Sex Offenders Have Nowhere to Live

Think? What is there to think about? Honestly---If someone is a true sex offender (not the guy that pee'd in public and a kid saw him, I mean a real rapist). Someone that has no conscience and wouldn't think twice about assaulting a child. As far as I'm concerned you have surrendered all of your rights, including your right to live near me or, well anyone for that matter. I don't think these people can be 'cured", only imprisoned, or shunned by society. You touch a child....death penalty, period. Tell me the truth, if you were to catch someone assaulting your child would you really want to reason with him? He wouldn't leave the room alive if it were my child. To assault someone sexually is a choice, you made that choice to do what you did....deal with the consequences of your actions.

I always find it funny how all these self righteous people condemn people, then turn around and talk about murdering and burning people etc. These self righteous types have been around forever, hateful disgusting people. They just use the scapegoat of the time as a place to aim their hate. Today it is pedophiles and muslims, yesterday it was homosexuals and commies, before that witches and warlocks and werewolfs.

What i have seen over the years is more sex offenders living in rural areas or mobile in motor homes.

Under calif law

Registered sex offenders are required to update their information annually, within five working days of their birthday. Some sex offenders must update more often: transients must update every 30 days, and sexually violent predators, every 90 days. The Sex Offender Tracking Program keeps track of the next required update, and if a registered sex offender is in violation of the update requirements, the Internet web site will show the registrant as being in violation.

Transients must update every 30 days, this means that sex offenders that are living in motor homes only need to register before there 30th day and may move to another area on day 30 and then have 30 days before having to register again.
if they are staying in rural areas where there are few cops and long travel times for these cops they do not get checked on as the cops never find them.

There was one living in the mountains in northern Calif that the cops looked for for years.
They knew where he lived and went to his cabin many times and could see that he was living there, But every time they stopped by he was gone from the cabin.. But the cops found that he could see cop 4 wheel drives on the other side of the canyon and would just disappear into the woods before the cops got there.

This all leads to some sex offenders never being monitored and many cops not knowing where these offenders really are.

