Sex Offenders Have Nowhere to Live

reply to post by The Sword


Thank you. This is exactly the type of response i was looking for. Totally coherent and well thought out. I very much appreciate your contribution to this topic and I am pleased that a response like that made it into first position. I hope there are many more like that on this topic.

You bring up an intersting point about intolerance. A lot of people limit intolerance to sexual orientation, race and religion. They don't realize how that intolerance extends to criminals as well. I have a friend who just came out of prison for GTA. He can't get a job to save his life even though he is really trying. Maybe we wouldn't have so much crime if society was more tolerant of criminals and allowed them to reassimilate into society. Maybe it would lower the recitivism rate if they could get jobs.

There used to be a place here in LA that helped criminals with getting jobs. It shut down for lack of donations.

I think the moral of the story is DON"T BE A CHILD MOLESTOR, and you can live where you want.

What I would like see change is the "protected custody" these "people" enjoy during their incarceration. They are lumped together to keep other inmates from killing them. Meanwhile, all the molestors can compare notes, make contacts, and be better molestors when they get out.

I would enact this for anyone in "protected custody", including former cops.

Don't commit an act that makes you a felon and then cry about the consequences.

reply to post by Tykonos


This is the exact thought process that puts us into half of the mess we are in, ranging from money to sex offenders. You think we should shun them because they made a mistake, or they don't have self awareness and the ability to understand themselves? If this thought process continues within the populations of the world, then nothing will change.

There are also a lot of men that are registered sex offenders based on terms that are encompassed by the term "rape", but I really can't classify them as such myself. For instance, if a young woman gets intoxicated and is pressured into sleeping with a guy, he is the bad guy, and gets the "rapist" label. If a young man gets intoxicated and is pressured into sleeping with a troll, well, that's just a bad night for him, he's still the bad guy, the pervert. I'm sure I don't have to explain which one would be getting preferential treatment in a courtroom and which one will be legally labeled a "sex offender".... and not be able to live near a school or playground... (because that's logical...?)

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

With regards the sex offender/housing issue, perhaps it would better serve public interest if the distances were reduced and the law(s) were actually enforced. ??

You make a good point. Unfortunately, in most municipalities these days, the only laws that are traditionally enforced are traffic laws. Set up a speed trap or check point and generate revenue. The police have turned into a reactionary force rather than a preventative force. Budgets are tight and man hours have been reduced. Sure they patrol but its mostly a waiting game until the next call comes in. To effectively track and monitor sex offenders would require a full time assignment of multiple people in a larger city.

That's problem with our system. We keep adding new laws on top of existing laws without the means to enforce them.

Its quite the dilemma. I have two young daughters and I check the registers with my local Sheriff periodically just to be safe. Even though I live in a small safe city, I am always on the lookout for creepy characters. Pretty sad. It was rarely a worry when I was a kid.

This is a tough one. Some people deserve a second chance and others are always looking for their next victim when the opportunity presents itself.

reply to post by onequestion


I would propose the exact opposite. I think the idea that people can be reformed and enter back into society is the thinking that is causing problems.

This might be true for the 16 year-old who committed armed robbery and when released at 21 has a different mindset on things and is truly reformed his life.

When it comes to a rapist on his 4th conviction, or the drunk driver with his 13th DUI, I think reforming who they are is not an option.

reply to post by indianajoe77


Are you really that naive? Make notes on how to be better molestors?

Sheesh. Whatever happened to rational, productive discussion that isn't marked by such rhetoric? Where did it go?

reply to post by indianajoe77


Pure ignorance. You think eye for an eye works? If it did, then people wouldn't be committing crimes anymore. What really works is education and understanding.

You are looking at these people like they are as self aware as you. Completely subjective. What everyone fails to realize is this, they are NOT self aware and in control of their actions, it's really simple if you take a serious and objective approach to the situation. If we develop methods of creating self awareness for these people then they will not be taken "hostage" by their illness.

Understanding, and an intelligent systematic approach to helping one discover self awareness is the key.

reply to post by Brood


I don't have young children - my grown kids live out of state. When my kids were young I checked on offenders before I moved into my house. We have lot of kids in the neigborhood tho - but you know I don't think these jerks work their own neighborhoods - they go elsewhere, playgrounds, schools and other neighborhoods. My granddaughter was molested on a school bus by a monitor - one would think a school bus is safe - no place is safe as long as sex offenders are allowed to roam.

reply to post by earthdude


Thank you for bringing that to the conversation.

