BostonGeorge
Member
Sounds fair to me, just as long as Chester doesn't ride around with his friends making god-aweful noise like bikers do.
There's a "Registered Sex Offender" right around the corner
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
Sounds fair to me, just as long as Chester doesn't ride around with his friends making god-aweful noise like bikers do.
Greg L
Member
***and to introduce another variable into a thread that the deceased horse is screaming about the beating 
****
Last November my brother in law (wife's brother) was blind sided by divorce paperwork. Along with the paperwork for that was a restraining order because he had "touched the children inappropriately". The local PD & Child Protective Service came out to interview him. At the end of the interview they both appologized for wasting his time, found nothing wrong, & appologized even more that they couldn't write in their report that the charges were completely without basis & probably fabricated. Apparently this kind of charge is standard procedure with divorces these days.
After three months of supervised visits with his kids his (now) ex-wife admitted that there was nothing to the claim & that he should be able to see his girls again. There were no penalties for her for making such a claim in the first place
.
After it was all over he was told by a friend of his on the PD that he was lucky that he fought the accusations & came out clean. Others that haven't wanted to fight it & just wanted to reconcile or try to appease the other spouse have wound up on the SO list for 10 years or so.
Biker's neighbor sounds like scum who shouldn't be taking up oxygen that could be used by my kid's hamster, however not all cases are what they seem if the registry doesn't give complete details as to what the offence is.
****Last November my brother in law (wife's brother) was blind sided by divorce paperwork. Along with the paperwork for that was a restraining order because he had "touched the children inappropriately". The local PD & Child Protective Service came out to interview him. At the end of the interview they both appologized for wasting his time, found nothing wrong, & appologized even more that they couldn't write in their report that the charges were completely without basis & probably fabricated. Apparently this kind of charge is standard procedure with divorces these days.
After three months of supervised visits with his kids his (now) ex-wife admitted that there was nothing to the claim & that he should be able to see his girls again. There were no penalties for her for making such a claim in the first place
.After it was all over he was told by a friend of his on the PD that he was lucky that he fought the accusations & came out clean. Others that haven't wanted to fight it & just wanted to reconcile or try to appease the other spouse have wound up on the SO list for 10 years or so.
Biker's neighbor sounds like scum who shouldn't be taking up oxygen that could be used by my kid's hamster, however not all cases are what they seem if the registry doesn't give complete details as to what the offence is.
Marshall
Member
True, that is probably THE scenario that is most abused in these cases.
CGofMP
Member
A couple of quick thoughts.....
1) I'm glad I do not live in a neighborhood filled with bad-az bikers having a turf war with gangs of childmolesting registrants
2) I'd rather have a biker living next door than a CM. The stereotypical biker and his friends can have the cops called on them if I see fit for their obvious flaws, the meth dealing in the garage, the loud parties, and the noise..... but the damn CMs do their crimes silently....
3) To those that say that the registries are feel good pablum, I half agree but they Do serve two legitimate purposes. a) It tells the bliss-ninny socker moms that there is a problem. When Nancy Naive puts her zipcode into the registrant search and pops 128 pictures of those who want to tour her kids bedroom on the screen she is likely to be woken up to 'the real world' just a little. If Nancy N has a lick of common sense she will understand that these are just the KNOWN badguys and might be a little more safety conscious. b) The second positive effect these registration pages has are that they give people a chance to recognize those who DO pose a potential threat. This give you the opportunity to exercise a little extra caution especially if one of these bastards aproaches your kids.
I'm all for the registrations. Look up your kids school zipcode, your home zipcode, and the zipcode where they go for child visitation if appropriate.
Here is a list of all state's registration pages
Here is one for CALIFORNIA - be sure to put in your ZIPCODE as some registrants wont show up because they are free from the requirement to list a street address.. but they DO show up in the zipcode. (Those can be found sometimes using zabasearch.com)
Exposing cockroaches to light makes them really uncomfie.
Just wish I had enough humanity left to cry for the por misunderstood gentlemen who find it exciting to rape 5 year olds.
