A fair point, Joey. But is sexual predation a one and done thing?If someone's a danger to the community, why are we letting them out of prison?
Well, I don't like the way society in general makes it difficult for ex-cons, who have already served their time, to re-integrate back into society. Obviously if you deny them opportunities to become employed, go to school, or find stable living, they're just going to turn back to crime. Rather than rehabiliting them, you're creating life-long criminals.I won't say that I wouldn't want them to have jobs at all, but would anyone be comfortable with a convicted child molester taking a job where s/he would be around children?
So, the rehab element is something to look into, so long as it doesn't wind up like a Clockwork Orange scenario.You mean something fucking amazing starring Malcolm McDowell?
So, the rehab element is something to look into, so long as it doesn't wind up like a Clockwork Orange scenario.You mean something fucking amazing starring Malcolm McDowell?
I agree with rookie. Sexual predation is seldom a one and done deal. However, we need to look at the definition of a sexual predator.
I think there is no disputing that rape, sexual molestation, and sexual assault on anyone qualifies.
Pissing in an alleyway, having a 17-yr-old banging his 16-yr-old SO, and other such trivial shit? Not so much. Society, in many cases, focuses too damned much on the punishment, and not the rehab. So, the rehab element is something to look into, so long as it doesn't wind up like a Clockwork Orange scenario.
You know, sexual offenders are probably chronic BECAUSE they have to hide it. I mean, with other things, it's generally a lot more okay to admit you have a problem. It's really not okay to admit you fucked a kid, so people hide it inside.I think that depends on the nature of the offense. I have wondered for some time though if the social stigma against being a pedophile or zoophile, for example (even if you've never fucked a kid or an animal), actually contributes to the problem. i.e. Maybe if the stigma wasn't so devastating, more people would be willing to admit it and get help before something happens.
If people can't admit they have a problem, how the hell can they resolve it?
You know, sexual offenders are probably chronic BECAUSE they have to hide it. I mean, with other things, it's generally a lot more okay to admit you have a problem. It's really not okay to admit you fucked a kid, so people hide it inside.I think that depends on the nature of the offense. I have wondered for some time though if the social stigma against being a pedophile or zoophile, for example (even if you've never fucked a kid or an animal), actually contributes to the problem. i.e. Maybe if the stigma wasn't so devastating, more people would be willing to admit it and get help before something happens.
If people can't admit they have a problem, how the hell can they resolve it?
In general, I think our justice system needs to focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. Just locking criminals up for X arbitrary amount of time and then letting them go, when you know they're at a high risk of reoffending is... just dumb. And it leads stuff like the sex offender registry, which is a bandaid on a broken system that just screws everyone over even more.
You know, sexual offenders are probably chronic BECAUSE they have to hide it. I mean, with other things, it's generally a lot more okay to admit you have a problem. It's really not okay to admit you fucked a kid, so people hide it inside.
If people can't admit they have a problem, how the hell can they resolve it?
You know, sexual offenders are probably chronic BECAUSE they have to hide it. I mean, with other things, it's generally a lot more okay to admit you have a problem. It's really not okay to admit you fucked a kid, so people hide it inside.
If people can't admit they have a problem, how the hell can they resolve it?
I found a board where people openly admit to their problems of being pedophiles, it's specifically a board mean't for various psychological problems and they have basically taken over the paraphilla section of it. If anything it's an interesting read. Link (http://www.psychforums.com/paraphilias/)
Probably don't want to look at this at work.
It's highly doubtful that either of them will manage any of the dreams that they may have had, or accomplish anything outside of quietly living alone with minimal interaction with a community that fearfully hides their children from them.
Personally I feel that I can call the sex offenders registry anything other than cruel and unusual. And I also don't think that drug dealing is an analogous crime to rape/molestation. At least in the case of purchasing drugs, people have a choice in whether or not they do so. Is that the same as when someone forces themself upon you sexually?
Nope, it's just one of my favorite movies and I own it on DVD. There was a message?So, the rehab element is something to look into, so long as it doesn't wind up like a Clockwork Orange scenario.You mean something fucking amazing starring Malcolm McDowell?
