Sex Offenders Have Nowhere to Live

reply to post by dbloch7986


I would suggest that we have always been a cold, cruel society and we have only become more compassionate since the late 1880's, when these ideas of "reforming" people came up.

Before that, it was work camp, debtor's prison, or death for most offenses.

reply to post by peck420


Label it, throw it in the bucket and pay the government to deal with it. That's the society we live in.

Thanks.

reply to post by Miraj


That's what I am concerned about.

Not only that but I guarantee you they will pay the same people who manage the prisons to do it. Its no mistake that the prison industry is worth billions while at the same time laws are becoming more broad and with longer sentences. Its no mistake people are encouraged to shun criminals and prevent them from getting a job and a second chance.

Originally posted by Brood

I don't demand that the top of the hierarchy solve all of my problems for me.

Maybe that's where we really differ.

This is the way all society should be and I guarantee our problems would all but cease to exist.

Sorry to but in, but that is an awesome point of view.

reply to post by MrWendal


I know its not common. I actually think public urinators, flashers and accidental exposure out number the actual offenders. I think if the law was reassessed and applied to only the most heinous of offenders we would have a viable solution. Which is why I agree with the ruling completely.

Thanks.

reply to post by Tykonos


If your child is incapable of defending himself, why is he unsupervised.

Your argument is moot anyway. What if the neighbor across the street who has not been convicted yet does it instead? Where does your distrust of others end?

reply to post by indianajoe77


What happened to the days where you were caught stealing, but instead of being thrown in jail you worked it off and sometimes ended up with a job afterwards.

At one time all criminals were "innocent" in the eyes of society and the law. Anyone is capable of any of the acts that anyone else has done. Most people just don't do it, some do it out of necessity, some do it because they enjoy it and there are lots more reasons.

I forgot where I was going with that, but the point was if you continue down the path society is on with this, everyone will be villified. Its a vicious, never ending circle of distrust. People need to accept that life is dangerous and bad things happen. Trying to pay the government to ban sex offenders doesn't prevent sex offenses from happening. There are millions more worldwide that have not been caught yet.

I'm not sure what time in history your thinking about. Maybe in a rural area, a farmer would cut a kid some slack and let him work off the theft instead of calling the sheriff.

However, we are not talking about a simple theft of bread so one can live, we are talking about one of the most emotionally and physically harmful things you can do to another human being.

I understand your calling for more compassion in the world. However, having compassion for those who deserve it, i.e. a 5 year-old who was molested, and having compassion for those that do not, i.e. the molestor who raped the 5 year-old, is not the same.

Everything is not relative nor comparable.

reply to post by indianajoe77


That's what we're discussing.

The laws are so vague that the mild offenders are hit with the same punishment as the worst offenders.

Originally posted by indianajoe77

However, we are not talking about a simple theft of bread so one can live, we are talking about one of the most emotionally and physically harmful things you can do to another human being.

As opposed to murder, which of course they can get out after 25 years, maybe 10 on a plea bargain.

I understand your calling for more compassion in the world. However, having compassion for those who deserve it, i.e. a 5 year-old who was molested, and having compassion for those that do not, i.e. the molestor who raped the 5 year-old, is not the same.

Everything is not relative nor comparable.

You're the one pitting them against eachother. Consideration and understanding should be offered to both the victim and the perpetrator. Not labels and burning stakes.

Originally posted by Brood

Originally posted by indianajoe77

However, we are not talking about a simple theft of bread so one can live, we are talking about one of the most emotionally and physically harmful things you can do to another human being.

As opposed to murder, which of course they can get out after 25 years, maybe 10 on a plea bargain..

Yes, I agree the offenders should do as much time as murderers, who should be doing more time themselves!

I understand your calling for more compassion in the world. However, having compassion for those who deserve it, i.e. a 5 year-old who was molested, and having compassion for those that do not, i.e. the molestor who raped the 5 year-old, is not the same.

Everything is not relative nor comparable.

You're the one pitting them against eachother. Consideration and understanding should be offered to both the victim and the perpetrator. Not labels and burning stakes.

Why should I have compassion for the perpetrator? Because he wasn't hugged enough by Mommy, he decided to take that out on someone else, and I should have compassion for that?

Should we understand the "why"? Yes! Should the "why" be used as an excuse? No!

Originally posted by dbloch7986
reply to post by Tykonos

 

If your child is incapable of defending himself, why is he unsupervised.

Your argument is moot anyway. What if the neighbor across the street who has not been convicted yet does it instead? Where does your distrust of others end?

In the case of my cousin, it was a member of the clergy. In almost any scenario, a reasonable person would consider that as supervision.

Similarly, there are a great number of cases where the offender was a member of the immediate family, a respected coach, a teacher . . . again, the reasonable person would assume that is supervision.

If somebody was in a position where there was that reasonable expectatation of trust, you wouldn't bat an eye at socialization in that scenario.

Now, if somebody was allowed to move in next door, without your knowledge of them being a sexual offender and that person befriended you and your family to the point of trust and the person reoffended, where would that leave you?

A bad parent?