1) I'm glad I do not live in a neighborhood filled with bad-az bikers having a turf war with gangs of childmolesting registrants
2) I'd rather have a biker living next door than a CM. The stereotypical biker and his friends can have the cops called on them if I see fit for their obvious flaws, the meth dealing in the garage, the loud parties, and the noise..... but the damn CMs do their crimes silently....
3) To those that say that the registries are feel good pablum, I half agree but they Do serve two legitimate purposes. a) It tells the bliss-ninny socker moms that there is a problem. When Nancy Naive puts her zipcode into the registrant search and pops 128 pictures of those who want to tour her kids bedroom on the screen she is likely to be woken up to 'the real world' just a little. If Nancy N has a lick of common sense she will understand that these are just the KNOWN badguys and might be a little more safety conscious. b) The second positive effect these registration pages has are that they give people a chance to recognize those who DO pose a potential threat. This give you the opportunity to exercise a little extra caution especially if one of these bastards aproaches your kids.
I'm all for the registrations. Look up your kids school zipcode, your home zipcode, and the zipcode where they go for child visitation if appropriate.
Here is a list of all state's registration pages
Here is one for CALIFORNIA - be sure to put in your ZIPCODE as some registrants wont show up because they are free from the requirement to list a street address.. but they DO show up in the zipcode. (Those can be found sometimes using zabasearch.com)
Exposing cockroaches to light makes them really uncomfie.
Just wish I had enough humanity left to cry for the por misunderstood gentlemen who find it exciting to rape 5 year olds.
I would add a third legitimate purpose to the post above.
The registration also serves as a sort of deterent similar to the public humiations of petty criminals in the past. I dont have a problem with the registration itself, only the civil rights implications of the state taking punitive action post sentance and conviction. If the registration was a part of the actual sentance handed down by a judge based on a juries conviction i woulndt have any problem with it whatsoever. My problem is *only* with the arbitrary nature of its application.
The problem with the way the registry works is this: When a person is released a government official(s) examine the offender and then THEY decide if they should be put on the list or not. There is NO due-process here.
The thing of it is that this could be *very* easily solved. Different laws carry different penalties, there is nothing that restricts those penalties to prison time. One could make registration on the list come part and parcel with a conviction for a sex-offence. For example, lets say that a law says "molesting a child is a class A felony punishable by 10-15 years in prison", if one were to modufy that to say "molesting a child is a class A felony punishable by 10-15 years in prison AND registration on the national sex offender registry". Then you could have a sex-offender registration WITHOUT subverting due-process.
The question that needs to be asked is why is the state choosing to subvert due-process rather than making a simple modufication to the law? One possiblity is simply laziness, passing laws throught he legislature is difficult. Another explanation is that the state wants to establish a legal precident, and gain public acceptance, of limitations to due-process for *certain people*. This is not a precedent that i want to see, nor is it something i am willing to accept.
The registration also serves as a sort of deterent similar to the public humiations of petty criminals in the past. I dont have a problem with the registration itself, only the civil rights implications of the state taking punitive action post sentance and conviction. If the registration was a part of the actual sentance handed down by a judge based on a juries conviction i woulndt have any problem with it whatsoever. My problem is *only* with the arbitrary nature of its application.
The problem with the way the registry works is this: When a person is released a government official(s) examine the offender and then THEY decide if they should be put on the list or not. There is NO due-process here.
The thing of it is that this could be *very* easily solved. Different laws carry different penalties, there is nothing that restricts those penalties to prison time. One could make registration on the list come part and parcel with a conviction for a sex-offence. For example, lets say that a law says "molesting a child is a class A felony punishable by 10-15 years in prison", if one were to modufy that to say "molesting a child is a class A felony punishable by 10-15 years in prison AND registration on the national sex offender registry". Then you could have a sex-offender registration WITHOUT subverting due-process.
The question that needs to be asked is why is the state choosing to subvert due-process rather than making a simple modufication to the law? One possiblity is simply laziness, passing laws throught he legislature is difficult. Another explanation is that the state wants to establish a legal precident, and gain public acceptance, of limitations to due-process for *certain people*. This is not a precedent that i want to see, nor is it something i am willing to accept.