After reading the case, the different arguments on both sides of the issue, and what the opinion and descent of the courts ruling is, this matter needs to be given thought about an issue that is slowly growing in the United States, and the different ramifications of this law, and I have lived in California and seen a court case that appeared, and took notice of it, this may or may not have relevance on the topic at hand.
The problem ultimately with the entire sex offender registry is that it is too broad under the law, as it leaves open too wide of definition where any one thing can get a person on it. These range from acts of public indecency, to sexting, to rape, child molestation, to any number of other crimes, where sex is a factor involved, and any one person can be charged with that crime and have to register. This means a high school student who is 17, the age of consent, who dates and has sex with a girl who is 15, or any number of the teenage girls that send nude photos to their boyfriends, can be charged and forced to register as a sex offender and would be subject to this law. The laws that force a person to register, are too broad by its very nature, and often leaves the question, how long do we punish someone who has done their crime?
In the country as it stands, the understanding is that a person accused and convicted of a crime, goes to jail or prison, does his time there, and is released, having served his sentence, and then is said to have paid his debt to society. But society often continues to punish the individual, making them a pariah and forcing them to offend and commit another crime, thus returning back to jail or prison, and thus starting a very vicious and cruel cycle that neither helps the person or society. Nor too is there any means to help and treat these individuals,. Society, as civilized and advanced as we are, still goes by the age old saying, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If we did that, then the world would be just a bunch of toothless blind people running around.
But there are many problems and issues with crime, punishment and what to do with the criminal after they are released. Another problem is that the prisons and jails are no longer a deterrent, they are not the scary horrible places that they once were. Oh they are dangerous, of that it is true, but it is not enough to keep people on the straight and narrow path. Jails, from what I have heard by people who work in them and have been in one, are pretty much a controlled place, with some luxuries of life, and no freedom to come and go. It is a mini world of its own, with its own set of rules and social behaviors, and cliques. Many of these came from different prison riots and changes, cause society thought that the punishments were too harsh on the individuals, so many prisoners are not getting the help that they need and are getting the things that they do not need. Too many things are taken for granted, and very little in the way of punishment. We may all think that Sherriff Joe Arpaio is a bad sheriff, but ask yourself this, if all jails and prisons were ran the way he runs his jail, very strict, with a meal that many would not want to eat, and shamed for being there, would you or any one want to go and be there? I would not, as it is not a nice place, with no luxuries like TV, and the bare minimum in the way of things that can be done, and as long as he keeps it that way, many of the people who get sentenced there, do not return back to his jail, preferring to live else where if they want to continue with the actions that got them there in the first place.
Now some here suggest imprisoning a person for the rest of their life for a crime, but is that fair to do that? Yes they did commit a crime, but does the punishment fit the crime? The nature of the punishment should fit the crime, and a first time offender should not be punished to harshly, and there are instances there the person made a mistake, admits it, serves his time and then is a model citizen. There is a case where this happened, the guy molested a girl, went to prison and served his time. He got out, kept a very low profile, got married, had a child, had a business, and was the model citizen of the town he lived in. It was then later on that it came out he did molest a child and now he is ostracized by the very community that he lives in, even though he has not done anything for 15 years. 15 years of hard work, of being a good law abiding citizen and because one person had a grudge against him in short ruined his life, is that fair? Or how about the 3 people up in Oregon that were killed. These three, yes did molest children, went to prison, served their time. They lived away from the city, kept a very quiet life, abided by all of the rules, some one found out what they did, and went and killed all three one evening. There was no call for that, as they did not want to go back to prison, yet someone decided to play judge, jury and executioner all at the same time, without giving them the benefit of the doubt. This is neither fair, or legal or civilized.
Now I mentioned a court case that I heard about while living in San Diego, and this has direct bearing on the topic at hand. While the people involved were not accused of being a sex offender, it does point out the problem with setting up a town where there are no children. In this case, a family of three (Father, Mother, and Child) moved into a community, renting a house from an elderly person, then later purchased it. There was one problem, as it was a retirement community, and then they were asked to leave, and thus starting a law suit, claiming discrimination. Setting up a community may seem like a good idea, but what all do you do, when the community looks safe and a good place to raise a family, and protect those inside from those wood be vigilantes who have taken it on themselves to enforce a warped sense of justice?
The solution for this is neither going to be easy or painless, and may seem a bit on the discriminatory side, as the first thing has to be to look at the laws and redefine what is and is not a sex offender, taking off of the books the non violent crimes for first time offenders, things like the children to date, the indecent exposure, the lude acts, and other things that can get a person on the registry. This database and registry needs to be coherent across the country, to include the age of consent to be equal in all of the country, not just one age in one state and one age in another. Along with that the specifics need to be examined, to prevent say a teenager who is one day away from being 18 sneaking into a bar, getting with a man who is 30 and being punished. Jails and prisons have to be harder and rougher, take out the free exercise equipments and Tvs, get help and rehabilitation back to help those who committed a crime. Further more, there needs to be a more progressive sentencing standard, first time you get slapped with a heavy punishment, next time it is twice as bad, that way it starts to reinforce to those who might be tempted not to. Society has to be more forgiving, to give a convicted person a chance to straighten his life up, by giving him a means to do such, not just to keep punishing him for the rest of his life, or not allowing him to be a part of society. And finally, as much as it will be distasteful, just maybe there needs to be areas of a city or community where there can be no children or families with children that can stay, keeping them away, so that way it gives released convicts a place to stay and try to get their lives in order.

A couple of months ago, I remember there was an uproar out here in LA. I think it was around the Orange County area. Anyway, people were targeting this hotel where tons of sex offenders were being housed and not to mention, being housed on the taxpayers dollar. All because they have nowhere to go because of this stupid law. I think the other thing was that them being housed in that particular hotel was still breaking the law anyway. Anyone else remember this? I'm too lazy to do a search. Sorrrryyyy.

dontcha love the heavy browed, torch waving, pitchfork bearing mentality here?
like I said, we're DE EVOLVING as a society

reply to post by dbloch7986


Not to mention if you have a girlfriend who is under age even by 1 or 2 years you can be a registered sex offender if her parents to like you.

It happens all the time.

I dont think they are currently doing anything with Alcatraz island, why dont they convert that into a condominium complex for child diddlers and let them molest each other in isolation from the rest of the world who DON'T molest children.

