Yeah this guy is a whack job, but his crimes are no weirder than teh crap Howard Stern does on his show.  I mean when you get people with serious problems of self esteem to strap into some sybian machine with the cameras rolling and Howard stern exploiting it, that is pretty vile.  Yet he gets away with it as "entertainment".  And here is this guy with a particular kink for mannequins, not really hurting anybody, and we got people wanting to put him away for LIFE.  Something tells me that if Dotson were rich and famous, he'd get off with a pat on the wrist, a la Hugh Grant or George Michael.  Does he need help?  Perhaps.  But if mannequins make him happy, then I don't really give a crap.  

He could get a mannequin with nice jugs for a couple hundred bucks. What a bargain.

Mannequin dude is funny, but I find the Real Doll afficiandos repulsive. I suspect most of them are necrophilliacs.

Is it?

Yes. As you yourself point out, he has done this an inordinate number of times. How many times would it take to convince you that he wasn't going to take this to the "next level." Fifteen? Fifty? Five hundred? Do you see where your logic in this case is simply a fallacy? It's disgraceful that so much of my tax money must go to protect the mannequin owners of the world. Who can't protect a mannequin? Alternative sentencing seems like the only reasonable way to go. Life in prison is the bureaucratic "easy way out" that costs us more money.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

How many times would it take to convince you that he wasn't going to take this to the "next level.

The more he did it, the more I'd be nervous he might take it one further. Would you say the same thing about a kid that killed cats for fun? "Hey look at Johny, he killed 10 cats - I guess he'll just stick with that. I was worried when he killed the first two, but since he hasn't killed anything else I guess we don't need to worry about him other than to sentence him to stay away from cats and pet stores" - does that logic make sense to you?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

But breaking in & stealing a mannequin doesn't hurt any humans.  That's entirely unlike rape or assault.  It doesn't even harm a living being, like killing cats.  I'm not worried that this guy will do anything more dangerous or antisocial.  He seems pathetic, but he doesn't seem dangerous.

Thalia

Your reasoning -- (1) doesn't hurt any humans (bodily), (2) unlike rape or assault, (3) doesn't even harm an animal, and (4) the defendant is unlikely to do anything more dangerous or antisocial -- would let a lot of people off the hook.  

Jeff Skilling has been sentenced to 24 years.  He didn't hurt anyone bodily, is not a violent man, is a friend to animals, and probably won't do anything dangerous or antisocial.  Well, securities fraud is kind of antisocial, but then, so is stealing mannequins, right?

Um, it might just be me, but Skillings ruined a whole bunch of people's lives which might be why he richly deserves to spend the next 24 years behind bars.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Your reasoning -- (1) doesn't hurt any humans (bodily), (2) unlike rape or assault, (3) doesn't even harm an animal, and (4) the defendant is unlikely to do anything more dangerous or antisocial -- would let a lot of people off the hook.

I don't recall saying anything about letting him off the hook.  I was arguing that making the statement that he is at risk for raping or otherwise harming a human is a huge stretch from what is in effect a pure property crime.  I also think that this person needs monitoring and psychological counselling, not jail time.  To be perfectly honest, I would be fine with sentencing Skilling to 20 years of teaching high school math in the Bronx.  He'd do a lot more good in the world than he will rotting in a prison.  But then, I'm a big fan of alternative sentences.  I think only violent criminals who actually pose a physical danger should be locked up.

Thalia

Criminals who engage in sex crimes have the highest recidivism rate.

That's actually false.  Overall recidivism rates are at 68% while sex crime recidivism rates are at 43%.  Do facts change your mind?

Thalia

That's actually false. Overall recidivism rates are at 68% while sex crime recidivism rates are at 43%.

There are two separate things here...sex criminals are more likely to commit the same crime again than other offenders - as your link itself states, "Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison -- 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders." So, as in most cases, it depends on how you look at the data. A paper surveying the available data can be found here, and I suppose that you can draw support for either of our conclusions from it.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Recidivism:  The likelihood of committing another crime.  Sex criminals are less likely to do so than non-sex criminals.  However, someone who has committed a sex crime is more likely to commit another sex crime than someone who had previously not committed a sex crime.  That is not recidivism, that is the likelihood of committing a sex crime in particular.  

By the way, last I checked, stealing maniquins is not a sex crime.

Thalia

Thalia, you absolutely are correct.  The hysteria over mannequin man is a prosecutor imposing a sex crime type of response to a derranged property crime.

Even if this guy had sex with the mannequins, is THAT a sex crime?  Also, you mention "stealing mannquins."  Did he actually "steal" the mannequins?  My understanding is that he did several break ins and damaged some property.  Is he a thief and a sex criminal as well???

Also, you mention "stealing mannquins."  Did he actually "steal" the mannequins?

From the article:

Dotson was first convicted in Ferndale for breaking a store window in pursuit of female mannequins in 1993. Police say they arrested him after he had stolen three female mannequins from a downtown business and lined them up in an alley behind the store.

in pursuit of female mannequins

Mannequins are tricky.  It's much more effective to ambush them instead of directly pursuing them.

Especially if they become an army of 10,000 ninja mannequins.  Then the only thing that will work is stealth.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Society can just get him a mannequin and be done with it.

What makes anyone think this would stop him? Mannequins aren't that expensive - this guy clearly wants to steal mannequins, not just possess them. If he'd only done this two or three times I'd agree he's a good candidate for treatment / rehab - but you've got to think that after SEVEN TIMES he's probably gone through some treatment and some rehab, and he keeps doing it. This guy is seriously flawed, and a little scary. Why is everyone so willing to give him a pass?

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Well it is interesting that you use the term "pass".  I don't think people want to give him a pass.  Just that life in prison seems excessive for this crime.  Okay, after reading the article the guy stole some mannequins.  He also broke into stores to dress up the mannequins in French maid outfits.  He seems to be satisfying a fetish and also wanting to shock people as well.  Maybe he is trying to convey some message.  Whatever the case may be.  I think he SHOULD serve some time in prison for his crimes.  I do not think he should get LIFE in prison.  That is NOT a pass.  I also am open to the idea of alternate sentencing as Thalia describes.  Prisons should be more than warehouses for weirdos.  They should be primarily to protect society from violent felons.