Sex Offenders (split thread)

[DeletedUser]

Do it.
We need some more interresting debates here.

Perhaps I should wait so I dont get the noob card tossed my way You know itd happen. It will happen on all message boards. Heck I toss it out on the debates boards Im on. LOL Plus I should narrow down to what you all will debate and what would be cold. I can get quite into debates. But do watch for it, b/c Ill do it eventually lol

Im trying to figure out what topics would interest those who seem to debate the most since a lot of my topics do tend to center around the US. And parenting.

If anyone posts one, Ill most likely talk, unless its a topic I know nothing about.

 

[DeletedUser]

If anyone posts one, Ill most likely talk, unless its a topic I know nothing about.

Why let that stop you? Most of us here don't.

 

[DeletedUser]

Why let that stop you? Most of us here don't.

I dont know. Some topics currently going on dont interest me enough. I dont want to look like Im babbling about something I know nothing about LOL To me it would make me look less crediable in other debates that I actually care about.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok - let's actually debate this rather than just butting heads on opposing sides of the fence.

Personally, I would let myself be guided by the information sex offenders list, in the same way as I would be guided by information about other charges on someone who was around my child. However, as I've mentioned, it isn't a black and white situation. I'd make a judgment based on the facts of the case rather than writing off someone regardless of the severity of the offense.

Now, you've stated that you wouldn't want anyone on a sex offenders list to be anywhere near your kids. That's your prerogative, obviously, and no doubt your experiences have influenced your decision. I understand that completely. I'm not trying to change your mind but I would like to understand it.

So, if we take a hypothetical man called Phil. Phil is 38 years old and on the sex offenders list for statutory rape. Aged 18, he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent. Unfortuantely, she came from a very religious family who found out and pressed charges against him. At the time of the offense, Phil was unaware that his girlfriend was under age as she had lied about her age in order to attract a more mature boyfriend. Obviously, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law and hence Phil was convicted of statutory rape and 18 years later remains on the sex offenders list.

My question is...do you think that Phil would be a threat to your children?

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me inject a question here:
Am I the only one finding it disturbing that a list is available to the general public which outs the past mistakes of people?

Do we have a right to know beforehand and judge an individual this way?
Should we have a list for all the thieves and murderes as well?

 

[DeletedUser14280]

Let me inject a question here:
Am I the only one finding it disturbing that a list is available to the general public which outs the past mistakes of people?

Do we have a right to know beforehand and judge an individual this way?
Should we have a list for all the thieves and murderes as well?

You have a good point.
If there's a list for sex offenders, there should be one for thieves and murderers. Especially murderers.

Maybe first-time sex offenders should be freed from restrictions after a certain amount of time's passed.
Has anyone raised this idea yet?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm still dazed by sleepyness, but I'll repeat the my most important concern here:
Do we have a right to know what a person has done in the past, thus compromising his right to privacy?

Does one mistake nullify your right to privacy?
Does one mistake give someone the right to put your name on a list, thus having the punishment last a life-time?

This is a discussion of its own though, and it's part of a issue I care deeply for.
So we might want to consider either starting a new debate, or have Hellstromm break them into two segments

 

[DeletedUser14280]

If you're sleepy..well, maybe try having a cold drink of water?

I do agree that there should be a list for thieves and murderers.
I also agree that 'one mistake' shouldn't count against you forever.

It's a bit like this forum, if you want to think of it that way.
The infractions can expire: it's only the serious cases that need to be permanantly dealt with.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sure there should be a list, but it shouldb't be available to the public.
This will only lead to stigma, and I do belive being an ex-con is hard enough as it is
without having the civil populance refusing to give someone a chance based.

(drank some espresso, having another)

 

[DeletedUser14280]

I think that there should be lists available to the public, but everyone who's offended only once (murderers excepted) should be removed after a set period of time.

"After a while, if they don't offend again, they probably never will." is my line of thinking here.
If they do offend again, then they can go back on the list and this time, stay there.

