Now this is disturbing

[Halo_n_horns]

I realize I'm joining this discussion pretty late in game, but someone made the distinction earlier in the thread about "true" sex offenders...

I have no problem with "true sex offenders" (those who have been convicted of forceable rape, child molestations, etc.) being shunned from any type of public services or shelters in a time of crisis. Except in times when starvation becomes eminant, then they should be accepted with open arms and readied meat cleavers.

Let's also not forget that in many states something as simple as sodomy is illegal and can get someone a "sex offender" status. So how are we supposed to tell the ones who raped a man, woman or child from the one who was just having a good night with a vindictive person?

 

[BlackShanglan]

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.

I agree entirely. I would much rather see more frequent checks on those who committed serious sexual crimes, and more flexibility in the definitions and restrictions. Personally, I'm still worried about habitual flashers and peepers - often they are rehearsing for something bigger. But if the judge could take circumstances into account, s/he could probably reasonably discriminate between a drunken frat boy mooning his buddies and a creep hanging around the school yard exposing himself to little kids.

Of course, to play devil's advocate, there's a reason why the law is as stringent and inflexible as it is in some places. In the past, judges have not always used their powers reasonably - as in the case of one who described the ten-year-old female plaintiff in a statutory rape case as "seductive" when handing down a non-custodial sentence to the adult male who'd had sex with her. It's always a tricky and frustrating practice trying to legislate humans into being reasonable animals.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I agree entirely. I would much rather see more frequent checks on those who committed serious sexual crimes, and more flexibility in the definitions and restrictions. Personally, I'm still worried about habitual flashers and peepers - often they are rehearsing for something bigger. But if the judge could take circumstances into account, s/he could probably reasonably discriminate between a drunken frat boy mooning his buddies and a creep hanging around the school yard exposing himself to little kids.

Of course, to play devil's advocate, there's a reason why the law is as stringent and inflexible as it is in some places. In the past, judges have not always used their powers reasonably - as in the case of one who described the ten-year-old female plaintiff in a statutory rape case as "seductive" when handing down a non-custodial sentence to the adult male who'd had sex with her. It's always a tricky and frustrating practice trying to legislate humans into being reasonable animals.

A seductive ten year old? That judge needs might need to register as a sex offender before the seductive girl gets to puberty.

 

[BlackShanglan]

A seductive ten year old? That judge needs might need to register as a sex offender before the seductive girl gets to puberty.

That was my thought. The blind leading the blind - in this case, away from the prison door and back into society.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think everybody is in agreement that there is a big difference between nuisance offenders like the streaker or the mooner or the drunk who had to pee, and habitual criminals like rapists and child molesters. However, the molester and the rapist don't have that much in common. Under no circumstances should a child molester be allowed around children, such as being a school bus driver or a janitor in a school. However, a man who has raped several middle-aged women might be another matter. Of course, both types of foul scum should be in prison for as long as possible, but when they are released, after serving every second of their sentences, they should be regarded differently.

The hair splitting can go a lot further. In some state, two consenting adults who have anal or oral sex can be convicted of a sex crime. If such persons are convicted, do their time and go to a state where such acts are not illegal, are they still sex offenders. The label carries over from one jurisdiction to another but in this case it is pretty silly.

How about a person who has consensual sex with a 16 year old where the age of consent is 18? If, after realease from prison, that person goes to a state where the age of consent is 16, is he or she still a sex offender?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I agree entirely. I would much rather see more frequent checks on those who committed serious sexual crimes, and more flexibility in the definitions and restrictions. Personally, I'm still worried about habitual flashers and peepers - often they are rehearsing for something bigger. But if the judge could take circumstances into account, s/he could probably reasonably discriminate between a drunken frat boy mooning his buddies and a creep hanging around the school yard exposing himself to little kids.

Of course, to play devil's advocate, there's a reason why the law is as stringent and inflexible as it is in some places. In the past, judges have not always used their powers reasonably - as in the case of one who described the ten-year-old female plaintiff in a statutory rape case as "seductive" when handing down a non-custodial sentence to the adult male who'd had sex with her. It's always a tricky and frustrating practice trying to legislate humans into being reasonable animals.

That's why judge should be an elective office, so assholes like him or her can be kicked off the bench.

 

[Lisa Denton]

That was my thought. The blind leading the blind - in this case, away from the prison door and back into society.

I would like a sex offender register for judges who give these lenient sentences, re-rape the victim in the courtroom, and figure what the hell, the suspect probably won't do it again. So we could look on a web site or something and know which judges need removed from office. And they should definitely include when a judge descibes a ten year old as seductive. He's a pig.

