Another registered sex offender abducts another child

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by JB73
oh so airhead (fitting name) you support the release of molesters (criminals) who have "paid their debt"?

Well, I do at least. You are meted out a punishment for a crime you are convicted of commiting. After you serve that punishment, you have repayed your debt to society, per societies rules. You should regain your basic rights as a citizen.

Yes, I know there are a few rights that you lose.

Originally posted by JB73
you vote people into office who demand these monsters be set free and be given a chance in the local community, yet condem the actions of the monster who was let loose in your community.

Well, not going to get into the voting thing, but every person that has served their court ordered sentence should be allowed to return to society. Either in a program designed to rehabilitate them, or simply on their behavior while incarcerated.

[mora]

Originally posted by Lazerus
I know it's an unpopular position. I will qualify it by saying that I have a personal stake in any child molestation case(vagueness intended). I will also say that a friend of mine was caught having sex with a 17 year old girl. He is required to register as a sex offender. He was 18 when it happened.

Should he be required to announce to his new community that he is a sex offender??

I personaly know an individual that commited lewd acts on a minor. The last incidence was in 1990. He made concerted efforts to change whatever it was that ailed him, successfully.


next post coming soon

Why do you need to lump all "sex offenders" together? IMO a person who has consencual sex with a person who has gone through her/his puberty has nothing to do with a child molester. Neither does a guy who has sex with a sheep.

Nowadays the drug offenders are no longer lumped together, and it makes perfect sense. There's helluva difference between a pot smoker and a heroin dealer.

This is the only problem I have with this kind of registry and hard sentencing.

In this time of moral panic  it's very politically incorrect to draw a line between different kind of "sex offenders", but that would have to be done to make registrys and hard sentencing morally acceptable.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by JB73
why do we have congress making laws about a registered offenders list to be published?

I think lazs is right about this one. The metrosexuals are ruining our womens good name.

Originally posted by JB73
you know there are liberal groups who say that these so called sex offenders have a "right to privacy"? and oppose these lists?

there are child rapists living in almost every community, but unknown because the ACLU says they have a right to privacy.

Anyone that has been convicted of a crime is listed on a public record. Curious about your neighbors? Go check em out. Public declaration of past crimes, of which the citizen has been punished under the law, should not be a requirement. It is detrimental to the idea of returning to society. No matter what the crime.


 

Originally posted by JB73
bleed their hearts for someone who "made a mistake and needs a chance", but the working person with moral values... they're just "predjuice"

Not at all. The rights extended to one are extended to all. Read a few posts up, my friend was one year older than that girl. It just happened to cross a legal line that her parents had the clout to push. He now is required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life for consensual sex with a girl that was a couple of months under the statutory limit of consent in this state. There was no molestation. There was no rape. But he is now required by law to tell his neighbors that he was convicted of a sex offense. If they don't/won't let him explain, he is categorized as a child molester.

The other person I know has put forth the effort to change his life and has become an upstanding member of his community. The circumstaces of his case were much worse than the other person, but he isn't required to register. The knowledge of his past by his peers in his community would undoubtably have an effect on his life. Of course, his history is public record. They could research him and find out quite a bit.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps it is time to get one unified law in your country?

We already have that. It's called The Constitution of the United States of America. It allows only a limited amount of power to the federal government, relying on the states and local government to regulate the populace in a manner not only within the confines of the Constitution, but also with the local citizenry as the major voice.

I'm sure it was working that way somewhere, sometime.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
What Maverick would have posted if he were [Jesse Jackson]
Problem is, you don't debate. You ridicule, berate and pontificate. If you like, an alternative you could postulate. Or even pose questions of an arguement you could relate. You don't do that, that is why you get the responses you tend to negate. It tends to make your replies sound jaded and therefore lack weight. [/Jesse Jackson]

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by mora
Why do you need to lump all "sex offenders" together? IMO a person who has consencual sex with a person who has gone through her/his puberty has nothing to do with a child molester. Neither does a guy who has sex with a sheep.

I kind of half way agree with you. But if an 11 year old girl who started puberty at 9 has sex with an 18 year old, would you consider that wrong? There are so many variables when talking about this issue, it's almost impossible to pinpoint a time in a persons life when they are considered able to make decisions of that nature.

But.....rape is rape, molestation is a synonyme for rape, particularly applied to the rape of children. Rape and consensual sex between two people one year apart are two entirely different things, unless you are talking about sex offender registration lists.......

Originally posted by mora
it's very politically incorrect to draw a line between different kind of "sex offenders", but that would have to be done to make registrys and hard sentencing morally acceptable.