MikeIsaj
Member
Pax;
My youngest are 13y.o. twins. Boy and girl. I am dealing with the concept of giving them more freedom. I still know where they are and who they are with. I give the illusion of privacy and freedom to them but, have no problem with checking on them regularly to make sure they are where they say they will be and doing what they say they are doing. I remember being a kid and apply that knowledge to parenting my own.
My daughter was out with a friends family yesterday. I was comfortable with that because we have known the parents for a long time and they have "earned" our trust. My daughter and I have had very frank conversations about my concerns and the risks to a thirteen year old girl in our world today. I have an edge due to my job that makes her more willing to believe me. I deliberately present an intimidating presence to the boys in her social circle. They all are well aware of my attitudes about anyone who harms my daughter. And if I ever catch anyone harming her, I pray that I will keep within the law in dealing with them.
My son also understands clearly, how he is expected to treat girls. He understands that I will tolerate no poor behavior from him.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot of positive attention given to our children. We have lots of fun as a famil and my children have a social life. They also have the security of knowing that their parents are there for them all the time.
My youngest are 13y.o. twins. Boy and girl. I am dealing with the concept of giving them more freedom. I still know where they are and who they are with. I give the illusion of privacy and freedom to them but, have no problem with checking on them regularly to make sure they are where they say they will be and doing what they say they are doing. I remember being a kid and apply that knowledge to parenting my own.
My daughter was out with a friends family yesterday. I was comfortable with that because we have known the parents for a long time and they have "earned" our trust. My daughter and I have had very frank conversations about my concerns and the risks to a thirteen year old girl in our world today. I have an edge due to my job that makes her more willing to believe me. I deliberately present an intimidating presence to the boys in her social circle. They all are well aware of my attitudes about anyone who harms my daughter. And if I ever catch anyone harming her, I pray that I will keep within the law in dealing with them.
My son also understands clearly, how he is expected to treat girls. He understands that I will tolerate no poor behavior from him.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot of positive attention given to our children. We have lots of fun as a famil and my children have a social life. They also have the security of knowing that their parents are there for them all the time.
Mike ~
Thanks for answering ... I missed the bet I had with myself that your children were younger than that! Parenting isn't for cowards, and maybe that's more true these days than it ever has been before.
I absolutely agree with you when you say "watch your kids." I disagree with the second half of what you keep saying: "not the pedophile."
There are problems even with the first half of that equation. Even without getting into issues of giving the kids more freedom as they grow (which is a biggie, and why I asked how old your kids are) -- even without getting into that issue -- Do you have any idea how many latchkey kids there are in America? How many kids are in daycare? How many are watched by friends or relatives while their parents work?
This is no slam on parents who work full-time to put food on the table; it's simply an observation. If the parents aren't home, they can't be watching the kids themselves. In order to work, parents have to trust someone to watch the kid. Whom do you trust and what's the process you use to decide to extend trust to someone?
Which brings us to the second half of what you said, "not the pedophile." Excuse me, but I don't think it is either/or -- I think it is both/AND.
My 13-year old son is very industrious. He wants to be a pilot when he grows up. So he joined the Civil Air Patrol the day he was old enough to do that, and has worked his tail off all summer long mowing lawns and pulling weeds for other people. Here's what I've done to protect him:
1) When he joined CAP, I went to all the meetings and met all the senior members in our squadron. I asked about background checks, about CAP regulations safeguarding kids from abuse and senior members from false accusations, about the physical arrangements for overnight outings.
And then I talked to other parents in the squadron: were there any issues there? Did the kids want to be there? Any rumors I should know about?
The answers to all my questions were absolutely reassuring. CAP requires background checks for all adults who spend time with the cadets; there are national regulations which, when followed, make it difficult for any adult to have private access to any of the kids; there were no rumors that I caught wind of.
2) But I didn't stop there. I sat my kid down and made sure he knew that his learning to fly was not going to depend on these people -- that they were only one of many ways he could get where he wanted to go. I don't want anyone having that kind of leverage over him, able to say, "You have to keep ____ secret because if you tell anyone, you will not reach your dream." So I gave him the tools to prevent that from building up, and we talked about what he could do to protect himself and the other kids.