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's why judge should be an elective office, so assholes like him or her can be kicked off the bench.

But who really pays attention to campaigns for judicial seats?

 

[rgraham666]

But who really pays attention to campaigns for judicial seats?

The people with an ax to grind or an ideological agenda to impose.

We bitch all the time about how poorly we're served by our elected officials. I wonder what makes us think we'll vote more wisely for judges than we will for our legislative representatives and our executive officeholders?

 

[Boxlicker101]

But who really pays attention to campaigns for judicial seats?

If a judge constantly makes stupid decisions or pisses people off with edicts like the one described here or is excessively lenient on criminalls, the voters will know. If nothing else, local newspapers will keep track.

 

[The_Darkness]

If a judge constantly makes stupid decisions or pisses people off with edicts like the one described here or is excessively lenient on criminalls, the voters will know. If nothing else, local newspapers will keep track.

Makes me think that sometimes vigilantism (sp?) wasn't such a bad thing.....an armed society is a polite society....

 

[rgraham666]

Makes me think that sometimes vigilantism (sp?) wasn't such a bad thing.....an armed society is a polite society....

Oh? (Thinks of the Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia)

A pretty theory, but not true, in my opinion.

 

[Guest]

Makes me think that sometimes vigilantism (sp?) wasn't such a bad thing.....an armed society is a polite society....

One person is intelligent and is able to think rationally (well, we hope so, anyway).

But a mob of people are stupid, irrational, and would probably wind up hurting or killing someone who wasn't even involved.

And then how is the mob better than the killer?

(Which is a shame, because the bastard probably got what he deserved, but still. It's better dealt with in the courts.)

 

[The_Darkness]

Oh? (Thinks of the Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia)

A pretty theory, but not true, in my opinion.

True enough....the Old West wasn't a pretty place either....but you have to admit, for the serial rapists and other hardcore sexual deviants that are out and about, a simplier solution would be summary execution or life in prison working on a chain gang or making lisence plates....

 

[SeaCat]

Many people here have made comments dealing with the inherent problems in the identification and clasification of Sexual Offenders in the United States. You have even come up with some interesting and I think workable solutions to these problems. Solutions which unfortunately I don't think will ever show up in our laws for a very simple reason. It would be political suicide to try and pass these changes, especially now under this government of self proclaimed Moralists. We can hope that one day the United States Government will be cured of it's Rectal Cranial Inversion and start thinking things through as they pertain to their interference in peoples lives.

Cat

 

[The_Darkness]

Many people here have made comments dealing with the inherent problems in the identification and clasification of Sexual Offenders in the United States. You have even come up with some interesting and I think workable solutions to these problems. Solutions which unfortunately I don't think will ever show up in our laws for a very simple reason. It would be political suicide to try and pass these changes, especially now under this government of self proclaimed Moralists. We can hope that one day the United States Government will be cured of it's Rectal Cranial Inversion and start thinking things through as they pertain to their interference in peoples lives.

Cat

Unfortunately, RCI is a very serious and debilitation condition that seems to affect all persons of power.

If a man is uncondtionally, unquestionably guilty of commiting a henious sex crime, I came up with a solution that would work for either making smarter criminals or for ending rape and child molestation in a matter of a decade. It falls under the US's "Cruel and Unusual" punishment, but we need prison reform like no other over here anyway. Damn prisoners have it better off than *I* do. Except the whole anal violation in the shower deal. I still have the long end of the stick on that....

 

[SeaCat]

Unfortunately, RCI is a very serious and debilitation condition that seems to affect all persons of power.

If a man is uncondtionally, unquestionably guilty of commiting a henious sex crime, I came up with a solution that would work for either making smarter criminals or for ending rape and child molestation in a matter of a decade. It falls under the US's "Cruel and Unusual" punishment, but we need prison reform like no other over here anyway. Damn prisoners have it better off than *I* do. Except the whole anal violation in the shower deal. I still have the long end of the stick on that....

If your idea for punishment for commision of a heinous sex crime is anything like mine it would cut it down in considerably less than a decade. (Damn no smiley for Evil Grin!)

Cat

 

[Boxlicker101]

One person is intelligent and is able to think rationally (well, we hope so, anyway).

But a mob of people are stupid, irrational, and would probably wind up hurting or killing someone who wasn't even involved.

And then how is the mob better than the killer?

(Which is a shame, because the bastard probably got what he deserved, but still. It's better dealt with in the courts.)