You are aware of the message of a Clockwork Orange right?
I found a board where people openly admit to their problems of being pedophiles, it's specifically a board mean't for various psychological problems and they have basically taken over the paraphilla section of it. If anything it's an interesting read. Link (http://www.psychforums.com/paraphilias/)Do they treat it like a support group (i.e. "we've got problems, let's help each other deal with it"), or is it more of a justification echo chamber? Because if it's the former, it might be very helpful for them.
Probably don't want to look at this at work.
If an individual cannot be trusted to live near children, then they should be in jail. I'd prefer to increase sentencing requirements than to put people on the sex offender registry for life.
If an individual cannot be trusted to live near children, then they should be in jail. I'd prefer to increase sentencing requirements than to put people on the sex offender registry for life.
Exactly. The legal system should be based on making sure that people do not re-offend, preferably by rehabilitation, but if the person shows no signs of getting better and are dangerous to the community, then there need to be measures taken to make sure they do not interact with the rest of society. The problem is that a lot of the more psychopathic sexual predators know how to lie very convincingly and can trick the therapists, judges, etc. into thinking that they have "reformed."
If an individual cannot be trusted to live near children, then they should be in jail. I'd prefer to increase sentencing requirements than to put people on the sex offender registry for life.
Exactly. The legal system should be based on making sure that people do not re-offend, preferably by rehabilitation, but if the person shows no signs of getting better and are dangerous to the community, then there need to be measures taken to make sure they do not interact with the rest of society. The problem is that a lot of the more psychopathic sexual predators know how to lie very convincingly and can trick the therapists, judges, etc. into thinking that they have "reformed."
Once there's DNA evidence linking someone to rape, put them down like rabid animals. Far as I'm concerned, they've forfeit their right to live as soon as they commit such a crime. And no, I don't particularly care how archaic or cruel that is. If you don't like it, don't rape.
Once there's DNA evidence linking someone to rape, put them down like rabid animals. Far as I'm concerned, they've forfeit their right to live as soon as they commit such a crime. And no, I don't particularly care how archaic or cruel that is. If you don't like it, don't rape.
If nothing else, I think it'll just encourage rapists to "hide the evidence."Somehow suggesting that those who're smart enough to think to do that don't already.
Once there's DNA evidence linking someone to rape, put them down like rabid animals. Far as I'm concerned, they've forfeit their right to live as soon as they commit such a crime. And no, I don't particularly care how archaic or cruel that is. If you don't like it, don't rape.I'm not going to rape anyone and I still don't like it. I oppose the death penalty on principle. If you instead suggested they be locked away for the rest of their lives, that I could get behind.
If nothing else, I think it'll just encourage rapists to "hide the evidence."Somehow suggesting that those who're smart enough to think to do that don't already.
Why not just make it possible to get OFF the registry? Excepting cases where people ought not to even be put ON the registry in the first fucking place, give people on the registry a yearly evaluation. If they prove that they're reformed, then take them off it.
Seriously. This is NOT a hard concept. Deleting records have been around since people first started recording data and making databases on -any- media, not just digitally. Shit, nowadays, its 50 times easier to do that, and it wouldn't take much work at all.
I would give death penalty for rapists but I think that would cause both the rapist and the victim to hide the evidence. Since most rape victims know their rapist, who might be a friend, relative, or partner, they might stay silent because they are still blaming themselves for their rape.
Well, there's also the ethical concerns of putting someone to, y'know, DEATH. I mean, molestation is messed up, but I really don't like all of the dehumanization going on in this thread.I agree with this whole-heartedly. I realize it's an emotional topic and a very traumatizing crime, but I'm surprized how many here are jumping on the death waggon.
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
That's a tad arbitrary. If you ask me, if the death penalty is to be used, it should be used only when rehabilitation is impossible, either because the criminal is beyond reform or it's simply too great a risk to release them.
