Another sex offender story....

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jake

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
374
Location
Central Florida
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/22/sexoffender.custody.ap/index.html



I don't even now what to say about this one. On one hand part of me says that if this guys such a huge danger, then by all means, keep him away from kids. But then again if he's such huge danger why even let him loose (or live for that matter) in the first place. And on the other hand, part of me is disgusted by the thought of taking away someones child.
 
Imin the same boat Jake.

While I feel nothing but disgust for child rapists. I also feel for them that thier child was snatched.

A good workup should be done and if he clears the child should be given back.

Few child molestors are reformed or reformable, but then some are. It is a tough call and I amd torn. Much as I hate child molestors I can see both sides arguments.
 
in a perfect world, This dirtbag would've not been stealing oxygen after a rape and sodomy conviction, or at the very least he would've lacked the equipment to have a 2nd offence or create a baby.

Ever see sin city with bruce willis?? i like the part when he corners the child rapist guy and shoots him in the groin a couple times.

" Now for your other weapon"

:evil:
 
BJ-

Now that one Ican agree with you on completly lol.

But the fact is they did let this guy out. They did allow him to live his life. If he is truly reformed (which is rare but happens on occasion) I feel for him. If he is not then screw him and Im glad the child is out of danger.

Even so, I can't see taking the child away from its mother as well. Give her the choice to make that its her husband or her child.
 
All they say is that it was a "rape and sodomy" conviction 20 years ago.

Has he been behaving for 20 years? Or just not gotten caught again?

Was his victim male or female?

Was it a real child rape, or was it possibly statuatory rape, and they just threw the book at him?

There's more to this story, either way.

Either the state just did this baby the biggest favor of his life, or this is a travesty of justice. I see little room for a middle ground.
 
Pilgrim said:
I guess it is just a matter of time before fingerprints, background checks, and ten day waiting periods are required before sexual intercourse is permitted. :rolleyes:

Pilgrim
Click to expand...

Don't even try to defend or justify this baby raping piece of filth.

On the other hand...judging by the large numbers of modern society's idiot parents squirting out idiot children, and their lack of skills, a case can be made for licenses to procreate. No, of course I don't support it at all, but it is an interesting thought.
 
Pilgrim said:
Well, then the other possibility is pass a law making it a crime to be a convicted sex offender in possession of children.

Pilgrim
Click to expand...

Touche. Good point.

Truth be told, this is an unusual situation where 'parental rights' clash with 'sex offender law' in a rather dramatic way. Were I to pick a side, I'd say the local governing authority was correct in removing the child from an environment where it would be in danger - specifically, defenseless in the house of a baby raper father and drug addict mother.

This is the quote that caught my eye.
"I think they're sending the message that if you or any member of your family screws up, you can kiss your parental rights goodbye," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Mary Catherine Roper, who represents the mother, Melissa WolfHawk.
Click to expand...

No, the message their sending is that it's not generally a good thing to leave a defenseless infant in the custody of a sex offender and a drug addict. The American Criminal and Liberal Union can kiss my posterior nether region.
 
Here's one problem with this story. Not enough info on what the guy did. All the story says is that he "pleaded guilty to rape and sodomy two decades ago in New York". No age or even sex of the victim given. For all the more we know, it may have been that he tried to get a little freaky with his girlrfiend one night and she didn't take to kindly to it. Not that I'm tring to defend the guy but I usually like to be more informed before I start picking out trees and measuring the rope.

I'm pretty sure that if this guys history had included "baby raping" both the paper and the officials quoted in the article would have been a lot more vocal about it.

Also note that the story states "alleged history of drug abuse" as one other reason for taking the baby. But then again if the .gov is going to start putting every kid whos' parents do drugs into foster homes, we are going to need a whole heck of alot more foster homes.
 
Random thought: Why the hell is "Sodomy" a crime, anyway?

~GnSx
Click to expand...
Good question....

I think it is just the legal system trying to make it more confusing. Rape and sodomy should just be clasified as rape.

