NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for or against this law? I am 100% for it. But I would like to see how many people here are.


http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/language/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/provisions/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/fact_sheet.pdf

We already have that in Texas. I'm sorry California is so behind in this matter.

In Texas, we know exactly where every child molestor is, we know their address, phone number, and driver's license number. We also have the right to petition a landlord or apartment manager to evict a child sex offender if we find out they live in our neighborhoods.

What's California's problem?

Edit: Incidently, I do not wish to take away a child sex offender's right to live, but I will gladly take away their right to live next door to me.

Adds the crime of burglary with the intent to
commit a forcible sex crime to the mandatory
minimum sentencing of life with the
possibility of parole.
I question this.

We already have that in Texas. I'm sorry California is so behind in this matter.

In Texas, we know exactly where every child molestor is, we know their address, phone number, and driver's license number. We also have the right to petition a landlord or apartment manager to evict a child sex offender if we find out they live in our neighborhoods.

What's California's problem?


California is very far-left and our Liberal legislature is blocking it. It's a fact you know.

California is very far-left and our Liberal legislature is blocking it. It's a fact you know.

Well I'm very far-left and very liberal, but I sure as hell wouldn't block this. Nutty ass Californians. :p

I question this.



You can remove that part.

Well I'm very far-left and very liberal, but I sure as hell wouldn't block this. Nutty ass Californians. :p



Thats a good thing. Tell the democrats that and let them what Liberals really think. Right now they just assume things.

Edit: Incidently, I do not wish to take away a child sex offender's right to live, but I will gladly take away their right to live next door to me.

Where do they live if everyone has that right?

Thats a good thing. Tell the democrats that and let them what Liberals really think. Right now they just assume things.

Democrat =/= Liberal. Look at people like Hillary Clinton and Joseph Leiberman and Zell Miller. I find most far-left liberals, especially around here, are actually Libertarian Leftists.

Folks like me who will vote for Kinky Freidman for Governor in 2006! The Democrats let the leftist/liberal/populists down when they handed John Kerry the ticket in 2004.

Where do they live if everyone has that right?

Meh .... dunno ... don't care. However, I don't think they should live in any communities that have children in them.

Folks like me who will vote for Kinky Freidman for Governor in 2006!
I thought he was insanely libertarian.

As for this law, I am against it, and I’m against the laws in place in Texas. Giving the government for anybody of that matter, the right to post private information about any individual against heir will is dangerous. They’ll just use it in California for the same thing they use it here for, to shame those who participate in the perfectly ethical and consensual practice of prostitution.

Other than the required GPS tracking, I would support this. Although most of it seems to be worthless legislation.

I'm against this sort of law. It only stigmatizes people and it gives a sense of false security.

Why would any one be against jessica's law... Taht is just stupid.. How would you feel if it was your neighbor, and your kid?... You would be pissed that you didn't know.. (or would you defend the guys rights to "privacy" even though he were a convicted child molester.. i would rather know where they live and who they are then to Be afraid to let my kids go outside and play during the day. You would be punishing a child by putting insane restrictions on them more then you would the Convict.. If you oppose this law, in my opinion (i am not this rude normally) Are an Idiot.

Meh .... dunno ... don't care. However, I don't think they should live in any communities that have children in them.

We can set an island up for them, give them some running water and a campfire.

I'm against this sort of law. It only stigmatizes people and it gives a sense of false security.


How does it do that? Care to elaborate on that?

I thought he was insanely libertarian.

He is. However, he also said he'd do his damndest to put a moritorium on the death penalty in Texas and, frankly, that's good enough for my vote. I disagree with him on some things, but I find I like his stances on a lot of stuff. I signed his petition, I campaign for him. He's got my vote.

Giving the government for anybody of that matter, the right to post private information about any individual against heir will is dangerous.

What ... you think anyone wants to steal a pedophile's identity? :D

Ok, no ... I see where you're coming from and, yes, it can be a dangerous thing. It does subject these people to those who would seek to do unfair bodily harm to the person. However, adults have a great number of venues for self-protection. If someone throws eggs at a pedophile's house and leaves notes saying "we'll kill you", they have the law and all the powers of law enforcement on their side.

What we must protect are the innocent children and their parents, who may be ignorant of the fact that the person they just chit-chatted with at the park is someone who could very potentially sodomize their child.

I believe in protecting the ignorant. I believe in protecting the children. This is what makes me a Liberal.