 

[DeletedUser]

The current number of people in America (as of December 2008) on the Sex-offender registries is over 674,000. In some states this includes people who had consensual sex while they were both young teenagers. To use an example I read last week, Janet Allison was found guilty of being "partner to the crime of child molestation" because she let her 15 year old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. Despite the fact that this couple then got married, her mother is still publicly branded as a sex offender. Another example is when a teacher turned the classroom lights off to watch a video, and in the dark a 17 year old student performed oral sex on a 15 year old student. Might sound funny but the (edit) student, Wendy Whitaker was then was charged with sodomy and spent 6 years in various prisons. In Georgia she is now described as merely being convicted of sodomy, even though it is not even criminal for underage teenagers to have underage consensual sex as long there is no more than four years between their age

An independent review in Georgia concluded that of the 17,000 registered sex offenders there, 65% of them posed little threat, 30% were potentially threatening and 5% were clearly dangerous. Yet they all receive exactly the same amount of police attention and public scrutiny

How can anyone say that this these are effective sex laws and that all 'sex offenders' are worthy of such high degrees of prejudice and scrutiny

 

[DeletedUser]

Another example is when a teacher turned the classroom lights off to watch a video, and in the dark a 17 year old student performed oral sex on a 15 year old student. Might sound funny but the teacher then was charged with sodomy and spent 6 years in various prisons.

Just to clear up a point there, the teacher wasn't charged with anything at all.

The charge of sodomy was made upon Wendy Whitaker - the 17 year old girl who performed the act of fellatio. In 1996, when this happened, sodomy laws in Georgia barred oral sex - even between married and/or consenting adults. You can read a full article about Wendy Whitaker and a discussion about America's sex laws here.

For anyone who can't be bothered to read it, you may find this information interesting:

[A report found that] at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

So, all that stigma on someone and in the majority of states they might have done as little as having had a few too many drinks and streaking at a ball game.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sorry my mistake it was Wendy Whitaker, the 17 year old who was charged prior to the laws changing. Thanks for the correction

And yeh I took most of my points from the economist since I happened to be reading that article just before seeing this post. Not trying to claim its my independent research but thought was valid and summarised a few key points

 

[DeletedUser]

Don't forget the countless people who are convicted for "intent," the ambiguous claim of intending to do harm, or intending on performing a sexual act. There is no reasonable means to prove intent, but so many people are coerced with the threat of extreme consequence, by district attorneys, to take a plea. I.e., a threat of a mandatory 25+ years in prison, followed by lifetime incarceration in a mental health facility, contrasted with a plea bargain of probation and having to register as a sex offender. I.e., life imprisonment contrasted against leashed freedom.

I'm not saying they're innocent, but it can hardly be considered appropriate to coerce someone into choosing on their freedom. A gamble posed by district attorneys in which they have no bet to lose, whilst the defendant has everything to lose.

 

[DeletedUser]

LOL you can make a thread having to do with prisioners rights and I may comment on it there.

I was merely commenting that some places have tried casteration and its not a 100% sure fire way to make sure that one person doesnt harm children anymore. I do think in the US cases, the ones who are subject to casteration has volunteered to go through with the procedures on a trial basis.

You're making this up as you go along, right?

I can't believe that anyone would volunteer for castration (not casteration, castration). It might be a trial basis as far as the practice is concerned but it's not as if the castratee gets their nuts back at the end of it.

Oh hang on...you're talking about chemical castration (it's drug related but there's still no E)! This is actually the use of Prozac or an anti-androgen drug which significantly reduces sex drive. A little less dramatic than the castration you were suggesting. You were just going for effect, right?

Is chemical castration a sure-fire way to ensure that someone doesn't re-offend? Well, no, it's not a 100% guarantee. However, the studies I've seen (e.g.) suggest a drop in rates of recidivism from 50% to 5% in Denmark. A similarly dramatic decrease was reported in a study in Texas, where recidivism dropped to 2.2%. Meanwhile, advocates of Depo-Provera suggest that it reduces the occurence of repeat offenses by paedophiles from 75% to 2%.