Sarahh, you seem to be confusing vigalantes with a lynch mob. Lynchers, and here I am NOT referring to those who are racially motivated, basically push the law aside and hang or otherwise kill somebody they perceive as guilty of a heinous crime. Racially motivated lynchers kill people for being of a different race, usually making up some other reason for it.

Vigilantes, on the othere hand, step in when the legal authorities is too corrupt or feeble or ineffective to do what they should. If a person is known to be committing serious crimes but can't be touched, for whatever reason, sometimes a group of citizens will get together, abduct the person and accuse him or her. The accused is usually allowed to mount a defense but the vigilantes usually know the facts already, and act on them. Some legal niceties are usually brushed aside but guilt or innocense is not one of them.

Vigilantes generally agree that it would be better to let the courts decide but when the courts do nothing, that's when they step in.,

 

[Guest]

Sarahh, you seem to be confusing vigalantes with a lynch mob. Lynchers, and here I am NOT referring to those who are racially motivated, basically push the law aside and hang or otherwise kill somebody they perceive as guilty of a heinous crime. Racially motivated lynchers kill people for being of a different race, usually making up some other reason for it.

Vigilantes, on the othere hand, step in when the legal authorities is too corrupt or feeble or ineffective to do what they should. If a person is known to be committing serious crimes but can't be touched, for whatever reason, sometimes a group of citizens will get together, abduct the person and accuse him or her. The accused is usually allowed to mount a defense but the vigilantes usually know the facts already, and act on them. Some legal niceties are usually brushed aside but guilt or innocense is not one of them.

Vigilantes generally agree that it would be better to let the courts decide but when the courts do nothing, that's when they step in.,

I hear what you are saying Box, but I still don't see a great deal of difference between the two groups.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hear what you are saying Box, but I still don't see a great deal of difference between the two groups.

The difference is that, in one case, the legally constituted authorities never get a chance to act while in the other, they refuse to act or are unable to act.

Here is a (I hope) hypothetical situation. John Couey, who abducted the nine year old girl in Florida and repeatedly raped and tortured her before burying her alive, goes to trial. The judge rules the confession and everything stemming from it to be illegal and dismisses the case against him, letting him walk away. An aroused mob of citizens catches up to him and hangs him from a tree. That would be vigilante action because the courts refused to act or were unable to act.

If, however, he were to bail out somehow, and that enraged mob hanged him before he went to court, that would be lynching.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Here are a number of different ideas for dealing with pedophiles and institutions that condone or ignore pedophile behavior. Intriguing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/16/hamilton.child.support/index.html

 

[minsue]

....an armed society is a polite society....

As a citizen of an armed society, which it seems the current legislature tried to arm further with every bill this session, I can tell you that's not quite true. Don't y'all have guns in IA?

 

[bridgeburner]

They don't deserve a refund.

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

The most abundant sex offenses don't require jail time much less prision - ie, pissing in an alley, flashing, using an opposite gender bathroom facility, buying porn through the mail in a county where it's prohibited, buying or selling sex toys or "marital aids" in a county where such is prohibited, drinking alcohol in a full-nude establishment, buying or selling or even soliciting consensual sex acts for money.

There are a hell of a lot more of these people out there than there are child molesters and they all pay taxes.

-B

 

[Boxlicker101]

The most abundant sex offenses don't require jail time much less prision - ie, pissing in an alley, flashing, using an opposite gender bathroom facility, buying porn through the mail in a county where it's prohibited, buying or selling sex toys or "marital aids" in a county where such is prohibited, drinking alcohol in a full-nude establishment, buying or selling or even soliciting consensual sex acts for money.

There are a hell of a lot more of these people out there than there are child molesters and they all pay taxes.

-B

I think we have all concluded that there is a difference between those offenders you mention and serial rapists and pedophiles. That would especially apply to offenses involving porn because we are producers of porn, although it is provided free.

 

[Guest]

The most abundant sex offenses don't require jail time much less prision - ie, pissing in an alley, flashing, using an opposite gender bathroom facility, buying porn through the mail in a county where it's prohibited, buying or selling sex toys or "marital aids" in a county where such is prohibited, drinking alcohol in a full-nude establishment, buying or selling or even soliciting consensual sex acts for money.

There are a hell of a lot more of these people out there than there are child molesters and they all pay taxes.

-B

Yes, exactly what Box said.

We all agree there is a major difference between the two types of molesters and that the law should be changed to properly identify dangerous predators of children (or women, from serial rapists, for example).

That is the type of person who should not be allowed.