Now this is disturbing

[cloudy]

I know the article says "offenders and predators" but I can't believe they would apply the same law to some gy who pissed in an alley or a woman who took off her pasties while dancing on a stage in a bar or otherwise harmless individuals.

Believe it, because when they are registered as a sex offender, that's usually all the info that anyone has, not what they were actually convicted of.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have to say, you know when someone serves their sentence, they should be allowed back into society.

If we really feel these crimes are so horrible that sex offenders should not be in the general population, change the law and never let them out.

I don't think y9ou can help them. I don't think they shuld ever be allowed out. But that opinion isn't the majority opinion, so changeing the law isn't a practical reality.

I'm inflexible on this isue. I see no reason to risk another child being hurt by a predator.

But, I am admittedly inflexible and incapable of rational debate.

My opinion has been voiced, and I will leve it at that.

 

[Guest]

Believe it, because when they are registered as a sex offender, that's usually all the info that anyone has, not what they were actually convicted of.

Then perhaps that is what needs to be changed.

It's ridiculous that a serial pedophile or a rapist can have the same classification as a high school kid mooning his friends on a school bus.

Extended prison sentences, tracking bracelets, what more can be done with sexual predators?

 

[BlackShanglan]

I have to say, you know when someone serves their sentence, they should be allowed back into society.

If we really feel these crimes are so horrible that sex offenders should not be in the general population, change the law and never let them out.

Sex offenders, or more precisely rapists and pedophiles, have a very high rate of re-offense. As the police pointed out when my mother's town was being stalked by a serial rapist, most rapists are serial offenders. They just don't always achieve such a high degree of visibility and notoriety, or follow such a distinctive MO.

And so with pedophile offenders. Many of them do not appear able to control their actions. The only ones I've heard speak who really admitted to themselves the severity of their crimes and the responsibility they bore stated that they could not be left alone with children and recognized that they had to be constantly vigilant and rely on the awareness of other adults and relatives to help prevent them from ever being placed in that position. The one with whom I am personally familiar, a friend in better times, begged the police to put him away before he offended again. When they came to arrest him the last time, he'd drunk drain cleaner and slashed his wrists. He survived, pled guilty immediately, and went to prison with, I suspect, some relief that that happened before he progressed to rape or worse.

The point here is that some people genuinely cannot control themselves, however much they might hate the actions they take. My friend would be the first person to tell you that he does not belong in a shelter with children. It is too great a risk to them, and I suspect he would think it too great a risk to his own sanity and remaining shreds of moral nature. It would be good for the counties to provide some sort of alternate adults-only shelter, but it would also be good for those who know their weaknesses to plan for them - like the local man who explained to reporters covering the county's Halloween policy that he always, always spent that day with several other adults who knew his background. There are many possible ways to handle the problem, but placing sex offenders in close quarters with small children in a confusing emergency situation is not the right way.

I will add, too, that we should be cautious about rolling back the "sex offender" designation. I agree, one drunken piss in a less-than-dark alley at 19 does not a predator make. However, there are strong correlations between flashing/"peeping Tom" behavior and more severe sexual offenses. Some "minor" offenders are boundary-testing, and can escalate if they find that they enjoy breaking those boundaries.

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

Then perhaps that is what needs to be changed.

It's ridiculous that a serial pedophile or a rapist can have the same classification as a high school kid mooning his friends on a school bus.

Extended prison sentences, tracking bracelets, what more can be done with sexual predators?

One thing would be to put them with the general prison population. Those few that survived would be too crippled to do anything after they got out. That's pedophiles. Rapists would not be treated any worse than most other felons.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Then perhaps that is what needs to be changed.

It's ridiculous that a serial pedophile or a rapist can have the same classification as a high school kid mooning his friends on a school bus.

Extended prison sentences, tracking bracelets, what more can be done with sexual predators?

Possibly recognize it as a currently incurable form of insanity and create some sort of sanitarium system? The ugly truth of that, though, is that there are just too many for most states to be willing to house and feed them all permanently.

Hard to know what to do with someone you can never really trust again.

