Sex Offenders Have Nowhere to Live

Originally posted by strangleholder1
reply to post by Brood

 

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

I'm anti-vindication and pro-justice.

Killing people for sex acts is beyond immoral vengeance.

Perhaps you missed this little snippet in the OP in your eagerness to rant about how you want to kill off all of your problems:

Please read the article before posting and please refrain from rash or angry responses. Think about what you're saying before you say it.

Example is: "We should kill them all." That is a rash response that was not thought out. I am not looking for shallow responses. I want to make you think.

edit on 4-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

reply to post by onequestion


This is where we have a fundemental difference.

You believe people can be reformed, and with a little understanding and patience, become a productive member of society.

I believe people cannot be reformed at a certain point.

To quote Frank Ridgeway (quoting a poet):

"Now can people change, or don't they? That's the question."

reply to post by indianajoe77


I will respectfully agree to disagree with you on this as well.

It really comes down to personal philosophy and experience i guess.

Then again, don't cry when your tax dollars go to house people like this.

Interestingly (the comment about tax dollars) My state just voted to approve a mandatory minimum sentence for sex offenders and drunk drivers. 3-strikes type of law. I've zero issues with this. Put sex offenders (pedophiles in particular) in prison and leave them, it is where they belong.

Oh and OP - that is not a rash comment - so I do not want to hear anything about it being so...

ETA:
However, I can see issues with this while the laws defining what a sex crime is (or who commits one) are broad.

I notice that the posters that want sex offender seperated completely from society or even killed, keep avoiding the underlying problem.

If all sex offenders were child molesters or worse, no problem. What do we do about the drunk that was seen peeing, or the kids that share the same label for showing pictures of infant family members? Do they get the same treatment?

Maybe the problem is not what we do with sex offenders, but WHO we label as sex offenders?

reply to post by onequestion


Now that is the way an ATS debate should end. To agree to disagree.

I appreciate what your saying, and it has been my experience that it does not work.

I hope you weren't trying to say that I'm young and inexperienced, because I would take that as an insult.

I respectfully agree to disagree as well.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


Thank you for taking the time to address all the points I brought up.

I think "sex crime" has turned into a bit of mass hysteria. You say "molest" and it will immediately call the attention of everyone in the Room. Its ridiculous overreactions from people towards the idea of a "sex crime". Some people won't even pay the slightest attention to the description "murderer". Add "raped and murdered two children" and watch the reactions change. Its as if rape or molestation are worse than murder. That's completely insane to me. Taking a life is much worse than rape if you think logically about it. Unfortunately I think the stigma in society surrounding "sex crimes" actually makes the victim much worse off than the crime itself without the stigma.

There's no Megan's law website for murderers. Why not?

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by GoalPoster

 

I knew it wouldn't be long before a response like this would come along.

Then again, don't cry when your tax dollars go to house people like this.

Well, the rate of recividism among sex offenders is best summed as follows:

Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.


Source

So, when your child is given a life sentence of psychological issues because some pervert decided to have their way with them, we can all gather round and say set them free in order to save a few tax dollars while flushing so many more of those dollars to corporate greed.

That's great.

I might be considered by some to be a neanderthal, but I firmly believe that when an adult preys upon a child for the purposes of their sexual gratification, they should remain incarcerated for life.

And throw away the damned key.

Sorry that doesn't jive with the touchy feely liberal rosey colored glasses view of some, but that's just the way it is for me.

Ask my cousin who as a child was sexually abused by a member of the clergy how he feels . . . he's lived a life of pain, suffering and self-forced solitude while the perpetrator of this crime walked away with two years jail time, five years probation and eventually went on to recommit.

But I respect your right to the opinion that it is a waste of tax dollars housing these people for life.

Maybe an island somewhere with a mitt full of veggie seeds and a fishing rod would be more appropriate, that way they're on their own til the end of their time on this earth.

That'd do me just fine.

reply to post by peck420


The redefining of "sex offender" I can get on board with. The 18 year-old who's dating a 17 year-old with a vindictive father should not wear the label of "sex offender", nor should the parent who took a candid shot of their baby in the bath.

As so many people have mentioned, a big problem is that all "indecent" crimes get lumped together, despite there being broad differences in severity. I'd say seeing a drunk guy's junk is a lot less harmful to someone than being raped, but because they're in the same category and there are mandatory minimum sentences, people's punishment sometimes far outstrips the crime.

Take the "age of consent", for example. While a lot of us are probably conspiracy theorist computer nerds, I bet a fair share people here were getting it on as teenagers. But if the age law was against you, maybe you or your partner were committing statutory rape. Here in Oregon a measure was just passed the other day that increased minimum sentences for sex crimes and DUIs. A consequence of that passing is that even underage kids convicted will have to serve 25 years AT LEAST. I don't think that's fair. A horny teenager that goes to jail for that long will definitely come out a criminal. Who does that serve? Society or the corporations that run everything?

reply to post by indianajoe77


My question was not with your age, or directed as an insult. My questioning your experience was with the system we have developed for incarceration, ie the prison system.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Put sex offenders (pedophiles in particular) in prison and leave them, it is where they belong.

Oh and OP - that is not a rash comment - so I do not want to hear anything about it being so...

No, just a typical, ignorant one. Had you said "child molester" I would have watched it pass by as another vindictive person driven to harsh punishment by bias.

Pedophiles suffer from a mental disorder. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, not all child molesters are pedophiles. They cannot control their feelings and cannot be held responsible for them. Their actions are a different story.

I could just as easily say "All men should be in jail because some men rape women".

reply to post by onequestion


I have had my share of experiences with the jail system here in Cook County, IL. I'm well aware of the problems with the system (and have a few ideas to fix it as well). But fixing our prison system is a different topic than child molestors having no where to live.

By the way - enjoyed the debate!

Originally posted by Mossflower
Society or the corporations that run everything?

Great, you had to encourage my conspiracy side .

I think some of this nonsense is done purposefully to create a lovely "revolving door" policy that will keep judges, laywers, and police in high demand for a long time.

reply to post by Brood


Thanks.

Your analysis is almost exactly what the judge said. Its futile to try and seclude them. They can still get where they want to go. It's also impossible to track every single one of them.

At what point will the individuals of society stop expecting the government to babysit them.

Logically we are not just going to kill them all. That is an unreasonable and fruitless argument. Such an act of mass, callous execution would never be condoned outside of war. You and I and everyone here know that. So why bother with it.

reply to post by Brood


I'm in the field (Mental Health) don't need an Internet no-name telling me my opinions are ignorant, it holds zero weight with me. Thanks

Originally posted by peck420


Maybe the problem is not what we do with sex offenders, but WHO we label as sex offenders?

Well said.

There is a difference in the seriousness of such offences.
A guy having consentual sex with a girl a few years younger than him who is by law underage shouldn't even be labeled as a sex offender.

reply to post by GoalPoster


I have to repeatedly go back to this issue because it is the true cause of why we experience this problem as a society in my point of view.

The reason we have these issues in the first place is because we are not creating self awareness for our children at a young age. We don't teach them how to identify destructive behavior and thought processes on their own enough to be able to understand why, what, and how this is occurring in their psyche to be able to put a stop to it.

You think the problem is there was a crime.

I think the problem was lack of understanding of oneself enough to stop yourself from committing the crime in the first place.

This is the direction the world is going to eventually take at one point.

To state more accurately,

The problem is not the crime, the problem is why the crime was commit, and under what circumstance.

reply to post by dbloch7986


You know what this will lead to though?

Eventually the government will have to provide housing for these people because of the strict requirements. Just watch..