That's a tad arbitrary. If you ask me, if the death penalty is to be used, it should be used only when rehabilitation is impossible, either because the criminal is beyond reform or it's simply too great a risk to release them.Then why not just keep them locked up? What practical purpose does killing them serve that keeping them locked up for life does not?
Denying them the chance of ever committing the crime again. Removing the chance of escape.That's a tad arbitrary. If you ask me, if the death penalty is to be used, it should be used only when rehabilitation is impossible, either because the criminal is beyond reform or it's simply too great a risk to release them.Then why not just keep them locked up? What practical purpose does killing them serve that keeping them locked up for life does not?
Denying them the chance of ever committing the crime again.Which life without parole also does.
Removing the chance of escape.Which is miniscule to begin with.
Putting a definitive end on their actions.Which life without parole also does.
Notably I'm not saying it should be a standard punishment, but when you come to people like this guy (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3825.0). Flush him.IMO, that makes even less practical sense. Let's say you have two people who've committed terrible crimes and can't be rehabilitated. Both need to be removed from society for good. What's the point of giving one of them life and prison and the other the death penalty, because his crime was worse?
Which life without parole also does.But he still exists. Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?
A lack of repentance or remorse. If someone behaves like a rabid dog I see no reason not to treat them that way.QuoteNotably I'm not saying it should be a standard punishment, but when you come to people like this guy (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3825.0). Flush him.IMO, that makes even less practical sense. Let's say you have two people who've committed terrible crimes and can't be rehabilitated. Both need to be removed from society for good. What's the point of giving one of them life and prison and the other the death penalty, because his crime was worse?
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?
But he still exists. Why should someone get the right to wake up every morning after they've happily taken it from someone else? Why should his continued existence be allowed to bother the victims and/or their families?What Magnus said. It serves no practical purpose, only catharsis through violent revenge.
A lack of repentance or remorse. If someone behaves like a rabid dog I see no reason not to treat them that way.But there's also no practical reason TO treat them that way.
Practical reason? The cost of the state maintaining the person's life for however long they live. The state will need to pay for their food and medical services at a minimum, unless you plan on keeping them in utterly inhumane conditions that no first world country would ever approve of. Assuming Ask Men is correct, a 2008-2009 report by the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that California spends $12,442 per year on each inmate. Some prisoners even get better health care than the guards, since it's viewed as the state's responsibility to care for them if they get sick or injured. $350,000 surgery and all subsequent medical bills? You get that for free as long as you're facing years in prison when it happens.
So let's say that an 18-year-old football player rapes and murders a young girl and gets sentenced to life in prison. If he lives to 72, the state will have paid $671, 868 to care for him. Should he require that $350,000 surgery at any point in his life, that's over $1 million that has been spent to keep him alive and under government care as long as he lives. With the average life expectancy in the United States and the knowledge that the prisoners will get regular meals and proper health care without ever needing to worry about the price, each prisoner who's facing life can easily end up with the state spending hundreds of thousands on them.
Regarding the cost of the death penalty that organizations like Amnesty International mention, they admit that the vast majority comes from the actual case and not the execution. Injecting someone with a cocktail of drugs or shooting him in the medulla is cheap. The expensive stuff is what has to be paid by the state for the trial and pretrial.
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
Er, why?
I should point out that the way to stop murderers from being released is to give them longer sentences and deny them parole. Thus you keep them away from the outside world and don't have to take a life. But otherwise your post really shows what the death penalty is about: revenge. A life for a life. It's an understandable reaction, but merely a visceral one.http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
Er, why?
A taking of a life can only be equaled to a taking of a life, want to castrate those guys, cut their balls off, fine. The death penalty should only be used in the taking of life when a life has been stolen.
Now for the reason I am pro-death:
I don't believe in a afterlife, I believe this there is this life and that's it. So imagine walking down the street one day, living your normal life and going up to the store a block a half mile away....and then suddenly it's over. Someone decided your life was worthless in comparsion to your money and credit cards and shot you in the head. That's overly bullshit for anyone and the fact is, if a person's done it once, they'll do it again. A person's life who had no reason to die will always outweigh a person who kills them for personal benefit or to get their rocks off. Killing a murderer insures there will never be any more victims other then the first ones, it's a preventive measure (http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html). I rather look like a monster and save lives in the future then allow these real monsters even the improable chance of them managing to get out and kill again while the highrollers make themselves feel good by not killing them.