Shanglan

 

[TheEarl]

I know the article says "offenders and predators" but I can't believe they would apply the same law to some gy who pissed in an alley or a woman who took off her pasties while dancing on a stage in a bar or otherwise harmless individuals.

I'd be considered a sex offender, if I'd been caught. No-one would care what my crime was, I'd just be on the List of Sex Offenders here in the UK. And I wouldn't even be on the list for flashing, I'd be on there for child molestation.

I had consensual groping of my 14y/o gf when I was 16. Had I been 'caught' (and assuming that the police would give a damn) I could be in this group.

Agreed wholeheartedly that paedophiles should not be anywhere near children and that they should have separate shelters if possible. But the law does not distinguish between sex offenders and saying that all sex offenders must fend for themselves is more than a little worrying.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Now this is truly disturbing. While I can in some ways understand where the people are coming from it still seems wrong to me.Banned

Cat

six years ago, i would have agreed with you. but when i found out that my (ex)husband was a child molester...well, i think you can see where im coming from. i didnt kill him but i wouldnt have too much trouble watching him struggle to find a safe haven in a hurricane and would not hesitate throwing the lock on the door to keep him out. simply put, if i couldn't see what he was doing then...how the fuck would i see it now? too many temptations placed in view...never a good thing.
besides which, once you've been a sexual predator, proven...there is NO cure.

 

[impressive]

I am not torn in the least. This behavior absolutely sickens me.

First, there are the distinctions already mentioned. I know a young man who struggles daily to find work, find a place to live, etc. because he is listed on the registry due to drunken sex with two 16-year-old girls he met in a BAR. He was 21 at the time. It was consensual sex. One of the girl's parents went ballistic, though, and pushed the issue.

Second, there's the issue of rehabilitation. If we don't believe in it, why in the hell are we spending so much money on prisons? Why not just execute 'em all as soon as they're convicted? Or, if that causes some heartburn in a few, perhaps we could send 'em all to an island somewhere in exile and fail to provide the tools for their survival. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Liar]

My tongue is bleeding. Been biting it all through the thread. Will continue to do so.

 

[TheEarl]

My tongue is bleeding. Been biting it all through the thread. Will continue to do so.

Praeteritio? C'mon Liar, we won't judge. Say what's behind your teeth.

The Earl

 

[Lisa Denton]

The laws need to be changed, a guy takin a piss alone in an alley is a drunk, not a sex offender. A 16yo boy having consensual sex with a 14yo girl is not a sex offender, I can see the parents point of view, he might require some probation monitoring to make sure he does not become a 21yo man having any type of sex with a 14yo girl, but at 16 he is not a sex offender when it is consensual.

The sex offender registration needs to be changed, vicious serial rapists and repeat child molesters should have a special classification.

I think they should have "PIG" tattooed on thier forehead and should be staked out on the beach when a hurricane approaches, but that is just me.

From the link mismused posted:
**************************************************************
Schwartzmiller apparently did not register as a sex offender, so his history did not appear in the "Megan's Law" databases in California or other states, authorities said.

"It's as shocking to me as to you," said Sgt. Tom Sims, a supervisor with the department's child exploitation division. "I've never seen anything like this."

Although police said Schwartzmiller appears to have spent much of the past 30 years in California, he has been arrested on child molestation charges in New York, Arkansas and Washington. He also served prison time in Idaho for child molestation in the late 1970s, and is wanted in Oregon on sexual assault charges involving a minor.
************************************************************

This guy is suspected of molesting hundreds or thousands of children. The criminally incompetent supervisor of the child exploitation division is "shocked", as he sits on his fat ass eating donuts. He should be "fired" for not knowing this guy lived in his juristiction and had not registered.

It makes you wonder if the police have nothing but video games on thier computers, and why the hell judges aren't fired and/or thrown in jail when a man is arrested in Washington for child molestation, after being arrested in New York and Arkansas for the same thing, and spending time in prison, for the same thing, and (duh) of course he is wanted in Oregon, FOR THE SAME THING. Why the hell was he released after his arrest in Washington?

When I get pulled over for speeding they know I had a speeding ticket when I was 16, but I suppose that is much more serious than rape or child molestation, so it is in thier computers.