Why would any one be against jessica's law... Taht is just stupid.. How would you feel if it was your neighbor, and your kid?... You would be pissed that you didn't know.. (or would you defend the guys rights to "privacy" even though he were a convicted child molester.. i would rather know where they live and who they are then to Be afraid to let my kids go outside and play during the day. You would be punishing a child by putting insane restrictions on them more then you would the Convict.. If you oppose this law, in my opinion (i am not this rude normally) Are an Idiot.


I agree, but you could leave out the idiot part.

We already have that in Texas. I'm sorry California is so behind in this matter.

In Texas, we know exactly where every child molestor is, we know their address, phone number, and driver's license number. We also have the right to petition a landlord or apartment manager to evict a child sex offender if we find out they live in our neighborhoods.

What's California's problem?

Edit: Incidently, I do not wish to take away a child sex offender's right to live, but I will gladly take away their right to live next door to me.

All we currently get in CA is their name address age picture and crime(s) they were convicted of

I agree, but you could leave out the idiot part.

why is that.. they are idiots.. Because if you put a child in danger like that there are many other (more cruel) words i could use against them :P

How does it do that? Care to elaborate on that?

Almost every point of that law was worthless policy, only meant to strike up political support. Saying that now convicted child molesters must live 2000 ft away from a school or park, rather than the original 1320ft does not add a whole lot of security to the situation.

We can set an island up for them, give them some running water and a campfire.

No ... we cannot deny them their Constitutional rights. However, their rights end where mine begin. I should have the right to live in a neighborhood free of people who have been proven to like to show their willie to 10 year old girls.

Likewise, these people should have the right to live in a neighborhood where people aren't going to drag them from their homes and beat them with bats. (cruel and unusual punishment).

I don't think they should be isolated, per se, but I also think parents should have the right to know.

why is that.. they are idiots.. Because if you put a child in danger like that there are many other (more cruel) words i could use against them :P



It hurts your argument if you call everybody against you an Idiot.

Ok, no ... I see where you're coming from and, yes, it can be a dangerous thing. It does subject these people to those who would seek to do unfair bodily harm to the person. However, adults have a great number of venues for self-protection. If someone throws eggs at a pedophile's house and leaves notes saying "we'll kill you", they have the law and all the powers of law enforcement on their side.

People who want to harm a child molestor aren't going to leave notes saying "we'll kill you", they will kill him.

It hurts your argument if you call everybody against you an Idiot.

(lacking compassion?... ) is that better.. mainly because it is true.. If you are willing to put a 12 year old in that kind of danger you must lack compassion (for the child .. the innocent) thouh you must have some compassion for the convict if you believe they should be able to live that near children without anyone knowing

Are you for or against this law? I am 100% for it. But I would like to see how many people here are.


http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/language/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/provisions/

http://www.jessicaslaw2006.com/fact_sheet.pdf

I'm way, way against it. 15 years isn't enough for you guys? Have you any IDEA how long 15 years is?

It hurts your argument if you call everybody against you an Idiot.

(lacking compassion?... ) is that better.. mainly because it is true.. If you are willing to put a 12 year old in that kind of danger you must lack compassion (for the child .. the innocent) thouh you must have some compassion for the convict if you believe they should be able to live that near children without anyone knowing

Almost every point of that law was worthless policy, only meant to strike up political support. Saying that now convicted child molesters must live 2000 ft away from a school or park, rather than the original 1320ft does not add a whole lot of security to the situation.



680 feet is pretty far, it keeps them farther from schools than they are now. Some of these people live withing 1000 feet of my nephews school....Not a good thing.

He's got my vote.
He's got mine as well, but only as a protest vote, really.
Ok, no ... I see where you're coming from and, yes, it can be a dangerous thing. It does subject these people to those who would seek to do unfair bodily harm to the person. However, adults have a great number of venues for self-protection. If someone throws eggs at a pedophile's house and leaves notes saying "we'll kill you", they have the law and all the powers of law enforcement on their side.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of, if they can do it to them, how soon can they do it to political dissidents?
What we must protect are the innocent children and their parents, who may be ignorant of the fact that the person they just chit-chatted with at the park is someone who could very potentially sodomize their child.

I believe in protecting the ignorant. I believe in protecting the children. This is what makes me a Liberal.
Hmm, I really don't care about kids. Most disgust me. Pedophiles are among the lowest of the low, yes, but people have been wrongfully convicted of pedophilia in the past and that kind of publicity and the amount of ruin it can bring to someone is hard to reverse.