Apart from the whole "what if we made a mistake" thing, I personally have an objection to the Death penalty. The State says murder is wrong and then commits it. Because make no mistake that is exactly what the Death Penalty is - State sanctioned murder. I want to live in a State that is not murderous. Then again some people think that prison itself is bad and we should be like the Romans, basically monetary penalties or slavery for most things, death for the rest and no prisons at all.The way I look at it is, if someone attacks you with a knife, trying to kill you, you fight back and kill them in the struggle, that's self defense. But if you wrestle the attacker to the ground, disarm him, pin him down so he can't hurt you any more, think about it for a minute, and THEN you kill him, that's murder.
http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Police-St-Charles-child-sex-abuse-case-one-of-the-worst-theyve-ever-seen-156119115.html)
Read about that case. It's one of those litmus test things, it's so bad. Some acts are so heinous, it is hard to argue the high road, that society should be above capital punishment, that death is not a justified sentence. I don't think very many death sentences are really necessary, but some just are.
No one was killed in that case. Therefore a death sentence is unjustified in that case. "Eye for an eye" is the way to go.
Er, why?
A taking of a life can only be equaled to a taking of a life, want to castrate those guys, cut their balls off, fine. The death penalty should only be used in the taking of life when a life has been stolen.
Now for the reason I am pro-death:
I don't believe in a afterlife, I believe this there is this life and that's it. So imagine walking down the street one day, living your normal life and going up to the store a block a half mile away....and then suddenly it's over. Someone decided your life was worthless in comparsion to your money and credit cards and shot you in the head. That's overly bullshit for anyone and the fact is, if a person's done it once, they'll do it again. A person's life who had no reason to die will always outweigh a person who kills them for personal benefit or to get their rocks off. Killing a murderer insures there will never be any more victims other then the first ones, it's a preventive measure (http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html). I rather look like a monster and save lives in the future then allow these real monsters even the improable chance of them managing to get out and kill again while the highrollers make themselves feel good by not killing them.
If it's proven that some guy rapes a small child, then I say lock his ass in a cell and drive him bonkers. Torture his ass! "Cruel and unusual punishment", you say? Raping children is cruel and unusual! I wanna see him suffer!And that's why the Eighth Amendment exists ;D
I think I'm one of those weirdos that is more prone to argue against the death penalty, but not because of human error or corruption (though, those do happen and are good reasons against it), but because I think it's too goddamn swift of a punishment!
If it's proven that some guy rapes a small child, then I say lock his ass in a cell and drive him bonkers. Torture his ass! "Cruel and unusual punishment", you say? Raping children is cruel and unusual! I wanna see him suffer!
If it's proven that some guy rapes a small child, then I say lock his ass in a cell and drive him bonkers. Torture his ass! "Cruel and unusual punishment", you say? Raping children is cruel and unusual! I wanna see him suffer!And that's why the Eighth Amendment exists ;D
I think I'm one of those weirdos that is more prone to argue against the death penalty, but not because of human error or corruption (though, those do happen and are good reasons against it), but because I think it's too goddamn swift of a punishment!
If it's proven that some guy rapes a small child, then I say lock his ass in a cell and drive him bonkers. Torture his ass! "Cruel and unusual punishment", you say? Raping children is cruel and unusual! I wanna see him suffer!
Depending on what they did, they're not really going to suffer. For the rest of their life, at a minimum, they have all of their food and health needs taken care of without having to lift a finger. Life in prison's hard, but the state takes care of them. If they did bad enough to be booted into solitary confinement and are only let out for 1 hour of the day, they're safe from any other inmates who may want to abuse them and they still get things like books and music players given to them (so it's not just sitting in a dark cell and being miserable until they hang themselves with their bedsheets).