The laws need to be changed, and the sex offender registration needs to be changed, of course a person got drunk and pissed in an alley should be allowed in a hurricane shelter, but if you give a vicious serial rapist or repeat child molester "shelter in a storm" with women and children, you are not just stupid, but criminally insane.

Just my opinion.

Have a nice day

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'd be considered a sex offender, if I'd been caught. No-one would care what my crime was, I'd just be on the List of Sex Offenders here in the UK. And I wouldn't even be on the list for flashing, I'd be on there for child molestation.

I had consensual groping of my 14y/o gf when I was 16. Had I been 'caught' (and assuming that the police would give a damn) I could be in this group.

Agreed wholeheartedly that paedophiles should not be anywhere near children and that they should have separate shelters if possible. But the law does not distinguish between sex offenders and saying that all sex offenders must fend for themselves is more than a little worrying.

The Earl

Agreed. Here in the States, the laws vary according to jurisdiction. Some states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that allow leeway in the case of consensual sexual contact between people near the age limit, and I think this a fair thing. That way, someone in The Earl's position would not be registered sex offender. I think that the more we can do to clarify that sort of situation, the better.

Liar, do release your tongue. It's not good, this self-laceration.

I'm deeply torn, myself. I love my cousin's charming, sweet, and innocent children. Should someone choose to harm one of them in that way, I would be enraged. If the crime was a violent one, I would be very keen to shoot that person through the head. Pain, grief, and rage know little rationality. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I have known as a friend someone later incarcerated for sexual contact with a minor. In his case, I honestly believe that he hated what he did and was consumed with self-loathing, but could not control himself. I'm also moved by our own failure. His was not the first story I have heard of someone pleading for help and being told that there was nothing that could be done for him - not even incarceration, until he had offended again. Similarly, I recall, when in England, seeing a woman on television who had worked on a tip line for reporting pedophiles. She had a man call and state that he felt strong urges to engage in such actions. He asked her where he could go for treatment or who he could work with, and she realized that she knew no one. There was nothing to help someone who, appalled by his own desires, honestly sought help to stop them from becoming a reality. That, I think, is a serious problem.

The rational me - the one that hasn't had a family member's life destroyed by such a predator - doesn't want to see us destroy people who may have been born unable to control their own actions. I admit that the island solution has its appeal, but to me as a place where people could go to live in isolation from terrible temptations and try to come to some sort of peace with themselves, with the help and support of a community that recognizes their incapacity and encourages them to go before it's too late.

I do realize that with pedophilia, as with all urges to evil, there are those who act without remorse, and who don't care that they inflict terrible suffering on those around them. Such people I think truly evil, and deserving of the most powerful punishment of the law. But I would like to see something in place for those who do feel shame and horror, and who want to stop themselves from committing some terrible act. We need to give them a place to go, and some hope that if they admit the wretched truth, they'll receive the help they need.

Shanglan

 

[Lisa Denton]

Agreed. Here in the States, the laws vary according to jurisdiction. Some states have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that allow leeway in the case of consensual sexual contact between people near the age limit, and I think this a fair thing. That way, someone in The Earl's position would not be registered sex offender. I think that the more we can do to clarify that sort of situation, the better.

Liar, do release your tongue. It's not good, this self-laceration.

I'm deeply torn, myself. I love my cousin's charming, sweet, and innocent children. Should someone choose to harm one of them in that way, I would be enraged. If the crime was a violent one, I would be very keen to shoot that person through the head. Pain, grief, and rage know little rationality. On the other hand, as I mentioned above, I have known as a friend someone later incarcerated for sexual contact with a minor. In his case, I honestly believe that he hated what he did and was consumed with self-loathing, but could not control himself. I'm also moved by our own failure. His was not the first story I have heard of someone pleading for help and being told that there was nothing that could be done for him - not even incarceration, until he had offended again. Similarly, I recall, when in England, seeing a woman on television who had worked on a tip line for reporting pedophiles. She had a man call and state that he felt strong urges to engage in such actions. He asked her where he could go for treatment or who he could work with, and she realized that she knew no one. There was nothing to help someone who, appalled by his own desires, honestly sought help to stop them from becoming a reality. That, I think, is a serious problem.