So, no, it's not perfect but it's effective - if questionable from a moral standpoint. If you want perfect protection from repeat offenders then you have to shoot everyone who you catch just once. And no, I'm not advocating that approach...

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok - let's actually debate this rather than just butting heads on opposing sides of the fence.

Personally, I would let myself be guided by the information sex offenders list, in the same way as I would be guided by information about other charges on someone who was around my child. However, as I've mentioned, it isn't a black and white situation. I'd make a judgment based on the facts of the case rather than writing off someone regardless of the severity of the offense.

Now, you've stated that you wouldn't want anyone on a sex offenders list to be anywhere near your kids. That's your prerogative, obviously, and no doubt your experiences have influenced your decision. I understand that completely. I'm not trying to change your mind but I would like to understand it.

So, if we take a hypothetical man called Phil. Phil is 38 years old and on the sex offenders list for statutory rape. Aged 18, he had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend with her consent. Unfortuantely, she came from a very religious family who found out and pressed charges against him. At the time of the offense, Phil was unaware that his girlfriend was under age as she had lied about her age in order to attract a more mature boyfriend. Obviously, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law and hence Phil was convicted of statutory rape and 18 years later remains on the sex offenders list.

My question is...do you think that Phil would be a threat to your children?

Most likely, no he is not.

In reality though, those listed on the sex offender list, by law, arent supposed to be near children anyway right?

He sadly made a mistake that within the last 12 years(in my area) has been shown its a horrible mitake to sleep with those under 18.

Let me inject a question here:
Am I the only one finding it disturbing that a list is available to the general public which outs the past mistakes of people?

Do we have a right to know beforehand and judge an individual this way?
Should we have a list for all the thieves and murderes as well?

Its so more people(and children) dont get harmed by these people. You can go down to any police station(in the US) and pay 20 bucks and get a list of crimes a certian person has commited. Except the sealed convictions. A couple places Ive worked Ive had to submit to background checks as well as be finger printed to become bonded. The place I work for now does random background searches on all employees.

I think its a great idea. I know now places to avoid when I move or when my children go to friends homes. Ensuring the saftely of my kids is something I HAVE to do being a mom and all.

You have a good point.
If there's a list for sex offenders, there should be one for thieves and murderers. Especially murderers.

Maybe first-time sex offenders should be freed from restrictions after a certain amount of time's passed.
Has anyone raised this idea yet?

Id like one concerning domestic violence. However its been pointed out when I voice this opinion that if you pay the 20 bucks you can get a print out on any person you want.

Murderers are USUALLY felons when they leave the prison, so the info isnt that hard to find out. Thats all public record too.

I think the only things you cant get on a person is any transcripts in court that have underage children involved(I know for a custody hearing it was closed door and the only parties to be allowed to sit in were the parents, attorneys, transcriber and the judge).

I'm still dazed by sleepyness, but I'll repeat the my most important concern here:
Do we have a right to know what a person has done in the past, thus compromising his right to privacy?

Does one mistake nullify your right to privacy?
Does one mistake give someone the right to put your name on a list, thus having the punishment last a life-time?

This is a discussion of its own though, and it's part of a issue I care deeply for.
So we might want to consider either starting a new debate, or have Hellstromm break them into two segments

Arrests and convictions are PUBLIC. If one doesnt want them to be, they need to go through and have the original conviction sealed and/or expunged from their record. However some convictions can NOT be taken off the record(like sexual offenses) Also on sex offenders, if one has done anything to horrible(like being 18 and sleeping with your underage partner), they may only have to register for an X amount of time, then its done. Its not offered in all cases.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't want to get into this, because you're very paranoid, and you need to talk to a professional about that, not some people over the internet.

So I'll just say this: the little button next to the QUOTE button lets you quote a lot of posts at once.

 

[DeletedUser]

Its so more people(and children) dont get harmed by these people. You can go down to any police station(in the US) and pay 20 bucks and get a list of crimes a certian person has commited. Except the sealed convictions. A couple places Ive worked Ive had to submit to background checks as well as be finger printed to become bonded. The place I work for now does random background searches on all employees.