Also, the whole "I want them to suffer!" bit is another reason why emotional knee jerks aren't allowed in lawmaking.
Here's an excellent article (http://betweenthebars.org/posts/10568/magazine-article-rolling-stone-slow-motion-torture) on solitary confinement that appeared in Rolling Stone. I tried to find a free copy and this scan is the best I could do, but it's quite easy to read at least. Here's a piece (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/donald-o-hebb-effects-extreme-isolation) on the psychological effects of extreme isolation from Mother Jones.I think I'm one of those weirdos that is more prone to argue against the death penalty, but not because of human error or corruption (though, those do happen and are good reasons against it), but because I think it's too goddamn swift of a punishment!
If it's proven that some guy rapes a small child, then I say lock his ass in a cell and drive him bonkers. Torture his ass! "Cruel and unusual punishment", you say? Raping children is cruel and unusual! I wanna see him suffer!
Depending on what they did, they're not really going to suffer. For the rest of their life, at a minimum, they have all of their food and health needs taken care of without having to lift a finger. Life in prison's hard, but the state takes care of them. If they did bad enough to be booted into solitary confinement and are only let out for 1 hour of the day, they're safe from any other inmates who may want to abuse them and they still get things like books and music players given to them (so it's not just sitting in a dark cell and being miserable until they hang themselves with their bedsheets).
Also, the whole "I want them to suffer!" bit is another reason why emotional knee jerks aren't allowed in lawmaking.
Uhh, Chitoryu, solitary isn't a bed of fucking roses. Yeah, you'd be safe from everyone else, but isolation will REALLY fuck with your mind in horrible ways. I spent the first six months in the house in which I currently live almost completely alone. My mom and brother both worked, and their schedules were such that I didn't usually wake in time to talk to them, and went to bed before they got home. My dad spent almost all his time at my aunt's house down the road, and we had no internet, so I was pretty much completely cut off from people for half a year.
Wanna know what that did to me? It nearly drove me fucking insane in ways which I'm still recovering from, nearly 5 years later. Humans are social creatures, we by and large need other humans, or we lose our god damned minds.
Depending on what they did, they're not really going to suffer. For the rest of their life, at a minimum, they have all of their food and health needs taken care of without having to lift a finger. Life in prison's hard, but the state takes care of them. If they did bad enough to be booted into solitary confinement and are only let out for 1 hour of the day, they're safe from any other inmates who may want to abuse them and they still get things like books and music players given to them (so it's not just sitting in a dark cell and being miserable until they hang themselves with their bedsheets).
Depending on what they did, they're not really going to suffer. For the rest of their life, at a minimum, they have all of their food and health needs taken care of without having to lift a finger. Life in prison's hard, but the state takes care of them. If they did bad enough to be booted into solitary confinement and are only let out for 1 hour of the day, they're safe from any other inmates who may want to abuse them and they still get things like books and music players given to them (so it's not just sitting in a dark cell and being miserable until they hang themselves with their bedsheets).
I read that and have to ask you this. It sounds like you're saying prison is kind of a sweet gig, what with the state taking care of you and all. So am I misreading that?
Man this thread makes prison seem kinda decent. Now I'm tempted to kill people.
You're making a strawman of it. Is prison good? Not at all. It can be dangerous if you're among the general population, you're obviously lacking almost all freedom and entertainment, the food is crap, and conditions are uncomfortable.
But it's not a horror story, either. You're always fed and watered and you get full medical care, all without having to work for it. In fact, huge numbers of prisoners end up relapsing and going back to jail (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35263313/ns/business-careers/#.UU5Tgxw3shQ) because their felony convictions keep them from getting jobs (especially in this tight economy). At least behind bars, they don't starve. And they get free healthcare.
Colorado's tough sex offender laws are supposed to keep predators under tight supervision.
But a series of lawsuits claim that the system is violating even minor offenders' rights to free speech and association, prohibiting contact with family members -- and, in one particularly bizarre case, telling a 62-year-old man that a discussion with a stepdaughter about her pregnancy constitutes unlawful "third party contact with a child."