The rational me - the one that hasn't had a family member's life destroyed by such a predator - doesn't want to see us destroy people who may have been born unable to control their own actions. I admit that the island solution has its appeal, but to me as a place where people could go to live in isolation from terrible temptations and try to come to some sort of peace with themselves, with the help and support of a community that recognizes their incapacity and encourages them to go before it's too late.

I do realize that with pedophilia, as with all urges to evil, there are those who act without remorse, and who don't care that they inflict terrible suffering on those around them. Such people I think truly evil, and deserving of the most powerful punishment of the law. But I would like to see something in place for those who do feel shame and horror, and who want to stop themselves from committing some terrible act. We need to give them a place to go, and some hope that if they admit the wretched truth, they'll receive the help they need.

Shanglan

Shanglan, the calm, rational part of my little brain agrees with you, but they do have an option, not a pretty one. By wording thier tendancies more towards a threat, and with thier voluntary OK, they can get some help in a mental institution where they are unable to act upon those tendancies. Voluntary commitment is almost unheard of, since it is rarely done, but almost all state institutions have some experience with it. I don't think there is any cure, or help, at this time, to offer them.

So of course our only option is to attempt to help the children they would harm, by protecting them from that person.

You cited one case, extreme, I will do the same.

There is a man here in texas charged with the rape and murder of an eleven year old girl. His lawyers are attempting to have his confession thrown out. The facts are many, not all known, and confusing, but here is what I got out of it so far.

The police were questioning him, since he was staying at the residence where the girl was spending the night with a friend. The police probably thought he was a witness, perhaps saw or heard something. The questioning became more intense and continued for hours. I am sure the police fucked up, but it was not until after he broke down and confessed, that they read him his rights. His bloody fingerprint was found at the place the girls body was hidden, whether that is enough to convict him without the confession is now a huge concern. There is one other piece of evidence.

The coroner confirmed that before the 11yo child was strangled, she was beaten, sexually assaulted, and bitten on the face, his teeth match the bite marks on her face.

He will probably be convicted without the confession, but the admissability of the confession is being argued now. If this man had told anyone he had an urge to do this to a child, I can think of no help he could be given.

I respect you and your views, so I merely passed this on to show you how I think none of us, police, mental health, or anyone, could even understand what he was contemplating, let alone help him. In some cases like this, it is beyond our understanding.

And if this man needed shelter in a storm, I would be unable to give it.

 

[The_Darkness]

I have rather....strict.....views on this subject. I feel that rape is one of the basest crimes one individual can commit upon another, for all the psychological and physical reasons included therein.

If I had things my way, there wouldn't be any re-offenders for rapists.

Child molestation falls into a different category simply because of the Romeo and Juliet type laws Shan and Lisa talked about, but it's just as bad or worse....

Which is probably why I don't write non-consent stories. I'd feel really awful about myself if I got higher than a 2 for the votes. And awful about everyone who voted, too....

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan, the calm, rational part of my little brain agrees with you, but they do have an option, not a pretty one. By wording thier tendancies more towards a threat, and with thier voluntary OK, they can get some help in a mental institution where they are unable to act upon those tendancies. Voluntary commitment is almost unheard of, since it is rarely done, but almost all state institutions have some experience with it. I don't think there is any cure, or help, at this time, to offer them.

I think that voluntary comittal would be an excellent choice, but query whether it's available to most people. The blunt truth of it is that keeping people fully confined in a mental hospital is very expensive, and it's hard to get states to foot the bill - especially when the committal is voluntary and not the result of someone else saying that the person needs to be locked up for the public saftey. The article Sea Cat posted stated that a single county in Florida alone had 1200 offenders on its books - enough to fill half a dozen sanitariums. And those are just the ones who have been caught and convicted. We do not currently have the resources to place that many people in voluntary confinement, and so we don't. Thus people like my friend, or the caller to the tip line in England, are offered no where to go but to prison, and they can't go there until they've already done what they are struggling not to do.