3) Then I came home and checked our county RSO database. I wasn't expecting to find any of the senior members there (they've all cleared background checks); I was just making sure none of the faces looked familiar. After all, even people with clean checks can have relatives who don't check clean. The parents I'd talked to might have had issues themselves, or might have grown kids, brothers, uncles, cousins, who were offenders. They might not be the only offenders in the county, but so what? Even though they're not the only possible abusers, I still don't want known abusers anywhere near my child.
4) And then I sat my kid down and showed him the county database, too. We looked at the faces together. I told him, "If you ever see any of these faces, whether at CAP or while you're mowing lawns or visiting friends or whatever, I want to know." And he said, "You want me to call you? Or just tell you when I get home?" Smart kid.
The thing is, as they grow they do move out into the larger world. Even when they are tiny you cannot have your physical eyes on them 24 hours a day (if you could, they wouldn't sell toddler gates or baby monitors or cabinet latches!). The bigger they get, the harder it is to watch them all the time, and the less wise it is to do things that way. You have to let them grow.
So the question becomes, What kinds of things do parents need to do to keep their kids safe from other people? It is physically impossible to watch the kids yourself every hour of every day; you have to watch the environment around them too, and that includes RSOs.
Even if you live in the middle of nowhere (we do), there are always going to be other adults in your kids' lives. So it's good to be able to find out if those people have a history of child abuse. Of course, RSOs aren't the only threat to kids, but so what? They are one threat. I should ignore one threat just because others exist? I don't think so.
One more thing. Because it is physically impossible to watch kids twenty-four hours a day (remember those baby monitors?), I'm also going to be very, very unhappy if an RSO moves in next door. If one does, I'm going to be keeping a close eye on my kids ... AND on the predator.
pax
Thanks for answering ... I missed the bet I had with myself that your children were younger than that! Parenting isn't for cowards, and maybe that's more true these days than it ever has been before.
I absolutely agree with you when you say "watch your kids." I disagree with the second half of what you keep saying: "not the pedophile."
There are problems even with the first half of that equation. Even without getting into issues of giving the kids more freedom as they grow (which is a biggie, and why I asked how old your kids are) -- even without getting into that issue -- Do you have any idea how many latchkey kids there are in America? How many kids are in daycare? How many are watched by friends or relatives while their parents work?
This is no slam on parents who work full-time to put food on the table; it's simply an observation. If the parents aren't home, they can't be watching the kids themselves. In order to work, parents have to trust someone to watch the kid. Whom do you trust and what's the process you use to decide to extend trust to someone?
Which brings us to the second half of what you said, "not the pedophile." Excuse me, but I don't think it is either/or -- I think it is both/AND.
My 13-year old son is very industrious. He wants to be a pilot when he grows up. So he joined the Civil Air Patrol the day he was old enough to do that, and has worked his tail off all summer long mowing lawns and pulling weeds for other people. Here's what I've done to protect him:
1) When he joined CAP, I went to all the meetings and met all the senior members in our squadron. I asked about background checks, about CAP regulations safeguarding kids from abuse and senior members from false accusations, about the physical arrangements for overnight outings.
And then I talked to other parents in the squadron: were there any issues there? Did the kids want to be there? Any rumors I should know about?
The answers to all my questions were absolutely reassuring. CAP requires background checks for all adults who spend time with the cadets; there are national regulations which, when followed, make it difficult for any adult to have private access to any of the kids; there were no rumors that I caught wind of.
2) But I didn't stop there. I sat my kid down and made sure he knew that his learning to fly was not going to depend on these people -- that they were only one of many ways he could get where he wanted to go. I don't want anyone having that kind of leverage over him, able to say, "You have to keep ____ secret because if you tell anyone, you will not reach your dream." So I gave him the tools to prevent that from building up, and we talked about what he could do to protect himself and the other kids.
3) Then I came home and checked our county RSO database. I wasn't expecting to find any of the senior members there (they've all cleared background checks); I was just making sure none of the faces looked familiar. After all, even people with clean checks can have relatives who don't check clean. The parents I'd talked to might have had issues themselves, or might have grown kids, brothers, uncles, cousins, who were offenders. They might not be the only offenders in the county, but so what? Even though they're not the only possible abusers, I still don't want known abusers anywhere near my child.