QuoteColorado's tough sex offender laws are supposed to keep predators under tight supervision.
But a series of lawsuits claim that the system is violating even minor offenders' rights to free speech and association, prohibiting contact with family members -- and, in one particularly bizarre case, telling a 62-year-old man that a discussion with a stepdaughter about her pregnancy constitutes unlawful "third party contact with a child."
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2013/03/civil-rights-lawsuits-attack-excesses.html
Can anyone here who supports such "one size fits all" approaches to sex offenses tell me what purpose is served by forcing a woman to remove all pictures of her grandchildren from her house when her husband is convicted of an offense that doesn't involve children? Of calling discussing an adult's pregnancy "unlawful third-party contact with a child"?
For that matter, can anyone here tell me what purpose is served by treating all sex offenders as if they were violent serial pedophiles?
QuoteColorado's tough sex offender laws are supposed to keep predators under tight supervision.
But a series of lawsuits claim that the system is violating even minor offenders' rights to free speech and association, prohibiting contact with family members -- and, in one particularly bizarre case, telling a 62-year-old man that a discussion with a stepdaughter about her pregnancy constitutes unlawful "third party contact with a child."
http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2013/03/civil-rights-lawsuits-attack-excesses.html
Can anyone here who supports such "one size fits all" approaches to sex offenses tell me what purpose is served by forcing a woman to remove all pictures of her grandchildren from her house when her husband is convicted of an offense that doesn't involve children? Of calling discussing an adult's pregnancy "unlawful third-party contact with a child"?
For that matter, can anyone here tell me what purpose is served by treating all sex offenders as if they were violent serial pedophiles?
It makes the politicians look as if they're doing something about those few who are violent serial pedophiles.
Though everyone remember to wrap a bandana around your face, we're jacking this thread!Hell yeah!
“If it saves one child….” Even though we cannot know if “it” has, that statement is responsible for the abuse and even death of many children.
There is no actual evidence that the registry has saved even one child; however, we do know that many, many thousands have had their lives made a living hell because of it. These are the children of those on the registry, some of whom committed violent crimes, but many, even most, who did not. All on the registry, with their families, are subject to the whims of local and state restrictions including, but by no means limited to, severe restrictions on where they may live; denial of access to libraries, parks and beaches with their children; and restrictions barring the registered parent from often even being within a 1000 feet of the school his child attends. Very recently a woman took the picture of a registrant that she printed from the Internet to the school where the registrant’s five-year-old son was a kindergarten student; she showed it around, warning children about this man. His little boy stood and cried. The registry doesn’t differentiate. It doesn’t make it clear to people who threaten, harass, and do physical violence to registrants, their property, and their families whether daddy raped someone or whether he had sex with mommy before they were married when she was a year too young or whether he looked at an illegal image on a computer or whether he was innocent and falsely accused. And, sadly, most don’t really care. The perception is that everyone on the registry has committed a serious crime and that most if not all offended against children. And if they have children of their own who are harmed, as so many have been and so many more will be, it is just collateral damage because the registry might—MIGHT—save one child.
“If it saves one child….” Children themselves are registrants on sex offender registries. Nine years old is apparently the youngest at which children have been put on the registry (Delaware; Michigan). (1) Several states, including but not limited to Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Michigan, and Texas, register children as sexual criminals at ages ten and eleven. By the time twelve is reached, it isn’t even a rarity. And the fifteen year old who is the child victim for having consensual sex with an eighteen year old partner becomes a predator and registered sex offender when his or her partner is fourteen. In Wisconsin last year a district attorney did everything he could, and bragged about it, to have a six year old prosecuted and targeted for sex offender registration for “playing doctor.”(2) Three year olds caught looking at and touching each other in a daycare bathroom were reported and investigated for “sexual fondling.”(3) Some of these children, after several years of being on the registry and treated as monsters, have committed suicide. The registry didn’t save any of these children; it destroyed them.