If you rape a child then you forfeit your right to live in normal society, you go where you are told. Otherwise you can go out into the Mojave desert and starve to death for all I care.

You will garner no sympathy for these monsters, they deserve whatever hardship can be bestowed upon them. If not the gas chamber, then whatever else may come.

people are always freaked out about SO's.

funny stuff...sure, worry about the person that got slapped...meanwhile, the actual threat is the uncle that is around your darlings all day...the SO is pretty harmless...

especially since a SO has been redefined soo many times now that it is almost meaningless in order to create a epidemic...flashers, peepers, teen porn watchers, sextings, voyeurs, net chatting, let me say again...flashers.

back in the 50s-90s, mooning people and flashing a bit of boob was considered slightly amusing in a juvenile sort of way...now it is considered a danger to society and hide the kids...heh

meanwhile, parents continue to expect the state to protect their children from anything and everything, allowing every liberty to be considered for censorship or criminalization verses actually being a parent.

don't worry about the dots on the map for registered people...they are keeping clean as they are the first ones investigated when something goes wrong...worry about the houses with no dots on them if your the panic type...that is far more accurate to the reality of things

but who cares about reality...witches are fun to hunt and burn.

Fur da childran!!!

Originally posted by whyshouldI trustyou2619
Think? What is there to think about? Honestly---If someone is a true sex offender (not the guy that pee'd in public and a kid saw him, I mean a real rapist).

Ahh, your thinking of either a SO spending 30 years in lockup, or a sex predator...a predator is not an offender in the same way a serial killer is not some dude that got into a barfight one night.

this law effects the pee guy (flashing)...also, the public sex and all that getting caught risky behavior type stuff...sex offenders mostly are the "harmless" pervs...not always, but the majority of cases are stupid things, or just really dumb moves (some 20 year old banging a 15 year old at a party is marked for life, yep)...

Predators are the ones that fall into your version of what is a damnable offense...and ya, they need "special treatment"...typically a person gets a predator title because its not a mistake, dumb decision, or just a stupid law...but rather, they do have some demons they gotta deal with...

if someone was molesting my kid (well, lets say my niece..I don't have kids), I would kick some ass then call the cops. if however it was some 20 year old banging my oldest niece when she was 15, I would smack him on the back of his head and tell him he could end up in prison...

but then again, I think about these things...thinking is not really the cool thing to do when the word sex is mentioned in public...supposed to run on pure passion and feeling

The sex offender law has some flaws...however, if you're guilty of rape or molestation of minors OR adults, then, well, I don't give a damn if you end up in the bottom of a lake with cement tied to your feet. You don't deserve to live in the same society as me.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
dontcha love the heavy browed, torch waving, pitchfork bearing mentality here?
like I said, we're DE EVOLVING as a society

I'm assuming you mean folks who don't appreciate the fun rapists provide to our society. How about this...send your daughter or sister or even your mother to a sex predator's home for a weekend. Tell us how it goes. Thanks dude!

reply to post by SeventhSeal


not everyone that convicted is guilty brother, remember that.

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by SeventhSeal

 

not everyone that convicted is guilty brother, remember that.

That's actually the point I brought up in my first post, buddy. However, like I said, send your daughter or mother or sister to a sex offender's home and let's see you get defensive of a monster.

Maybe you're fine living next to a child molester or a serial rapist, but I don't think the rest of us are comfortable with that

The term "Sex Offender" is too broad, and thus the law(s) too sweeping. There is a difference in degree between someone who has (as distasteful as this sounds) fondled and someone who has raped. There is further a difference between someone who has raped and someone who has murdered.

There should be degrees of sex-offending categories. Off the top of my head in 20 seconds, here is what comes to mind (I will purposely keep my definitions non-graphic):

CAT 1: inappropriate touching/fondling
CAT 2: sexual assault
CAT 3: rape
CAT 4: murder

Note: each category progresses with the understanding that a CAT 2 has already committed a CAT 1 offense, that a CAT 4 has already committed CATs 1-3.

Depending on what each category has been convicted of, that person has different requirements as to where he/she can live.

A CAT 1 offender has more options than a CAT 2, a CAT 3 has more options than a CAT 4, etc. However, all CAT 4s, in my opinion, should never be released from prison, if not executed.