4) And then I sat my kid down and showed him the county database, too. We looked at the faces together. I told him, "If you ever see any of these faces, whether at CAP or while you're mowing lawns or visiting friends or whatever, I want to know." And he said, "You want me to call you? Or just tell you when I get home?"
Smart kid.The thing is, as they grow they do move out into the larger world. Even when they are tiny you cannot have your physical eyes on them 24 hours a day (if you could, they wouldn't sell toddler gates or baby monitors or cabinet latches!). The bigger they get, the harder it is to watch them all the time, and the less wise it is to do things that way. You have to let them grow.
So the question becomes, What kinds of things do parents need to do to keep their kids safe from other people? It is physically impossible to watch the kids yourself every hour of every day; you have to watch the environment around them too, and that includes RSOs.
Even if you live in the middle of nowhere (we do), there are always going to be other adults in your kids' lives. So it's good to be able to find out if those people have a history of child abuse. Of course, RSOs aren't the only threat to kids, but so what? They are one threat. I should ignore one threat just because others exist? I don't think so.
One more thing. Because it is physically impossible to watch kids twenty-four hours a day (remember those baby monitors?), I'm also going to be very, very unhappy if an RSO moves in next door. If one does, I'm going to be keeping a close eye on my kids ... AND on the predator.
pax
QuickDraw
Member
Why aren't ALL convicted persons in a database
that anyone can look up?Why only sex offenders?
Maybe we should be able to look up a neighbors
annual income,social security number,tax return.
Whats next,a look up database for gun owners?
QuickDraw
that anyone can look up?Why only sex offenders?
Maybe we should be able to look up a neighbors
annual income,social security number,tax return.
Whats next,a look up database for gun owners?
QuickDraw
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
..Gee, While We're At It....
Maybe we should make posters and plaster them all over the neighborhood and harass people:
* who Exceed the Posted Speed Limit
* who occasionally Run Red Lights
* who Don't Keep their Lawns Trimmed
* who Cheat on their Spouse
* who Look at Women's Breasts
* who Are Convicted of DUI
* who Spank Their Kids
* who Own "Scary Looking Guns"
* who Don't Go to Church
* who Eat Red Meat - and Enjoy It
* who Use Profanity
* who Vote for "the Other Guy" in an Election
* who Have Served their Sentences for any crime imposed by the Court
* Haven't Served in the Military
I'm just as interested in protecting my family and kids (and yours) but where does it STOP? How do we justify harrassing people who have in fact seen the error of their ways, been rehabilitated and are trying to rebuild their lives productively and get past their mistakes?
When does "paying your debt to society" actually count? Do people who have been engaged in unacceptable behavior and convicted of a crime and then have fully served their entire sentences deserve a lifetime of intimidation, harrassment, and discrimination for the rest of their lives? If so, then instead of imposing prison sentences we should amend the mandatory sentencing guidelines so that a .22 behind the right ear is the only sentencing choice.
Maybe we should make posters and plaster them all over the neighborhood and harass people:
* who Exceed the Posted Speed Limit
* who occasionally Run Red Lights
* who Don't Keep their Lawns Trimmed
* who Cheat on their Spouse
* who Look at Women's Breasts
* who Are Convicted of DUI
* who Spank Their Kids
* who Own "Scary Looking Guns"
* who Don't Go to Church
* who Eat Red Meat - and Enjoy It
* who Use Profanity
* who Vote for "the Other Guy" in an Election
* who Have Served their Sentences for any crime imposed by the Court
* Haven't Served in the Military
I'm just as interested in protecting my family and kids (and yours) but where does it STOP? How do we justify harrassing people who have in fact seen the error of their ways, been rehabilitated and are trying to rebuild their lives productively and get past their mistakes?
When does "paying your debt to society" actually count? Do people who have been engaged in unacceptable behavior and convicted of a crime and then have fully served their entire sentences deserve a lifetime of intimidation, harrassment, and discrimination for the rest of their lives? If so, then instead of imposing prison sentences we should amend the mandatory sentencing guidelines so that a .22 behind the right ear is the only sentencing choice.
