Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

255001434 t1_irsz59u wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Serial ‘jogger rapist’ to be released from Oregon prison by LuceeCarioca

>absent the information on his other victims in the thread that i saw, we can assume that wasnt the common victim profile?

Why would you say that? As they stated in the article, they only described the one who came forward publicly. We have no reason to make any assumptions about the others, but even if the others were older, he has shown a willingness to attack children and that is enough.

Sure, the average 63 year old is probably less capable than when he was in his 20s, but breaking into a house and assaulting a teenage girl is not very physically difficult.

12

sephstorm t1_irupw0a wrote

>but even if the others were older, he has shown a willingness to attack children and that is enough.

Enough for what? The determinations should be based on the facts. I would say that is information regarding all the victims, though I don't know if legally that is permitted.

Then again thinking about the information i've been provided, it would seem that he may have the capability to attack the same class of individuals he was convicted of attacking again. If the law didn't require him to be released, i'd say that he should probably have to remain behind bars.

−2

255001434 t1_irv80p8 wrote

> Enough for what?

Enough for concern that he is still capable of harming the type of person he has chosen to harm before. What else do you think I could have meant? You were talking about him being less capable than before, and I said he is still capable enough.

>The determinations should be based on the facts.

You mean like the fact that the only victim we have information about was 13 years old? I was refuting your bizarre suggestion that we could assume the others were of a different profile since we have no information about them, which makes no sense.

Do you get it now, or do you still want to argue over nothing?

3