Having different levels of "sex offender" offers more options to those who committed less intense crimes. While ALL crimes against children are terrible, we must understand that there are degrees of "terrible" in almost all things, especially crimes. CAT 1 offenses are FAR LESS HORRIFIC than the other CATs. While we would prefer to have none of the CATs (categories) ever happen to anyone, that simply is not the reality of our world. The best we can do is to STRATIFY the level of crime and apply living guidelines accordingly.

Well it would be nice if the ranking system could be trusted. This is not the case however. I sat on a Jury for a 50ish year old man who basically eloped with a 15 year old girl.. His defense was that he was in love and she was in an abusive home etc etc.

He had no priors well no sexual priors, he had been in prison for shooting at his ex wife. The state brought in an expert that said he was a pedophile and that people like him would generally molest 200 kids in their lifetime. I never really bought this, but the others took it to bank and this guy got 75 years in TDC. I know it’s just me but this guy was not your standard pedophile who would be grabbing kids off the street and molesting them.

Look for yourself.
Charles Douglas Land www.texastribune.org...

Oh he did take off across the country with her.
www.usmarshals.gov...

I am almost afraid or ashamed to say it, but this guy did not deserve 75 years. When they said guilty his kids were screaming "whaling even"!! He was clearly guilty, but I really feel like I should have stood my ground and not had this on my shoulders. What really got me was just how gung ho everyone was to give this guy the chair. Their argument was would you want to live next door to him? The answer was no seeing how an expert had just told me he would molest 200 kids! F*ck me man I knew he was going away, but 75 years!! I think it would have been more humane to take him out back and put bullet in the back of his head. This all went down right before the Tony Alamo trial, so I think they were making a statement with him. It was a good old fashioned witch burning.

And just a little later I heard this on the radio!!!!!
A case in Oklahoma where a guy butt raped a 5 year old, and was allowed to plea for 3 years probation. The DA told the paper or whoever that it was better to have him registered than to have him get away scott free! That guy should have gotten 75 years!

It seems they are always letting the worst go!

Word of advise here: If you are at the bar and some chic looks under 18 or 18 for that matter run, run and run!

That all said:
There are plenty of really nasty folks walking the street, and I dont want them living anywhere near my kids school! So sorry, but screw em.

reply to post by SeventhSeal


again, not all convicted are guilty.....what if that convicted pedo was convicted because of a vengeful ex wife in the aftermath of an ugly bitter divorce?
get to know people first, then their convictions

I guess I'm pretty harsh in thinking child molesters, rapists, and murderers deserve what they get. Frankly I think the law gets them off easy breezy. Even easier if you have the money.

reply to post by dbloch7986


Simple way of avoiding this problem STOP F**KING KIDS!

Dont molest children you wont be ostracised. SIMPLE.


Sometimes I try and see whats left of the human beneath the action...but as a survivor and watching the manipulations, lies and twisted logic of intentionally predatory humans, I am compelled to stand at the wall of NO SYMPATHY.

I refuse to feel piteous for a group of [people who have completely screwed up the lives of entire generations of children with no remorse..no mercy..no pity and no humanity.

The only humanity I can extend to them is to not shoot them where they stand.

Give me a break, they have many options other than either staying in prison or living on the street. Any half decent person should have family or friends they can stay with, until they get back on their feet. Near my work there is a whole apartment building with nothing but child rapists living in it.
I think the real problem lies with the issue of even being able to afford to own or rent a home. With the economy the way it is, employers have their pick of many over qualified people when it comes time to hire someone. Of course they all do background checks, and credit checks, the same with potential land lords, and most people if they have a choice, would rather not want to count on someone who was convicted of rape, child molestation, etc.
etc.
Once that type of offense is on your record you can kiss most opportunities goodbye. Perhaps it would be better if we just released them on an island full of other sex offenders. Maybe they would thrive if they had a place where they felt accepted, and didn't have to worry about any social stigmas.

Actually sounds like a good idea for a scary movie.

"In a world where all sex offenders are sent to a segregated island, and a boat full of children gets caught in a hurricane, blowing them right into their worst nightmare. Now there is only one man who can rescue them before its too late. Coming soon PEDOPHILE ISLAND!