Well, I live in California, and all we have on the news is rape, and sex offenses... :[ :mad: [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

People who want to harm a child molestor aren't going to leave notes saying "we'll kill you", they will kill him.

And those people should be tried and possibly convicted for murder.

People who want to harm a child molestor aren't going to leave notes saying "we'll kill you", they will kill him.

Really?

Why are there so many of them still living then?

No ... we cannot deny them their Constitutional rights. However, their rights end where mine begin.

How does the GPS tracking fit with the fourth amendment?

I don't think they should be isolated, per se, but I also think parents should have the right to know.

Ay, there's the rub!

How do you allow one person to know of a convict's past crimes, without thereby isolating the convict?

He's got mine as well, but only as a protest vote, really.

However he gets your vote, give it to him! Hooray!

I was actually thinking more along the lines of, if they can do it to them, how soon can they do it to political dissidents?

The country was founded on dissent, not child diddling.

Hmm, I really don't care about kids. Most disgust me.

:( Children are merely the product of their parents.

Pedophiles are among the lowest of the low, yes, but people have been wrongfully convicted of pedophilia in the past and that kind of publicity and the amount of ruin it can bring to someone is hard to reverse.

Now this is something else all together. Being wrongfully accused can fuck you up for life. Even if a later court proves you didn't do a damn thing, the initial conviction can stay with you to your grave.

This is why I believe in a culture of stamping out ignorance. "Accused" doesn't mean "Did". Know what I mean?

Really?

Why are there so many of them still living then?

Because there are far less people interested in killing child molesters than there are child molesters.

And those people should be tried and possibly convicted for murder.

That is poor solace for the dead person.

How does the GPS tracking fit with the fourth amendment?

I dunno ... according to recent Homeland Security nonsense, all American citizens should be GPS tracked. ;)

How do you allow one person to know of a convict's past crimes, without thereby isolating the convict?

But we all know about it. Adult criminal records are public domain information, even if it's just petty theft.

That is poor solace for the dead person.

Granted and conceded. Do you have an alternative, or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

The country was founded on dissent, not child diddling.
Tell that to the politicians.
:( Children are merely the product of their parents.
Exactly
This is why I believe in a culture of stamping out ignorance. "Accused" doesn't mean "Did". Know what I mean?
I'm convinced that the average human being is incapable of making that distinction without some sort of attachment to the accused.
Better just to do away with permanent punishments like the death penalty and being required to tell your neighbors that you are a sex offender.

I dunno ... according to recent Homeland Security nonsense, all American citizens should be GPS tracked. ;)

Its nice to know that I am on the same level as child molesters.

Granted and conceded. Do you have an alternative, or are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

Devil's advocate, as usual.

As you said criminal records are public domain, and I don't have a problem with that, I just don't like any laws that require the person who has the conviction to provide the info him/herself, especially if not requested.

Why not just throw them in the stocks or give them a lapel?

We can set an island up for them, give them some running water and a campfire.

Like a leper colony, only for kid-touchers. Nice. :cool:

As you said criminal records are public domain, and I don't have a problem with that, I just don't like any laws that require the person who has the conviction to provide the info him/herself, especially if not requested.

Well we're touching on a certiain kind of conviction here. I'm sorry, but I can't uphold the rights of a "child fucker". The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one thing, but if your happiness is having sex with 10 year olds, then I believe we should have the right to know who you are, where you are, and be able to avoid you. Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug*

Why not just throw them in the stocks or give them a lapel?

No ... I wouldn't condone that at all.

I like that it eliminates the "two strike" policy that makes it so a child molestor has to act twice before being considered "sexually violent." Once is enough... The tracking, "predator free zone", and Internet luring provisions are good as well. Overall, it seems to aim to make the law very strict for heinous child rape offenses and very clear in the criteria for punishment.

Well we're touching on a certiain kind of conviction here. I'm sorry, but I can't uphold the rights of a "child fucker". The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one thing, but if your happiness is having sex with 10 year olds, then I believe we should have the right to know who you are, where you are, and be able to avoid you. Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug*



No ... I wouldn't condone that at all.
I agree with you. Parents and people in general have the right to know of the presence of someone who has demonstrated that he or she has the ability to commit such a heinous crime. From what I've read, convicted sex offenders are very likely to strike again upon release.