I hate that term, morally acceptable. But it is basically the right idea. There are rights granted to all citizens, even ex-convicts. The idea is that they have repaid their debt to society and are able to expect the same protections from the Constitution as any other citizen.

[mora]

Originally posted by Lazerus
I kind of half way agree with you. But if an 11 year old girl who started puberty at 9 has sex with an 18 year old, would you consider that wrong? There are so many variables when talking about this issue, it's almost impossible to pinpoint a time in a persons life when they are considered able to make decisions of that nature.

But.....rape is rape, molestation is a synonyme for rape, particularly applied to the rape of children. Rape and consensual sex between two people one year apart are two entirely different things, unless you are talking about sex offender registration lists.

All these cases should be considered individually, and the offenders age should also matter. Lets say the 11 year old has consensual sex with a 13 year old, I hardly consider that criminal. Or a 15 year old with a 17 year old. If a 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old it would really depend on the maturity level of both persons involved, that would be a borderline case.

Usually the male is victimised easier. If a 15 old boy has sex with a 18 year old girl nobody will blink an eye, or they will consider the boy lucky.

That's how I and most people I know see these things. It would be totallly absurd to imprison and register these people.

Under the US law I would be a registered sex offender.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Agreed.

A person that would rape or murder anyone has to be mentally ill. How could any sane person commit such an act? Barring spontaneous acts of passion, the act of planning out and commiting such a crime (rape, murder, etc.) automatically puts a person in the 'mentally ill' catagory. That should not automatically exclude them from criminal punishment.

There is, and should be, a measure of mental illness to determine eligibility for the highest punishments allowed.

This guy that raped that little girl for 3 days and then killed her and buried her the back yard DID plan it out--he was a fediddleing JANITOR at her school for a time, and contrived to live across the street from her---thus, he should be considered legally competent

[Airhead]

Originally posted by GScholz
I do however like to debate the issue. .

Really? You're here for the debate?

"Airhead, you may consider this an “antiAmerican rant” if you like you ignorant POS ***hole."

"The rest of your post is ignorant crap."

No you aren't- you're here because you can engage in name calling from the relative safety of your keyboard.

In fact I've NEVER seen you engage in a rational debate- you ALWAYS revert right back to insults and namecalling if people disagree with you.

To debate requires one listen as well as speak.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Lazerus

Anyone that has been convicted of a crime is listed on a public record. Curious about your neighbors? Go check em out. Public declaration of past crimes, of which the citizen has been punished under the law, should not be a requirement. It is detrimental to the idea of returning to society. No matter what the crime.
 

Laz,

for a number of offenses I could agree with you. Given the history  of quite a number of child molesters, and I'm not referring to consensual sex among juviniles of approximate age, they have a poor record when it comes to recidivism. Given that the law is explicit about releasing a convict after completion of a sentence there is no other way for parents to have a reasonable chance of reducing the risk that their child will not be the next victim. You already know that law enforcement cannot act absent an overt criminal act on the part of the offender. There is no other means of granting the folks who live in an area any means of protecting themselves other than knowing a sex offender is in the area. At least at this time as far as I know.

A second point regarding public information. That is one of the earliest tennets set up by the founding fathers who wanted to avoid secret trials and punishment. Making the procedings public is a guarantee that there will not be a kangaroo court routinely handing out sentences to suspects who were not , in this kind of situation, granted the right to a fair trial of his / her peers. stopping the use of public records will go along way to eroding protections granted to the accused prior to conviction and their appeals afterwards. While the accused / convict may certainly not want others to know their record it is a major part of our legal system.

As far as the situation you outlined, there should be some  latitude about consentual activities between older teens. Key words are consentual and older (read mentally / emotionally mature) teens of equivalent age. You and I both know that teens have been having sex with no damage (physical, emotional) for ages beyond counting. That does not fit the intent  of protection from sexual predators. You and I also know that there can be tremendous differences in maturity (not physical) in just a couple years difference in age between the participants that are physically able to engage in sexual activities but not mentally / emotionally ready for the responsibilities that that decision entails.

Where to draw the line? That is a serious situation and I fear there will be no concrete point at which everyone will agree.

[Sandman]

Exactly... the people that prey upon prepubescent children are sick. The people that prey upon postpubescent children are stupid.

Incarceration or sterilization probably won't cure the former. Might as well put them down.

The latter, might realize that this is unaccepatable behavior once they've spent enough time within the penal system.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by GScholz
Are you stupid Benedict?

Thanks for making my point.