Now this is disturbing

[Lisa Denton]

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.

Can we hang the judge too?

Is that a vigilantism, a lynching, or justice?


This is what I keep sayin, also hypothetical, the confession was illegally obtained, the poor suspects rights was violated, he was DONE WRONG. Nobody gives a shit or even mentions the child. WERE HER RIGHTS VIOLATED? Oh sure, I know, its done, forget her and lets try to protect this guy and make sure he is never hungry, without television and has a soft bed to sleep in and pay taxes to pay for him to appeal 50 times.

Yea, and lets pay more taxes to build him a seperate hurricane shelter, because we are soooo fuckin stupid.

I still say, stake him out on the beach when a hurricane is coming.

 

[SlickTony]

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.

I don't think anybody is thinking about the over-20 who had consensual sex with a willing 17YO when they think about sex offenders; yet in some states, people who have done this, and were caught in circumstances where there was someone to make a stink about it, are compelled to register as sex offenders.

Maybe we ought to develop a method of classifying the various offenders, like degrees, or schedules, or something--like they do with misdemeanors, felonies and drugs.

 

[bridgeburner]

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.

But that is not currently the case nor did you specify such when you made your initial statement. The reality is that all sex offenders must register. There are no degrees of severity listed by their registration and even if they carried cards --- which they don't --- there is no description of exactly what their offense was, so they could easily lie and no one would be the wiser.

So, the question stands: as the law currently exists would you across the board deny shelter during a hurricane to all registered sex offenders? You have no way to weed out child molesters and violent rapists from porn purchasers and underage fornicators. You take them all or you take none of them.


I find it just the teeniest bit odd that people are more afraid of child molesters than they are of murderers.

I'm astounded that in a crisis situation, any parent, anywhere would allow his or her child to run around unsupervised in a public shelter secure in the belief that somehow by banning registered sex offenders they've assured the safety of everyone on the inside.

-B

 

[Guest]

This was your initial post:

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

This was mine

They don't deserve a refund.

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

Yours again -

But that is not currently the case nor did you specify such when you made your initial statement. The reality is that all sex offenders must register. There are no degrees of severity listed by their registration and even if they carried cards --- which they don't --- there is no description of exactly what their offense was, so they could easily lie and no one would be the wiser.

So, the question stands: as the law currently exists would you across the board deny shelter during a hurricane to all registered sex offenders? You have no way to weed out child molesters and violent rapists from porn purchasers and underage fornicators. You take them all or you take none of them.


I find it just the teeniest bit odd that people are more afraid of child molesters than they are of murderers.

I'm astounded that in a crisis situation, any parent, anywhere would allow his or her child to run around unsupervised in a public shelter secure in the belief that somehow by banning registered sex offenders they've assured the safety of everyone on the inside.

-B


And mine


There is no ignorance and certainly no hysteria. And I've rarely been accused of ignoring the facts.

I believe my statement about prison makes it clear I am speaking about serious offenders. And we've already stated on this thread, over and over again, that there needs to be a better system of identifying those types of offenders.

Why are you still arguing the same point?

So as the law stands, and if there is no way to tell, I've already said no. Whose rights are more important? Why, those of my children, of course, and all the citizens who are unable to protect themselves.

And I believe that answers your other point. Why are people more afraid of molesters than murderers? Because deep down, a parent's greatest fear is the safety of their child. Child murderers are usually child molesters. People who kill in the course of rape or robbery usually won't prey on children.

I can tell you are not a parent by your last statement.
I'm astounded that in a crisis situation, any parent, anywhere would allow his or her child to run around unsupervised in a public shelter secure in the belief that somehow by banning registered sex offenders they've assured the safety of everyone on the inside.

Are you serious? With my church I helped bring supplies to people in a shelter from a tornado that went through Kansas a few years ago. These people had nothing. The parents were agonized, attempting to locate essentials - money, ID, some sort of transportation, and where to live, as well as attempting to monitor their kids. For the kids, there were no toys, no books, no clothes.

That shelter was not full of lazy parents ignoring their kids. It was full of overworked, extremely worried, completely exhausted adults. And in that condition, especially at night, it would be easy for molesters to prey on kids.

There is nothing else to argue.

 

[Lisa Denton]

But that is not currently the case nor did you specify such when you made your initial statement. The reality is that all sex offenders must register. There are no degrees of severity listed by their registration and even if they carried cards --- which they don't --- there is no description of exactly what their offense was, so they could easily lie and no one would be the wiser.

So, the question stands: as the law currently exists would you across the board deny shelter during a hurricane to all registered sex offenders? You have no way to weed out child molesters and violent rapists from porn purchasers and underage fornicators. You take them all or you take none of them.


I find it just the teeniest bit odd that people are more afraid of child molesters than they are of murderers.

I'm astounded that in a crisis situation, any parent, anywhere would allow his or her child to run around unsupervised in a public shelter secure in the belief that somehow by banning registered sex offenders they've assured the safety of everyone on the inside.

-B

She didn't specify it because it has been repeated too many times to count in this thread, that no one considers violent rapists and child molesters to be anything like other sex offenders, and that the offenders need to be classified according to the offense. That is said, one more time.

In a crises situation, a hurricane, with the chance of power loss and failing back-up generators and flooding, along with the numerous other very likely but totally surprising possibilities, any parent, who allowed child molesters and violent rapists to be in the same shelter as thier children, is an idiot.

No one is safe in a hurricane, allowing child molesters and rapists in gives a whole new meaning to the word "STORM".