Governor Matthew Blunt of Missouri, USA wants to kill people who forcibly rape children. At the root of Governor Blunt's problem is that violent solutions to problems shut out solutions that have a better chance of working. Violent solutions appeal to the lowest common denominator of thinking, which means that the thinking involved in handling the problem of sex offenses is less complex and competent than the thinking that it takes to wipe one's own backside. This makes for a penal system that is led by people who cannot truly be trusted to be housebroken. In other words, if it can be run by an idiot only an idiot would want to use it. Here's a real solution and I do advocate it: Anyone who would rape a child might as well have sex with animals. If we're not going to leave them in jail forever or kill them, make it plain to them that they will always have this kind of sexual outlet and they can run wild with it. They can live in a trailer park and have community goats, sheep, and cattle. Every time they have the urge they will be mandated, by law, to take it out on something that is not human. People will be taught that if they have the urge to rape a child, they must run, not walk, to the nearest place where they can use a sheep. The funny thing is that a lot of people who are like this, if they could think it, would rather do anything but rape a child if they can get rid of their urge for a while. And if they get hooked on animals, then they can stay there till they rot. I think that the game of labeling people and simply playing with them, just using them as targets for our own self-hatred and inability to properly socialized, this game has become so horribly institutionalized, so much a part of us, that most of us cannot and will not abandon that game even to prevent children from rape. Any solution that offers a way out of this game, people reject. Even if it works they will reject it because there is some minor thing wrong with it, even when that minor thing is far less troubling than the rape of a child. Or do we actually value children less than we do animals or minor violations of morality that involve animals? We have no trouble understanding that if we had to choose between eating a pig and eating a child, we should eat the pig. If a person who is mentally unbalanced wants to force sex upon a child, he or she should go with an animal instead, just as any of us who is hungry would eat the meat of a sheep or a goat. If any of us even thinks we're going to harm a child, go out and do a cow. This practice should be protected by law. This is serious. I don't want people going around having sex with children. I had a fucked-up childhood, and if that sounds tongue in cheek, well, I don't have a better way to say it. When I turn it around and look at how "they" advocate that we take care of such problems, I can't believe that they are serious. Give a person no sexual outlet at all then expect him to simply restrain himself? Most people can barely be trusted to wipe their asses and you can't trust them to wash their hands and understand why. People just save child molesters and cherish them as eternal targets to vent hate upon. Child molestation is actually a gift to these people, more coveted than their entire taped collection of extreme wrestling. Child molestation leads to more child molestation and more rewards for people who hate. So give the perverts a way to vent their frustrations and to stay away from children. Like I said, most of them would do anything to stay away from children, and most of society would do anything to keep them away from children, so how about a thing that is this simple?