Are you joking That's such an over-the-top abuse of the slippery slope fallacy it could almost be a parody.
1) Almost all of the crimes you listed are victimless crimes, so nobody needs to be alerted because they can't be victimized.
2) The crimes you listed are at most misdemeanors.
3) Pedophilia is a mental disorder where they are sexually attracted to children. Even once they've "paid their debt" (whatever that means) they are still attracted to children, and statistically speaking will probably go on molesting.
That's such an over-the-top abuse of the slippery slope fallacy it could almost be a parody.1) Almost all of the crimes you listed are victimless crimes, so nobody needs to be alerted because they can't be victimized.
2) The crimes you listed are at most misdemeanors.
3) Pedophilia is a mental disorder where they are sexually attracted to children. Even once they've "paid their debt" (whatever that means) they are still attracted to children, and statistically speaking will probably go on molesting.
Waitone
Member
There is no debt to society. There is only the debt the perp owes to the victims. Somehow we've screwed it around so that a bad guy commits a crime and we think he owes something to "society"?
The only legitimate debt on the part of the perp is what he owes to his victim for restoration of his or her health or wealth and a penalty based on the economic utility of what was stolen or destroyed. Society has nothing to do with it except for providing the legal framework to allow restoration and restitution to take place.
In the case of child molestation neither has taken place especially when the perp has multiple convictions and is still out on the street. The repeat rate (I can't pronounce the real word) of child molesters is among the highest of all offenses. Do it once and these's a high percentage chance it will happen again. We have bearcoup repeats so we deal with the problem by TURNING THEM LOOSE???? Sounds pretty bankrupt to me. I see no reason for "society" to bear the cost of a debt it assumes and refuses to assign to those responsible. :banghead:
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
Okay Then, Let's do a Permanent "Fix" for the Problem
I was molested as a 9 year old boy. Later, a car in which I was riding as a teenager was hit by a drunk driver who ran a red light and killed my best friend. As an adult I have been the vicitm of an armed robbery on the street, and later in life a burglary and then identity theft. That doesn't put me in any special category. It makes me one of millions of normal people who have had to "deal with" crimes on a face-to-face and personal level.
I don't believe in the death penalty for all crimes. Generally, I believe people who screw up and make poor behavior choices should normally learn their lessons and hopefully get over it and go on to be better persons. But there are exceptions.
I for one believe in the death penalty for more than just murder. I believe treason (including giving aid and comfort to the enemy) and those who are convicted rapists should be put to death -- on the very first offense. We should do the same for Child Molesters and people who kill others while running red rights while driving drunk or high on drugs.
Just think about it. Let's just waive those endless appeals, forget going to prision and spending tax money for psychiatrists, housing, prison guards, food and rehabiltation programs. Let's get the sentence imposed, take them to the nearest holding cell in the courthouse and put a .45 slug into the right ear of the convicted perp and be done with it.
That way, we don't have wonder whether people who made certain kinds of mistakes are deserving another chance to live their life as a reformed whatever, and we don't have to worry about even spelling the word recidivism.
I was molested as a 9 year old boy. Later, a car in which I was riding as a teenager was hit by a drunk driver who ran a red light and killed my best friend. As an adult I have been the vicitm of an armed robbery on the street, and later in life a burglary and then identity theft. That doesn't put me in any special category. It makes me one of millions of normal people who have had to "deal with" crimes on a face-to-face and personal level.
I don't believe in the death penalty for all crimes. Generally, I believe people who screw up and make poor behavior choices should normally learn their lessons and hopefully get over it and go on to be better persons. But there are exceptions.
I for one believe in the death penalty for more than just murder. I believe treason (including giving aid and comfort to the enemy) and those who are convicted rapists should be put to death -- on the very first offense. We should do the same for Child Molesters and people who kill others while running red rights while driving drunk or high on drugs.
