of California they are using the mental hygiene laws against some sex offenders. THe way it works is this. Lets say you are sentence to 15 years. You do the full 15 and are let out. No parole , probation nothing. Either you agree to be monitored or they toss you in a mental ward till you agree, under the guise of that you a threat to society. THis is for life. You could say leave the state, but then thats not agreeing to be monitored and off you go

In terms of "punishment", such rapists may have paid their debts, but the issue of protection is different. Andrew Mournian may have served a few weeks punishment for beating up hsi girlfriend, but a mistakenly naive approach to giving him a clean slate (as some here feel is due) led to her being murdered as soom as they let him out. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7139202.stm

Vigiliantes may not be the answer, but there are some people for whom throwing away the key (or perhaps in some case castration etc.) may be the only safe option for society,

But in reality, it has eyes...

Boo hoo, some convicted douche bag rapist meets up up with an unnatural demise. That's Karma... Call me cold blooded but having several friends sexually assaulted, and seeing the aftermath, excuse the hell out of me if I'm just a little less than sympathetic.

For the individual who thinks some of these predators can be rehabilitated, down to the level of, oh say, 15 per million... Would you welcome one of these animals into your apartment building, with open arms? I certainly wouldn't. So, if one of these bastards manages to put down stakes in my neighborhood, mind if I direct him towards yours?

"It is well known that innocent people get hurt by publishing untrue information [...]" -- I don't think the guy can be classified as remotely "innocent".

Like another Reg reader wrote, "It's hard to find any moral outrage in the death of a rapist."

There is a thing called rule of law that whether any of you will admit it, you live in peace by.

If you really think rapists should be killed, then have the balls to lobby your MPs/Congresspersons/what-have-you for a death penalty law.

Whether rapists should be killed, I will not comment on. But if you condone vigilante actions, you destroy rule of law. Without rule of law you all live in a jungle. Good luck with that.

If you can't find it in yourselves to back your words with petitions or citizens initiates for the death penalty - your name signed on a piece of paper for all to see - then you are are either hypocrites or cowards. In either case you should shut the f**k up.

I think Star Wars: A New Hope says everything about today's society.

In the original cut, Han Solo cold-bloodedly shot Greedo, who was demanding payment for debts owing to one J Hutt Esq. Over the course of the trilogy, the "bad b@st@rd" Solo was rehabilitated and became a true hero and all-round good egg.

It was a story of redemption.

20 years on, a "more mature" Lucas changed his mind. "You can't have him shooting first! That's what Bad Men do!"

Turn-of-the-century politics doesn't believe in forgiveness, not even in fairy tales....

Not nearly ludicrously complicated enough. Here's your coat.

I wonder if the twits praising this guy noted the fact that the victim was 67 years old. Let's give him a f***ing parade, why don't we. Congratulations, you successfully stabbed a pensioner to death. You are the wind beneath my f***ing wings. For an encore, maybe we can send him back in time so he can beat the killers of James Bulger to death with a baseball bat while they were still ten years old.

The question of whether Dodele was still a danger to the public is pretty moot. I've yet to hear of an offender successfully raping someone armed with a knife and a bottle of Viagra pills.

Prison sentences of any length in high-security jails are frequently de facto death sentences anyway, even in the UK, because of the increasing prevalence of HIV and the fact that prison rape is not just tolerated but seen as humorous just desserts even for minor white-collar offences (virtually every thread in any forum about a criminal will include some reference to 'sharing a cell with Bubba'). Not to mention the threat of insanity and/or suicide. As stupid as this was, if you get sent to jail then being misidentified as a sex offender and murdered upon release is the least of your worries.

"It's hard to find any moral outrage in the death of a rapist."

At least two posters have taken this line - one said it, and another quoted it approvingly.

I strongly disagree. We should be morally upset about any murder. Firstly, because it is against the law. Secondly, because it is wrong for a private citizen to kill another private citizen - that is what the justice system is for.

It worries me that so many people who comment on threads like this seem to get their moral philosophy wholesale from the John Wayne school of movies. Some people are good (white hats, women, children, nice little Latino hoteliers, etc.) Other people are bad (big ranchers, politicians, lawyers unless they're Jimmy Stewart, and anyone ugly with a gun). All moral problems can be solved by having the good guys kill all the bad guys.

That was the movies - 1950s style. Real life is rather different.

who seem to support the death of this guy and vigilante actions, how about you come round and live in my area. I have a nebour who's 6'6" 18 stone, an expert Kick boxer and holds a firearms licence.

Just don't drive to fast down my street, because if you risk our kids lives... Alot more kids die from being run over than are abused...

:-)

Think long and hard about that. I hope it changes your mind about the way you treat people.

I don't particularly care about a man being murdered in a far away land - didn't know him, probably wouldn't off liked him - thats not the point here.

The point is a man died at the hands of a scumbag because data integrity issues were not observed. I don't care if karma caught up with him.

The rabble should not be allowed access to this kind of information because the providers CANNOT get it right initially let alone keep it up to date.

For all the people dismissing this as someone getting what they deserve I wonder how you will feel when someone with the same name as you is publicly listed as a monster and your neighbour burns down your house

I'm surprised that no-one has yet pointed out that there was no error in the database. The man's offences listed on the db included "oral copulation with a person under 14 or by force". Note, "or": EITHER the first thing OR the second thing. In fact his conviction was for the second thing.

Like the UK sex offenders register, the US version works according to a system of "seriousness" classifications, and in that system, consensual oral sex with a minor is classified at the same "seriousness" level as non-consensual oral sex with an adult. Hence the combined entry for the two.

So the database entry was entirely correct. The murderer clearly couldn't read properly, but that appears not to be an isolated issue...

Oh, and @ Jon Green, get over yourself. Moral outrage by proxy is one of humanity's most pointless endeavours.

So if rape is a crime that justifies murder after incarceration, what about murder? Should we kill this idiot because he's killed someone? Or is it OK as long as he didn't rape his victim (though in that case, he would be worse, since he raped AND killed)?

And, since he's already pissed in the gene pool, remove his mistake and off the kids?

What if he'd killed YOUR father because of mistaken identity?