Well we're touching on a certiain kind of conviction here. I'm sorry, but I can't uphold the rights of a "child fucker". The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one thing, but if your happiness is having sex with 10 year olds, then I believe we should have the right to know who you are, where you are, and be able to avoid you. Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug*

I am not too interested in their rights either, but it is hard for me to justify forcing them to create their own prison right after we release them from ours.

No ... I wouldn't condone that at all.

I don't see much difference between that and being forced to notify your neighborhood of past convictions.

I like that it eliminates the "two strike" policy that makes it so a child molestor has to act twice before being considered "sexually violent." Once is enough...

I agree with that one as well.

I don't see much difference between that and being forced to notify your neighborhood of past convictions.

Then perhaps you're unaware of FOIA. Someone hiring you to work behind a cash register is allowed to be made aware of whether or not you've stolen from your place of business.

This is the law. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the law.

IF you don't like it, change that law.

Im against it. Its more of this "we must protect the children" bullshit as if kids are special. please.

I fully support this law. However I think it's better to just execute them all.:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :eek: :mp5:

I fully support this law. However I think it’s better to just execute them all.
See, I’m against this kind of law, more particularly one being passed here in the UK, specifically to stop people with views like yours being able to hunt down criminals willy-nilly. Peadeophillia is a massive problem (either one that is growing or, more likely, one that is now in greater promenence in the public eye), but it won’t be solved by vigilantism; which these Sophia/Jessica/etc laws will undoubtabley lead to.

For it, if anything needs changing, it needs to be stricter!

Im against it. Its more of this "we must protect the children" bullshit as if kids are special. please.
More "we don't want any perverts ruining our society."

How do you allow one person to know of a convict's past crimes, without thereby isolating the convict?
Convicts, especially these sick, demented, perverted ones lose their rights. "You don't like us violating your rights? Awww, TO DAMN BAD! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED YOUR VICTUMS RIGHT'S!"

Coming from a man who was sexually molested as a kid I am not completely for it.

I have some major reservations about publishing peoples personal information like that for any reason. It is the governments job to protect its citizens, if the people they are releasing from prison are not fit to be a full member of society they should not be released.

Convicts, especially these sick, demented, perverted ones lose their rights. "You don't like us violating your rights? Awww, TO DAMN BAD! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE VIOLATED YOUR VICTUMS RIGHT'S!"
Then what makes us better then them? They took away victims rights and we are taking away theirs.

The denial of rights should be kept to a minimum necessary to protect the rest of the society.

I'm for it..ever since the kidnapping of Drew s. at Columbia Mall, I have looked into the topic. My sister attended UND and I wanted to make sure she was safe. I know that's not a kid-related thing, but still that doesn't make it right

I am for this law, but with revision (and LOTS of them).

Basically, no GPS crap, and no restricting where they can live and go. I believe, however, that they should serve their sentences completely (but, so should everyone else, therefore this law is redundant).

Then what makes us better then them? They took away victims rights and we are taking away theirs.

The denial of rights should be kept to a minimum necessary to protect the rest of the society.
You earned it. YOU are destructive members of society (unless you have repented). You may not cause any more troubles, but why should we take teh chance for the enjoyment of a pervert who commited a perverted crime. You have every right in the book to your privacy, if you didn't ruin your own life. You had a choice, you broke th law, you lose your rights.

The denial of rights should be kept to a minimum necessary to protect the rest of the society.
You mean to protect you. Allowing perverts rights doesn't help society one bit.

You mean to protect you. Allowing perverts rights doesn't help society one bit.
What do you mean by to protect me?

And if they are incapable of re entering society and co-existing they should not be allowed to do so, nor should the perpetrator of any other crime.

What do you mean by to protect me?

And if they are incapable of re entering society and co-existing they should not be allowed to do so, nor should the perpetrator of any other crime.
Yes. Normally, they should get a life sentence if possible.

You earned it. YOU are destructive members of society (unless you have repented). -snip-
"unless you have repented"? So I say I'm no longer a bad guy and this changes everything? Sorry, but they did the crime, they did the time, and now they're free. End of story. If they reoffend, then they can be tried for the crime they committed again. Once a person is released back into society, they are a member of it, and deserve all the rights afforded to anyone else.

You earned it. YOU are destructive members of society (unless you have repented). You may not cause any more troubles, but why should we take teh chance for the enjoyment of a pervert who commited a perverted crime. You have every right in the book to your privacy, if you didn't ruin your own life. You had a choice, you broke th law, you lose your rights.
Is it just me or does this rant not make much sense? Or are you just misunderstanding my position?