There are people who do terrible things and show no remorse. In the example you gave, for instance, I feel that anyone truly repentant of his actions and truly horrified by urges beyond his control would immediately plead guilty. I'm not saying that willfully evil people don't exist or that we don't need a prison system to deal with them. However, I think we also need a way for people to take themselves out of public life before that sort of thing happens, and I don't feel that the mental care facilities we have now are anything like up to the job.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Change the law to distinguish between "true sex offenders" meaning those who are a threat and those who've just done something stupid. Statutory rape is not really rape, and someone pissing in an alley or mooning his/her friends isn't a threat to anyone. Perhaps in certain cases it would be best to allow the judge presiding to decide whether the offender is truly a danger to others or not. Not what people want to hear, but sometimes, that's the only option.

As for letting them in... Question: If a rapist is a threat, eventhough they've done thier time, who's to decide that someone convicted of murder and done their time isn't also a threat? Yes, there's a difference, but there are also similarities... Emotions, notably fear, are running high, and bad things happen when people get scared. And if the offender's let in, who's to protect he/she from being hurt by another person, someone like the rest of us who want some certainty that the children and adults are safe from thier actions.

Honestly, once the distinction between the different offenders is made, marking the "true offenders" from the idiotic kids and immature bozos (not to offend any circus clowns who may be present and reading), I'd honestly have to say, "fuck 'em, stay outside."

As unfair as we like to see it, certain ideals conflict in certain situations and sooner or later, you've got to look at the big picture and simply say, as unkind as it might be: "You've done such-and-such, and have repaid by the justice systems terms, but you're still a threat, and being fair to you is being unfair to everyone else. I'm sorry, but your actions aren't thier responsibility; you made a choice for whatever reason, and you've got to live with the repercussions, fair or not. These decisions have set you apart from those inside; weather the storm alone."

Cold-hearted? Maybe, but since when do our choices go away? Aren't we asking a lot of people to simply forget the past, eventhough we tend to say that's what people should do?

Q_C

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have rather....strict.....views on this subject. I feel that rape is one of the basest crimes one individual can commit upon another, for all the psychological and physical reasons included therein.

If I had things my way, there wouldn't be any re-offenders for rapists.

Child molestation falls into a different category simply because of the Romeo and Juliet type laws Shan and Lisa talked about, but it's just as bad or worse....

Which is probably why I don't write non-consent stories. I'd feel really awful about myself if I got higher than a 2 for the votes. And awful about everyone who voted, too....

Essentially, I agree with you but I have some reservations. Obviously, forcible rape is reprehensible. Slipping a woman a drug and knocking her out then fucking her without her knowledge or permission is equally reprehensible. On the other hand, there are those, such as Andrea Dworkin, who say that any sex between men and women is rape, even if they are married and both sober and it is completely consensual.

Child molestation is something like that, a matter of degrees. If a 17 year old is in a bar and is carded by the bartender, and the proof if age is accepted, and later leaves with an older person and has sex, that is considered to be statuatory rape in some states. It shouldn't be but it is.

I have written two N/C stories besides some where the non-consent is actually role-playing. In one, the woman was sexually harassed by a male supervisor and in the other, a male teacher was blackmailed into sex by an 18 year old female student. Another is about a man coercing his 18 year old stepdaughter into sex. In all cases, like in every story I have ever written, the sexual activity was enjoyed by all involved. All the people continue the relationship.

 

[The_Darkness]

I have written two N/C stories besides some where the non-consent is actually role-playing. In one, the woman was sexually harassed by a male supervisor and in the other, a male teacher was blackmailed into sex by an 18 year old female student. Another is about a man coercing his 18 year old stepdaughter into sex. In all cases, like in every story I have ever written, the sexual activity was enjoyed by all involved. All the people continue the relationship.

Stuff like that is fine, yeah. And I agree with you that most statatory rape is bullshit and usually state-enforced. I have some strong feelings in condemnation of 90% of "date rape" as well....sometimes its legitimate, most of the time when the lawsuits were really hitting the news it was a girl who was all for it, enjoyed it, but then had second thoughts later. On the flip side, I have an extremely good female friend who was "date raped" by two friends. She started crying in the middle of the act and asked "why are you doing this to me?" and they kept going.

I almost committed a double homicide the night she told me....she made me promise to not drive the 4 hours to her house immediately before she told me over the phone.

