Sex offenders must hand over online passwords

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

If our criminal justice system is incapable of reforming and rehabilitating offenders, then it is a failed system, and all that we're doing is releasing harmful elements back into society -which means the penal system needs reforming.

Well, that is a problem because sex offenders are not easily reformed as say, a thief. A sex offense is a much deeper problem and many professionals out there just dont think there is rehabiliation for them.

And that is where the CJ system really comes into play..........its very screwed up and needs an overhaul (and this is my field and I feel this way).

Those who are a threat to society should not be allowed to walk the streets again. Those who are a threat to children should never be allowed to breath again (IMO). When you do such a horrible offense against others (where their life has been taken, a woman (or man) raped or a child's life viloated), then their right to life as the rest of us have should be revoked forever (IMO)

And I know that there are false reports of rape out there. So really there is a thin line in regards to that.

And really, how does one know if one is really reformed? Many people sit before a parole board and swear up and down - im a changed man/woman. Then get paroled and go back to their old life. Many people go thru tons of rehab (drugs, alcohol, etc)...appear to be reformd, get out and go back to that lifestyle.

Very thin line on many levels.

[edit on 12/30/2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
While I understand the reasoning for this, I think it is pointless.

If a sex offender knows this law is in place, then he will just [easily] find ways around it. He wont report that he has any identity online. Easy to say: Im just not online. Or here is my password for this (while its a dummy account).

He could easily have a computer that nobody knows about. He can use someone else's computer. He can use internet cafe computers.

And then there are all those offenders who never register.

As stated in the article:

"My hunch is, where there's a will, there's a way," Staton said. "If people are intent on violating this law, there are many different ways.

I just dont see how this will work. And really, what department has the manpower to do this kind of legwork?


[edit on 12/30/2008 by greeneyedleo]

I understand exactly what you are saying. And you're right, I don't think it will be that easy. But even if it saves a few kids from abuse....it would be worth it.

reply to post by TARBOX

It would be worth it to save some kids from abuse but to honestly make it better for everyone the talking heads need to amend the law. I am of the personal persuasion that the ones the law was designed to protect us from should be locked away for life or even executed to spare taxpayers dollars. But that is for another thread.

Those who are a threat to children should never be allowed to breath again (IMO).
[edit on 12/30/2008 by greeneyedleo]


As much as i'm against violence, those people are in my opinion not worth saving. And i mean the people who are without a doubt guilty of it, not the guy banging his GF in the car.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Those who are a threat to children should never be allowed to breath again (IMO).

My thoughts Exactly!

There is nothing more important than our children.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

As much as i'm against violence, those people are in my opinion not worth saving. And i mean the people who are without a doubt guilty of it, not the guy banging his GF in the car.

Well, I agree. That is why I said there is a thin line. I know that many men are falsely accused of rape. I actually feel VERY sorry for men, because it is very easy for that to happen But in the same hand, there are many men who do rape, then claim innocence. = The fine line =

Also, the thin line of a boy who is 18 having sex with his girlfriend who is 16. Law may say its wrong, but IMO its a really fine line because many teenagers are going to have sex and if they arent being raped and willingly doing it, well, I think that is a matter between them [and maybe parents], not the law. Again = The fine line =


[edit on 12/30/2008 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
reply to post by TARBOX

 

It would be worth it to save some kids from abuse but to honestly make it better for everyone the talking heads need to amend the law. I am of the personal persuasion that the ones the law was designed to protect us from should be locked away for life or even executed to spare taxpayers dollars. But that is for another thread.

Sorry....you may have to pm u2u me on that one because I really don't understand what you just said...

I got the first sentence, but then after that....Gone? lol

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

As much as i'm against violence, those people are in my opinion not worth saving. And i mean the people who are without a doubt guilty of it, not the guy banging his GF in the car.

Well, I agree. That is why I said there is a thin line. I know that many men are falsely accused of rape. I actually feel VERY sorry for men, because it is very easy for that to happen

But in the same hand, there are many men who do rape, then claim innocence. = The fine line =

Also, the thin line of a boy who is 18 having sex with his girlfriend who is 16. Law may say its wrong, but IMO its a really fine line because many teenagers are going to have sex and if they arent being raped and willingly doing it, well, I think that is a matter between them and parents. Again = The fine line =

[edit on 12/30/2008 by greeneyedleo]

I agree bgut it does come down to parenting in the end. If you raise your kids as teenagers to be open-minded and objectively thinking then you won't have a problem when your 16 or 17 yr daughter becomes sexually active, unless it's unwanted.

I think it's wrong for an 18 year old to be put on the list cause him and his gf were doing the dance of love. This kinda law should be subject to circumstance.

Originally posted by TARBOX
I agree to an extent...but what about the guy who is into little kids? He is set free and on the internet starting it all over again. Would you want your son or daughter to be involved in a chat or email with this person?

If I don't want my YOUNG kids typing to someone on the internet, then I'll turn off their computer. Most other responsible parents would do the same.

Then again, maybe I could take over the typing, set up a honey-pot for the paedo... arrange a meeting with him, where he can meet some undercover cops (if he's lucky). It's not like I've never pretended to type like a ten year old before...

I can't protect my children from everything. Besides, once they're old enough to be teenagers, they'll be going behind my back. I've got to trust in their better judgement at some point in time.

Originally posted by ShAuNmAn-X
reply to post by logician magician

 

He wrote persecuted

per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt) tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes 1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. 2. To annoy persistently; bother. www.thefreedictionary.com...