Again it shows the ridiculous intolerance of society. Perhaps more tolerant attitudes will lead to less crime and allow criminals to be rehabilitated.

reply to post by xiphias


Ok I see your point specifically in relation to this. Thing is I can see mistakes bein made in that age group if its not rape. But the children predators and rapist are who I was moreless speaking of.

reply to post by indianajoe77


The problem here is that you think in terms of limitation. You see a limitation preventing you from moving foward based off of your subjective experience, actually not have ever having experienced a problem such as this yourself. Then again i could be wrong.

There is no limitation to the possibility of what the mind can, and cannot do.

The problem with the category "Sex Offender" is that it includes everyone from [Peeing in public] ---to---> [Child rape].

I have no problem restricting the future and opportunities of child rapists. They took something away from a child that they can never give back. The same should go for the rapist.

As for drunk dudes who pee in public and maybe a woman or child sees this occur, that dude should get fined, and sent on his way. Putting that schlep into the same category as a child rapist both lessens the perception of severity of the child rapist's crime, as well as illogically escalates the severity of the pisser's offense.

In short, we need to restore sanity and reason into these crime categories.

Originally posted by dbloch7986
You bring up an intersting point about intolerance. A lot of people limit intolerance to sexual orientation, race and religion. They don't realize how that intolerance extends to criminals as well. I have a friend who just came out of prison for GTA. He can't get a job to save his life even though he is really trying. Maybe we wouldn't have so much crime if society was more tolerant of criminals and allowed them to reassimilate into society. Maybe it would lower the recitivism rate if they could get jobs.

The big difference is that sexual orientation and race are factors beyond a person's control; choosing to commit a crime isn't.

While not hiring someone because of a criminal record may technically be intolerant, it is also largely justified.

A criminal record serves as a gauge of someone's character and moral philosophy.

Most criminal convictions indicate a certain lack of integrity and honesty. Integrity and honesty are two major factors that a employer will look for.

It's not unreasonable for an employer to hire someone who is ''clean'', rather than someone who has previously demonstrated that they are dishonest.


Yes, someone may genuinely be on the straight and narrow, but how is the employer expected to know that that is true ?

reply to post by onequestion


This is where I have a problem. Having an "illness"? So the molestor is a "victim" of an "illness" and should be "treated". Whatever happened to a person just being evil?

Furthermore, if "treating" people is working so well, than why the rate of reincarceration? I know, its not that "treating" them isn;t working, its that we haven;t done enough "treating".

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Tykonos

 

This is the exact thought process that puts us into half of the mess we are in, ranging from money to sex offenders. You think we should shun them because they made a mistake, or they don't have self awareness and the ability to understand themselves? If this thought process continues within the populations of the world, then nothing will change.

I'm all for giving people second chances but there are circumstances that giving a second chance is not right.

Ian Huntley, murdered two school girls in his house here in the UK. He was the caretaker of the school. If released which I don't think he will for his own saftey, do you think he should have a second chance? Do you think he should be allowed to have his job back at the school?

The offenders did the crime once, they can do it again.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Perhaps someone needs to start a "sex offender" town. There would be no children, no schools, no playgrounds. Then we wouldn't have to sit around worrying about when sex offenders can find a place to live

A reasonable enough request.

Except sex offenders usually don't have money. Who should pay for this village? I certainly don't want to

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Perhaps someone needs to start a "sex offender" town. There would be no children

Right, because if there's one thing I know about sex offenders, it's that they have no idea how to preform the act of procreation...

...And where should we put the Jews? The Gays? The Polish?

reply to post by Brood


What is it with you and the death penalty? What a mind you must have lol

reply to post by indianajoe77


It's that we are treating them in the wrong manner. If your idea of treating someone is isolating them into a prison riddled with violence then you my friend are wrong. I use the term illness with a grain of salt. It's not really an illness, its an unidentifiable thought process that the "victim" as you put it, is unaware of. Where his thought process is leading him and what road he currently traveling on, is the awareness that i am speaking of. There is many variables as why the current prison system isn't working, but i imagine, if you spend 2 weeks inside the system, you will understand the gravity of the mistake we are making as a society.

If we take a criminal and teach him how to understand where his thoughts are taking him, and how to identify and isolate that thought outside of himself, as himself being that thought, then he won't take action on that thought process.