But yeah...there's definately some messed up laws reguarding sex offenders, what is a dangerous sex offender, and people who commit sexual crimes that are likely to repeat their actions.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I have some strong feelings in condemnation of 90% of "date rape" as well....sometimes its legitimate, most of the time when the lawsuits were really hitting the news it was a girl who was all for it, enjoyed it, but then had second thoughts later.

I'm curious where you come by your theory and your statistics.

 

[bridgeburner]

The vast majority of sex offenders are not child molesters.
The vast majority of sex offenders are not child molesters.
The vast majority of sex offenders are not child molesters.
The vast majority of sex offenders are not child molesters.
The vast majority of sex offenders are not child molesters.

No matter how many times you say it folks don't want to hear it. They'd rather get hysterical and claim anyone registered as a sex offender is a rapist of little boys and girls.

"Don't bother us with the facts please! We're far more comfortable in our ignorance and hysteria."

An ignorance and hysteria that contributes to the problems, I might add. Lisa has a great idea: setting up safehouses for those who know they have a problem, but this will likely never happen because too many people would rather rail against nature and mete out draconian punishments than actually prevent harm to children. It's a lot more macho to talk about toturing and lynching some pathetic shmoe with screwed up biology than it is to talk about spending our hard earned tax dollars on real remedies.

Speaking of tax dollars I notice that no one has offered to refund any to the folks they're so hot to deny public services to.


-B

 

[Guest]

Speaking of tax dollars I notice that no one has offered to refund any to the folks they're so hot to deny public services to.


-B

They don't deserve a refund.

My tax dollars went to take care of them while they were in prison.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

They don't deserve a refund.

My tax dollars went to take care of them while they were in prison.

*HUGS*

 

[Guest]

*HUGS*

Hugs right back, gorgeous.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I think that voluntary comittal would be an excellent choice, but query whether it's available to most people. The blunt truth of it is that keeping people fully confined in a mental hospital is very expensive, and it's hard to get states to foot the bill - especially when the committal is voluntary and not the result of someone else saying that the person needs to be locked up for the public saftey. The article Sea Cat posted stated that a single county in Florida alone had 1200 offenders on its books - enough to fill half a dozen sanitariums. And those are just the ones who have been caught and convicted. We do not currently have the resources to place that many people in voluntary confinement, and so we don't. Thus people like my friend, or the caller to the tip line in England, are offered no where to go but to prison, and they can't go there until they've already done what they are struggling not to do.

There are people who do terrible things and show no remorse. In the example you gave, for instance, I feel that anyone truly repentant of his actions and truly horrified by urges beyond his control would immediately plead guilty. I'm not saying that willfully evil people don't exist or that we don't need a prison system to deal with them. However, I think we also need a way for people to take themselves out of public life before that sort of thing happens, and I don't feel that the mental care facilities we have now are anything like up to the job.

You are right, I was just bangin my head against the wall lookin for an answer.

I was just thinking if they made it a threat, the cops throw them in for the 72 hour evaluation, they voluntarily stay after being declared "whatever" but of course that doesn't help them, and I have to agree with you our mental care facilities would be overwhelmed and are not up to the job.

But the classification of sex offenders everyone has been talking around and about should be something done LIKE RIGHT FREAKIN NOW. That way the overworked enforcers could blow off checking to see if the guy who pissed in the alley is living next to a school (unless he's peeing in the school alley) and only need to check whether really dangerous ones like rapists and child molesters are following the rules.

It would be easy:
Class One sex offenders- persons who peed in the alley when they were drunk or mooned thier friends.

Class Two sex offenders - violent serial rapists and repeat child molesters.

Something to distinguish between stupidity and satanic evil.

And once that is done I agree with QC that why be fair to the Class Two offender by being unfair to everyone else in a hurricane shelter.

Sometimes I get sick of hearing that the rapist/murderers rights was violated, when no one talks about the VICTIM of the rape/murder and IF THIER RIGHTS MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WHEN THEY WERE BEING RAPED AND KILLED.


Oooooh, I am not really upset at anyone here but this case in texas really bothers me is why I went on and on.

See ya.

Just my opinion.