Some are persecuted. I have a friend who is on the sex offenders list because he got caught going at it with his GF in the car. They were 18 at the time. If things like this are to be imposed then the sex offender registration "blanket law" needs to be changed to reflect specific types of offenses. I wholeheartedly agree that rapists and those who exploit children deserve this. On the other hand, the guy who's on the list for getting it on with his GF in their car when they were teenagers does not need to have this applied to him. Just my .02.

[edit on 12/30/2008 by ShAuNmAn-X]

Haha, I read that wrong didn't I?

I think there is more to the story than "They were both 18"...

Well, there is a legal difference between being a sexual offender and a sexual predator AND there are public databases (websites) that are free for you to look up the crime that was committed.

www.familywatchdog.us... is a site you can go to to get a list, picture, alias, description, list of convictions, and map that shows their address.

Convictions look something like this, and give the statute so that you can get a better idea of what it is they are convicted of.

Conviction date: 2/21/1995
LEWDLASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
Offender's age at conviction: 31

or this

Conviction date: 11/8/2002
Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4) (PRINCIPAL)
Offender's age at conviction: 24

They all seem to show the age of conviction as well.

Originally posted by TARBOX


I got the first sentence, but then after that....Gone? lol

My bad man, I get a little mixed up when I'm typing fast.. I meant that rapists and child molesters should be locked away for life or executed. But that is for another thread.

Originally posted by logician magician

I think there is more to the story than "They were both 18"...

They were getting it on in a state park at 1AM on their graduation night (no missing information there). They were arrested for lewd conduct and indecent exposure. Under the law they both had to register. There is nothing more to the story, they were caught getting it on at a known make out point that is on public land. I know there is a legal difference between offender and predator but both have to register and people like my friends have to be stigmatized by that. They are now husband and wife, I wonder what kind of crap is going to happen to them if they try to have children.

No one really looks deeper into the nature of the crimes they just see that they're registered sex offenders and the stigma is applied. I'm willing to bet that quite a few of us here would be registered if the cops caught us in our cars when we were teenagers. That's why the law needs to be changed to only have predators register.

[edit on 12/30/2008 by ShAuNmAn-X]

reply to post by TARBOX


I would agree with this when it comes to serial rapists and repeat offenders involved with children and child porn.

It would be harsh for those who had consensual sex,but because of age were done for statutory rape.

reply to post by ShAuNmAn-X


Preditors should be on those list, but there are offenders out there that are trying to stay right in the laws, and have not reoffended since their arrest. Many people on those list are not felons, but misdimeaners and have to abide by the laws that should be for repeat offenders and not the ones trying to go in the straight and narrow to try to provide for their families. What many people don't even know is that before the laws changed a couple of years ago, people that did the 10 years got off of the list, but now, you can't get off of the list because they say you are on it for life now. That will just make repeat offenders find more ways to get around the laws. Many of your state officials, cops, teachers, preachers, and many others have done the same things in the backs of cars and in parks, but they will not be on the list. I say that repeat offenders should have their rights taken, but not the offenders that are NOT REOFFENDING and are just trying to provide for their family.

It really depends on the person. If that person is likely to offend again, then fine. I don't mind if they're constantly monitoring the "real" pedophiles, perverts e.t.c...

As long as they don't apply this to people that have been accused, based on a technicality. Basically, all those that should be innocent by our moral standards, yet, they still stand accused in a court of law.

The law isn't personal enough, in that respect. It has the capability to explore all areas, but they choose not to. It's too much time and money, I guess. Those fat bastards probably want their burgers sooner than later.

reply to post by TARBOX


I couldn't agree more! A crime against a child is a completly different critter than urinating behind a tree. Unfortunately it is lumped into the same category in some places. In my book, if you hurt a child, you should have no chance to do it again.

As far as someone having done their time, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is so high that part of "their time" entails being tracked by lists following thier incarceration. Rehabilitation for violent sex offenders is notoriously ineffective, ask any Police Officer and there is no question of if the offender commits another crime but when.

Originally posted by tezzajw

If I don't want my YOUNG kids typing to someone on the internet, then I'll turn off their computer. Most other responsible parents would do the same.

You can be the most responsible parent in the world, but you can't monitor them every second.

Originally posted by tezzajw
It's not like I've never pretended to type like a ten year old before...

This statement scares me.

Originally posted by DantesLost

I would agree with this when it comes to serial rapists and repeat offenders involved with children and child porn.

It would be harsh for those who had consensual sex,but because of age were done for statutory rape.

Yeah, that is my thinking as well.

There should be some sort of line drawn as to the severity of the charge. As stated above, 2 18 year olds going at it in a car at 1 in the morning should not be on this list.

Really, it should be common sense.

Wouldn't it violate the TOS or AUP of some sites to share login credentials with a third party? If not it should be.

Originally posted by logician magician

Well, there is a legal difference between being a sexual offender and a sexual predator AND there are public databases (websites) that are free for you to look up the crime that was committed.

www.familywatchdog.us... is a site you can go to to get a list, picture, alias, description, list of convictions, and map that shows their address.

Convictions look something like this, and give the statute so that you can get a better idea of what it is they are convicted of.

Conviction date: 2/21/1995
LEWDLASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
Offender's age at conviction: 31

or this

Conviction date: 11/8/2002
Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4) (PRINCIPAL)
Offender's age at conviction: 24

They all seem to show the age of conviction as well.

This is excellent information.

Thank you.