Should the father in this case have been charged with any crime?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Florida-Teen-Beaten-by-Victims-Father-Gets-25-Years-298614751.html

Story in a nutshell: An 18-year old man was caught molesting an 11-year old boy by the victim's father, who then severely beat him and knocked him unconscious before calling 911. The 18-year old molester was just sentenced to 25 years, the father was never even charged with any crime.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

No, the Molester deserved a good whipping.

[Zioneer]

If he had beat the molester in the street, I'd charge him with littering.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Beating up people is wrong, unless it was literally the only way to prevent a greater harm from being done (which I doubt it was in this case). Two wrongs don't make one right.

[dead0man]

It doesn't matter if he was charged or not, no jury would convict him (and prosecutors know this and probably wouldn't even try).  And that's fine by me.  The pedo might could try a civil suit....but after abusing a child for 3 years I doubt that would have legs either.

[JohnRM]

Any father worth a damn is going to beat a child molester senseless, particularly when he is caught assaulting any child. It doesn't even have to be his own child. It is a human reaction that society should not expect a man to control. It isn't like the father is going to be beating other people for the sake of violence itself. It isn't his natural reaction to stress and conflict. Putting him in prison or fining him would be as useless and wrong as somehow punishing the bird the buzzed me the other day for getting too close to its nest, and I wasn't even trying to eat (or molest) her babies.

Just be happy the guy survived. That is amazing restraint on that man's part.

[Torie]

If excessive force as defined by law (which seems to be the case here) was used beyond a reasonable doubt, I think a prosecutor is duty bound to prosecute, even if a jury will probably nullify. Obviously, the nullification issue is a reasonable basis for a plea bargain. But a prosecutor putting the matter on "ignore" I think is just wrong. It would be interesting to have Badger chime in here.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I hate the morals of our society. I would vote not guilty in a majority of situations, but there is no way I'd let such a violent man get away with this. This is not acceptable behavior

[SWE]

Beating up people is obviously wrong, but child molesters are not people, so no.

[JohnRM]

Beating up people is obviously wrong, but child molesters are not people, so no.

Hear, hear!

[Antonio the Sixth]

Beating up people is obviously wrong, but child molesters are not people, so no.

You don't get to decide who are and are not people.

[TNF]

No, the state (surprisingly) made the right decision in not prosecuting the father for protecting his child from continually being raped by this creep.

[Beet]

He must be prosecuted on the basis of Platonic principles. Otherwise, the law is meaningless. However, the obvious consideration means that if convicted, he would not receive substantial punishment.

I do find it fascinating that over in the sex worker thread, TNF is saying we should stop putting sex on a weird pedestal, yet here he clearly recognizes that touching a child's sexual areas is a lot different than touching a child's other areas. So clearly, there is something different about it.

[SWE]

He must be prosecuted on the basis of Platonic principles. Otherwise, the law is meaningless. However, the obvious consideration means that if convicted, he would not receive substantial punishment.

I do find it fascinating that over in the sex worker thread, TNF is saying we should stop putting sex on a weird pedestal, yet here he clearly recognizes that touching a child's sexual areas is a lot different than touching a child's other areas. So clearly, there is something different about it.

TNF how do you defend consensual sex while condemning rape?

[TNF]

I do find it fascinating that over in the sex worker thread, TNF is saying we should stop putting sex on a weird pedestal, yet here he clearly recognizes that touching a child's sexual areas is a lot different than touching a child's other areas. So clearly, there is something different about it.

Saying that we shouldn't put sex on a pedestal =/= not being able to differentiate between consensual sex (which this wasn't) and rape (which it was, the victim said that he feared he would be hurt by the offender if he didn't comply with his sexual advances)

[Beet]

I do find it fascinating that over in the sex worker thread, TNF is saying we should stop putting sex on a weird pedestal, yet here he clearly recognizes that touching a child's sexual areas is a lot different than touching a child's other areas. So clearly, there is something different about it.

Saying that we shouldn't put sex on a pedestal =/= not being able to differentiate between consensual sex (which this wasn't) and rape (which it was, the victim said that he feared he would be hurt by the offender if he didn't comply with his sexual advances)

But why is rape considered more serious than nonconsensual touching of other body parts? The difference isn't consent, it's that one is sexual and the other isn't.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Charge him, and then sentence him to like a day in jail or time served. He had a right to defend his son.

[JonathanSwift]

Beating up people is obviously wrong, but child molesters are not people, so no.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

No, sexual crimes should be punishable by brutal public flogging in addition to imprisonment. The father in this case was simply picking up the slack for the state.

[Clark Kent]

If he had gone after the child molester after the event, then yes, he should have been charged. As it happened, though, I think it qualifies as protecting his son, so he's innocent of any crimes. The guy didn't die, after all.

[JohnRM]

If he had gone after the child molester after the event, then yes, he should have been charged. As it happened, though, I think it qualifies as protecting his son, so he's innocent of any crimes. The guy didn't die, after all.

That still blows my mind, to hear someone say it. I don't know how he restrained himself. I would have beaten the guy until there nothing left recognizable as a human being.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote no because I'd say it wasn't excessive force. As brutally as he beat the guy he did so only until he was unconcious and posed no threat. So he basically used extreme force but what was needed to secure his and his son's safety.

[RR1997]

Beating up people is obviously wrong, but child molesters are not people, so no.

[Redalgo]

Yes - rendering the perpetrator unconscious sounds as though it was unnecessary to end to the violation of the son. A couple strikes I can understand as an initial defensive measure but if molester surrenders or flees there is no longer any justification to press the attack. The only way I would be alright with a lack of charges is if the teen was in possession of a weapon or otherwise decided to fight tooth and nail against the father.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Actually I think this shows incredible restraint- he could have done a lot worse (and many fathers would have).