Just think about it. Let's just waive those endless appeals, forget going to prision and spending tax money for psychiatrists, housing, prison guards, food and rehabiltation programs. Let's get the sentence imposed, take them to the nearest holding cell in the courthouse and put a .45 slug into the right ear of the convicted perp and be done with it.
That way, we don't have wonder whether people who made certain kinds of mistakes are deserving another chance to live their life as a reformed whatever, and we don't have to worry about even spelling the word recidivism.
The operative phrase is, "deserve another chance". The SO laws, imo, need to be revamped. It appears that pedophiles can't be re-habbed.
Lock 'em up permantly or put 'em in a community surrounded only by their own kind. I don't see another option short of assisted suicide or letting them into the general population where they can molest another child as they're almost sure to do.
Biker
Lock 'em up permantly or put 'em in a community surrounded only by their own kind. I don't see another option short of assisted suicide or letting them into the general population where they can molest another child as they're almost sure to do.
Biker
Waitone
Member
I think capital punishment has a place in society. At times I have second thoughts about putting its imposition in the hands of certain politicians. In principal capital punishment should be reserved for those offenses for which there is no possibility of restoration or restitution and the death penality is of equivelent severity of the nature of the offense.
Since this thread is dealing with child molestation the question becomes should real live, genuine child molesters be permitted to continue consuming oxygen? Should the death penalty be imposed, not for the practical matter of a high recidivism ( ) rate, but because the nature of the crime demands the ultimate penalty?
As I've pontificated elsewhere, I'll show you what a society truly values by examining what it punishes and how it punishes. BTW, I've got more than a passing interest in this subject.
Since this thread is dealing with child molestation the question becomes should real live, genuine child molesters be permitted to continue consuming oxygen? Should the death penalty be imposed, not for the practical matter of a high recidivism (
) rate, but because the nature of the crime demands the ultimate penalty?As I've pontificated elsewhere, I'll show you what a society truly values by examining what it punishes and how it punishes. BTW, I've got more than a passing interest in this subject.
Ezekiel
Member
I've seen this before.
No argument, but your justification to draw such a line ends at your property, no? Arbitrarily extending your "line" to cover a community based upon your personal perception -- regardless of merit -- is a difficult place to be.
I was a State Parole Officer for three years. The cops, in this case, are merely errand boys for paperwork. State Parole has far more power and THEY will be on the side of their ward, not yours. (If you go to court for anything, and a State Officer is there, it won't be to benefit you, okay?)
In my experience, parolees don't even care what you and your friends are doing. Hell, for them, it's free show! By your reactions to his presence, a narcissistic person truly believes that it is "all for him" based upon your fear. From what I've read, he already owns you. He doesn't need friends or targets, he's getting chubbies because of the havoc he's wreaked from just moving in.
I'd write my elected officials, then I'd consider "letting it go". He's back in society and has the same rights you do.
The real concern is, "Who let him back in society?" Regarding this one guy, the cat's out of the bag...
No argument, but your justification to draw such a line ends at your property, no? Arbitrarily extending your "line" to cover a community based upon your personal perception -- regardless of merit -- is a difficult place to be.
I was a State Parole Officer for three years. The cops, in this case, are merely errand boys for paperwork. State Parole has far more power and THEY will be on the side of their ward, not yours. (If you go to court for anything, and a State Officer is there, it won't be to benefit you, okay?)
In my experience, parolees don't even care what you and your friends are doing. Hell, for them, it's free show! By your reactions to his presence, a narcissistic person truly believes that it is "all for him" based upon your fear. From what I've read, he already owns you. He doesn't need friends or targets, he's getting chubbies because of the havoc he's wreaked from just moving in.
I'd write my elected officials, then I'd consider "letting it go". He's back in society and has the same rights you do.
The real concern is, "Who let him back in society?" Regarding this one guy, the cat's out of the bag...
Marshall
Member
The opportunistic and addictive nature of these cowardly vermin that prey on women and innocent children is what causes them to be reported. The fact that their crimes have a frightening and adverse effect that is life lasting on the victims makes their crimes damaging beyond that of the more ordinary law breaker. The fact their crimes are rarely reported by the victim in the first place while knowing the vermin usually committed the crime multiple times before, makes it important we make known who they are and their whereabouts upon release.
Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports.
In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000).
Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).
Underestimating Recidivism
Source (click on full report)
Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police. They may fear that reporting will lead to the following:
* further victimization by the offender;
* other forms of retribution by the offender or by the offender's friends or family;
* arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender who may be a family member or friend and on whom the victim or others may depend;
* others finding out about the sexual assault (including friends, family members, media, and the public);
* not being believed; and
* being traumatized by the criminal justice system response.
These factors are compounded by the shame and guilt experienced by sexual assault victims, and, for many, a desire to put a tragic experience behind them. Incest victims who have experienced criminal justice involvement are particularly reluctant to report new incest crimes because of the disruption caused to their family. This complex of reasons makes it unlikely that reporting figures will change dramatically in the near future and bring recidivism rates closer to actual re-offense rates.
Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports.
In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000).
Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).
Underestimating Recidivism
Source (click on full report)
Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police. They may fear that reporting will lead to the following:
* further victimization by the offender;
* other forms of retribution by the offender or by the offender's friends or family;
* arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender who may be a family member or friend and on whom the victim or others may depend;
* others finding out about the sexual assault (including friends, family members, media, and the public);
* not being believed; and
* being traumatized by the criminal justice system response.
These factors are compounded by the shame and guilt experienced by sexual assault victims, and, for many, a desire to put a tragic experience behind them. Incest victims who have experienced criminal justice involvement are particularly reluctant to report new incest crimes because of the disruption caused to their family. This complex of reasons makes it unlikely that reporting figures will change dramatically in the near future and bring recidivism rates closer to actual re-offense rates.
Ezekiel
Member
That's cool, but it merely implies that this guy wasn't "hard core" anyway. Now he'll just move to another neighborhood and the problem isn't solved.
Still, you got what you wanted!
Thanks,
Ezekiel
I'm guessing that your "Thanks" was said in sarcasm. Why? Because I took steps to protect my family and neighborhood? I think that I know what you're getting at-by running him out of my hood, I could inadvertantly send him to yours. Well guess what? You can take the same steps. It can be done. You just have to be willing to do it. If you're not, don't blame your new problem on me. If folks kept the pos moving, he'd eventually end up somewhere where kids weren't, and that's the best we can hope for in a situation like this. Either that, or for him to chew on the end of a barrel.
Biker
I'm guessing that your "Thanks" was said in sarcasm. Why? Because I took steps to protect my family and neighborhood? I think that I know what you're getting at-by running him out of my hood, I could inadvertantly send him to yours. Well guess what? You can take the same steps. It can be done. You just have to be willing to do it. If you're not, don't blame your new problem on me. If folks kept the pos moving, he'd eventually end up somewhere where kids weren't, and that's the best we can hope for in a situation like this. Either that, or for him to chew on the end of a barrel.
Biker
Ezekiel
Member
My apologies to the masses, in advance.
Dude, "you got the wrong idea".
And, by appearances, I sense both self-importance and stunted growth. I offered you a perspective from a different side of the fence and you gridlocked.
"You're off my list of people that it is worthwhile to listen/respond to."
"Thanks!" (That was sarcasm.)
Dude, "you got the wrong idea".
And, by appearances, I sense both self-importance and stunted growth. I offered you a perspective from a different side of the fence and you gridlocked.
"You're off my list of people that it is worthwhile to listen/respond to."
"Thanks!" (That was sarcasm.)
Ezekiel
No offense intended, Friend. I wasn't upset and I don't know why you are. If I misunderstood you, apologies. In any case, the post was not to be offensive.
Concerning self-importance and stunted growth, my wife, kids, dogs and Bros seem ta think I'm pretty important and if I hadn't started smoking at a young age, I'd probably be taller than 6'1".
Biker
No offense intended, Friend. I wasn't upset and I don't know why you are. If I misunderstood you, apologies. In any case, the post was not to be offensive.
Concerning self-importance and stunted growth, my wife, kids, dogs and Bros seem ta think I'm pretty important and if I hadn't started smoking at a young age, I'd probably be taller than 6'1".
Biker
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
And that's enough of that...
Art
Art
- Status