I think its a great idea. I know now places to avoid when I move or when my children go to friends homes. Ensuring the saftely of my kids is something I HAVE to do being a mom and all.

So people should be haunted for the slighest mistake for the rest of their lives?
Commit one crime, and you're branded for life?
Is this right?
Is this fair?
Hell no.

Should the general public and private companies be allowed full insight on all aspects of a persona? Where does the private sphere stop, and where does it end?

Less people will get harmed by common sense, rather than fear and stigma.
As for the company finger printing you... what kind of fascist bullcrap is that anyways?

Id like one concerning domestic violence. However its been pointed out when I voice this opinion that if you pay the 20 bucks you can get a print out on any person you want.

Murderers are USUALLY felons when they leave the prison, so the info isnt that hard to find out. Thats all public record too.

I think the only things you cant get on a person is any transcripts in court that have underage children involved(I know for a custody hearing it was closed door and the only parties to be allowed to sit in were the parents, attorneys, transcriber and the judge).

So disclosing criminal history is a buisniss now?
That's just so sick, and so wrong.
What's next, selling health details?

Arrests and convictions are PUBLIC. If one doesnt want them to be, they need to go through and have the original conviction sealed and/or expunged from their record. However some convictions can NOT be taken off the record(like sexual offenses) Also on sex offenders, if one has done anything to horrible(like being 18 and sleeping with your underage partner), they may only have to register for an X amount of time, then its done. Its not offered in all cases.

Yes, justice is public, that doesn't mean records should be public once the time is served. Arrests, courts, and prisons must all be open to the scrutiny of the public, else we'd end up in a society we would quickly find unlivable.

What a convict has done is between him and the state.
Once he or she is out, they should be given a chance.
If we have it your way, and everyone has full access to all records then this will not be the case.

They will always be the thief, murderer, robber, brawler, or drunk driver.
Why not just enforce mandatory stockade punishment every sunday right after church to squeeze some entertainment (and possibly profit)out of it?

Prisons are not about punishing the criminal, but protecting society from the indivudual whom broke the laws.
Whilst inside they should be rehabilitated, rather than punsihed and further alienated and educated in the criminal arts.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you're sleepy..well, maybe try having a cold drink of water?

I do agree that there should be a list for thieves and murderers.
I also agree that 'one mistake' shouldn't count against you forever.

It's a bit like this forum, if you want to think of it that way.
The infractions can expire: it's only the serious cases that need to be permanantly dealt with.

LOL they do? Great then!

 

[DeletedUser]

Most likely, no he is not.

In reality though, those listed on the sex offender list, by law, arent supposed to be near children anyway right?

He sadly made a mistake that within the last 12 years(in my area) has been shown its a horrible mitake to sleep with those under 18.

Well, I'm glad that you at least acknowledge that not everyone on a list of sex offenders is actually any kind of threat to your children.

But no - it varies from place to place, but generally people on a sex offenders list aren't precluded from being near children. Can you imagine how difficult that kind of prohibition would be to stick to? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to police? The usual state of affairs is that ex-sex offenders are not permitted to live within a certain distance of places frequented by children: parks, youth centres, schools etc.

Now, going back to my "hypothetical Phil" who made one mistake years ago, do you think that part of the law is fair on him? You've acknowledged that he's not likely to be a risk to your children and I'd guess you're a lot more protective of your own kids than children in general so you'd probably accept that he's not a danger to kids in general. However, regardless of the fact that he's not a danger, he has a permanent restriction* against where he can live. Doesn't that seem a little harsh to you given that his only crime was to sleep with someone who deceived him as to her age?

And if it's not fair on hypothetical Phil, what about the reality: Wendy Whitaker? Is it fair to brand her for the rest of her life?

* The amount of time that someone spends on the sex offenders register in the USA varies from state to state but in some states it's permanent regardless of the size or nature of the offence.