And I agree it doesnt have enough detail. Which is why I am torn and can see both ends of the argument
 
I am with you Jake, I withhold my judgement until I know what his actual crime was and what were the circumstances. His behavior in the last 20 years also plays a part. If he was a child rapist, I think they would have said so. But that would make me agree with the court.

My only other question is why the court waited until the baby was born. Did they just find out about this? I would hope they would hold these proceedings before the baby is born if they know about it ahead of time.
 
IMHO a state that is able and willing to take a person's child is NOT in the best interest of our freedom, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.
 
gunsmith said:
said he had raped two teen girls.
Click to expand...

which apparently wasnt a significant enough crime for some judge and jury to keep him in prison, so now we decide to take away his children because we couldnt get it right the first time.
 
Why should the state have the authority to take a man's child away from him?

I know, he's a sex offender. But was there anything in his sentencing that says he no longer has the right to create a family?

It sucks for the kid, having to live in foster care and never having any real parents. Living with a druggie rapist definitely isn't cool either. No easy way to solve this one.

But is there any evedince to suggest that the father has been, would be, or may become a threat to his son? IIRC his prior victims were teenage girls, not infant boys, so it's a bit of a stretch to say that he's automatically going to harm his infant son.

It's a sad day when the government can take a man's kid away from him without providing any sound reason...
 
M-Rex said:
Don't even try to defend or justify this baby raping piece of filth.

On the other hand...judging by the large numbers of modern society's idiot parents squirting out idiot children, and their lack of skills, a case can be made for licenses to procreate. No, of course I don't support it at all, but it is an interesting thought.
Click to expand...

No defense here.

But, I find that the other side of the story is missing.

First, (as another poster has mentioned already) what kind of sex offense was it? Is it an actual child rape, or is it a statutory offense?

Example--here in WA State, given that the father would have been 33 at the time, all it would have taken would have been sex with a female who was under 15 years and 364 days old. And, the sodomy charge? In some States, the mala prohibitum laws are over 100 years old. Any deviance from the standard missionary position was looke upon with a jaundiced eye at that time.

I would be interested in hearing the other side of the story.

Moreover, the article--as it is printed--doesn't say if the guy is a repeat offender. Apparently, he was convicted and then was a good boy for 20 years--which leads me to believe that this was, in fact, a mala prohibitum crime.

Anyone remember the felon thread going around?

The reason that this gives me pause is because of the act of seizing the child. I have NEVER heard of a child being taken from a family for these reasons, which makes me believe that (a) there is a LOT more to this story than is being told, or (b) the family is being singled out for some reason.

I'll wait and see.
 
Ok... so, at @33 he had relations with "two teenage girls". STILL not enough info. Heck... it could have been two 15 year olds with fake IDs that he met at a bar (don't snicker, I know a guy that happened to). The list of things that will get you labeled "sex offender" is outragous...

To make matters worse, is the use people put the sex offender list to. Having that tool available is great. But when you get situations like his, or when a sex offender is being released (and all the citizens where they plan on locating SO rise up in protest), you're laying groundwork for the removal of the list. Something I'd REALLY rather not see happen...
 
Why should the state have the authority to take a man's child away from him?
(snip)
It's a sad day when the government can take a man's kid away from him without providing any sound reason...
Click to expand...
It is derived from the thinking developed during the 'Age of Enlightenment' in the late eighteenth century where children are no longer viewed as property of their parents, but beings deserving of protection of the state. This is the same thinking that says children don't deserve to go to prison along with adults.

I am called "Grandpa" by several former foster children who were adopted by a close friend who was their foster mother. Every one of those kids was taken from homes that were abusive and dangerous. Two of the kids were born addicted to cocaine. One was born with Alcohol Foetal Syndrome. Two girls were trained by their drug addict mother to lure men into their house to service their prostitute mother. It was just a matter of time before those girls would have been required to service their mother's "clients".

Children are not taken from their parents by bureaucratic fiat. The children become wards of the court and the parents are given every opportunity to be reunited with their children.

Pilgrim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top