At some point, society has to deal with criminals as they are. Criminals. The victims did not choose to be the victim and I'm pretty sure that if you were aware such a person lived beside the house you were planning to purchase, you wouldn't purchase.

So, if a person is 'protected' by privacy laws, moves in next door and decides to take out their perversions upon your son, daugher or spouse, does that make you a bad person? Would you stay in that house because the offender deserves a second, third, fourth or whatever chance?

I am not familiar with laws across all 50 states so I don't know how those in such situations are notified, if at all.

The reality, to me, is that laws are supposed to be prohibitive. In my opinion, and depending on the offense, the stronger the implied punishment, the stronger the deterrent.

So, if somebody has the urge to molest a child, expose themselves to kids on a playground, abuse a family member or any other of the possible scenarios knows that if they're caught and convicted, that they're doomed to a life living alone in the middle of a damn desert somewhere, polishing the rocket against a cactus and eating cyote shanks for the rest of their days then so be it.

Maybe that will instill enough fear into them to get help before they offend as opposed to expecting our accommodation after they're released from prison.

May they prey on one another in the 'woods'.
Innocence, must be protected.
Every human has the right to bloom.
Every witness has the right to praise the Spring of Beeing.
.....and be showered in the blessings of one's creation.....

KnowwadAmean.....

reply to post by dbloch7986


How about giving them a medicine which would stop their sexual desires, I'm sure we have advanced that much already.

It is funny how people want to advance to the future, yet fear the future. Technological advances have caused my problems, we are willing to live with those problems. Technological advances have created many solutions, we fear those solutions.

Time to move forward, drug them to stop their sexual desires. Isn't that the ultimate problem?

only

Originally posted by dbloch7986
The first step to rehabilitating someone is to feel compassion for them.

If no ever trusts criminals again they will never make it back into society and will be incarcerated forever.

I believe in the concept of rehabilitation.

I don't look at prison as punishment, nor do I see the puporse of incarceration as primarily being vindictive or compassionless.

I'm more than happy to welcome rehabilitated criminals back in to society, as long as they are truly over their anti-social past.

And this is where we hit our stumbling block: how do you know whether a criminal is genuinely rehabilitated ?

This question can't be accurately answered until either:

1. A freed criminal lives a long and law abiding life, and passes away at an old age, without reoffending. Or,

2. The criminal reoffends.


The chance of ''2'' ( considering that we've got evidential reason to consider that there is a chance that the convict will reoffend ) is too high a risk to take, just for the feel-good, back-slapping societal wank-fest that occurs with option ''1''.

Originally posted by dbloch7986
Society as a whole is more than capable of reassimilating criminals. However so many are so quick to wash their hands of them. We have turned into a cold, callous society.

Society can reassimilate criminals.

However, the burden shouldn't be on ''society'' to bend over backwards and provide people with opportunities that they shouldn't have.

You said that your friend had been convicted of GTA ( Grand Theft Auto ), which corresponds as stealing a car in most country's laws.

You said he has trouble finding a job because of this previous conviction.

Isn't that understandable ?


Imagine I'm considering two equally qualified people for an employment position:

The first one is someone without a criminal record.
The second one is your mate that has a documented history of acting dishonestly and unethically.

Which one should I logically choose ? Come on !


I agree that some criminals should be reintroduced to society, but they shouldn't expect a free ride, nor a helping hand from the society that they were more than happy to mess up.

You reap what you sow, as they say, and if you don't commit serious crimes, then you won't have to contend with the very real consequences of your immoral actions.

Originally posted by dbloch7986
Even towards those that aren't criminals. People just want to throw money at the government and let them deal with it. "Let's ban all the sex offenders and criminals. That way i never have to watch my kids or teach them to defend themselves." That's the attitude of society.

I think this is very misrepresentative of the actuality of rehousing convicted child molesters upon release.

I'm not a parent, but I think that the concerns of parents are largely justified, in terms of having convicted murderers, rapists or child molesters being housed next door to them.

It's not about relying on the government to defend your children.

It's not about teaching a child to defend themselves ( that point is demonstrably ridiculous, because how can a 5 or 6 year old child defend themselves against a full grown adult ).


The government constitutes the societal hierarchy, and consequently, the government is the only way that laws will be enforced and implemented.

That doesn't mean that everybody who believes in the government laws, are people that disagree with personal freedom and responsibility.

Solution..... Don't commit sexual offenses.

Better solution.... don't commit any offenses.

reply to post by dbloch7986



I have a couple of better solutions.

1. Burn the bastards publicly after the second offense (or first if evidence is strong enough). IF not, see 2.

2. Set aside some desert land (no one would miss it) and have a colony of these dirtbags. If someone is found innocent within 5 years (if they live that long) get out of jail free card.

reply to post by felonius


21st century solution.

Inject them with a medicine which would destroy their sexual desires, or at least make it mute for as long as the judge chooses to.

The only misfortune is the "sex offenders" that were young themselves that had sex with a teen girl. As far as the others. Too f'n bad.

reply to post by dbloch7986
It could be worse they could have been taken to live at a fema camp.