And is part of this rant actually directed at me? Or were you using the impersonal “you”?

"unless you have repented"? So I say I'm no longer a bad guy and this changes everything? Sorry, but they did the crime, they did the time, and now they're free. End of story. If they reoffend, then they can be tried for the crime they committed again. Once a person is released back into society, they are a member of it, and deserve all the rights afforded to anyone else.
Though to be fair recomital of sex crimes is high right now, it would be nice to find a more effective therapy solution to actually help these people become productive members of society.

Yes. Normally, they should get a life sentence if possible.
Yes, they should. But if they don't, upon their release they deserve all the rights afforded to any other citizen.

Yes. Normally, they should get a life sentence if possible.
If they can not function without hurting another citizen absolutely.

"unless you have repented"? So I say I'm no longer a bad guy and this changes everything? Sorry, but they did the crime, they did the time, and now they're free. End of story. If they reoffend, then they can be tried for the crime they committed again. Once a person is released back into society, they are a member of it, and deserve all the rights afforded to anyone else.
Sorry, there is no way to affirm if someone repented, even if they saved the world. As for the stupid "do the crime, pay the time" idea, it's dumb. Your victum is scarred for life, so you can be too. Just because you suffered, doesn't mean it erased what you did. You did it, servering time won't make you any less of a criminal, or any less likely to commit an offence. It just shows that you did, and thus are more likely to do it again.

Though to be fair recomital of sex crimes is high right now, it would be nice to find a more effective therapy solution to actually help these people become productive members of society.
I agree, but this seems not to be the issue here, as much as locking them up or stripping them of their rights upon release :(

If they can not function without hurting another citizen absolutely.
But, how do we know if they CAN fuction?

Sorry, there is no way to affirm if someone repented, even if they saved the world. As for the stupid "do the crime, pay the time" idea, it's dumb. Your victum is scarred for life, so you can be too. Just because you suffered, doesn't mean it erased what you did. You did it, servering time won't make you any less of a criminal, or any less likely to commit an offence. It just shows that you did, and thus are more likely to do it again.
Were you molested as a child?

I was and even I do not have this sort of hate in my heart.
And if no one can ever change why do we release criminals at all for any crime?

Sorry, there is no way to affirm if someone repented, even if they saved the world. As for the stupid "do the crime, pay the time" idea, it's dumb. Your victum is scarred for life, so you can be too. Just because you suffered, doesn't mean it erased what you did. You did it, servering time won't make you any less of a criminal, or any less likely to commit an offence. It just shows that you did, and thus are more likely to do it again.
I don't see how. We have a prison system to punish. You are sentenced, you serve that time, you are done. It's not a complex issue. If you are in favour of giving all criminals life terms, then fine, but once they are released, they have served their punishment and are again members of society.

But, how do we know if they CAN fuction?
We don’t have a way to be 100 percent sure … hell I cant be a 100 percent sure that sometime in the future you wont get drunk and drive and kill someone … I don’t advocate locking you up just incase either

Were you molested as a child?

I was and even I do not have this sort of hate in my heart.
And if no one can ever change why do we release criminals at all for any crime?
We shouldn't mostly.

We shouldn't mostly.
Why?

My state of New York, of course, has this already. With some revisions. The law as itself is kinda ridiculous, it need revisions like the ones NY State have made.

We don’t have a way to be 100 percent sure … hell I cant be a 100 percent sure that sometime in the future you wont get drunk and drive and kill someone … I don’t advocate locking you up just incase either
How is locking them away with other criminals going to make them better people? It's a methed of Justice to some, a method of rehibilitation to others. To me, it's simply a matter of keeping the destructive members of society segregated.

Why?
Because they will probably comit their crimes again. They lost their freedom by their own choice, Their not innocent. They proved they were capable of doing it, why shouldn't they do it again?

How is locking them away with other criminals going to make them better people? It's a methed of Justice to some, a method of rehibilitation to others. To me, it's simply a matter of keeping the destructive members of society segregated.
And while at some point we need some of that segregation to keep us safe (I do not deny that)
We should be working on rehabilitation as well. Better to work on giving someone back their rights and freedoms and make them a good member of society then to simply forget about them

I'm entirely neutral on this

If this passes, Lynch mobs will not only be the stuff of black and white movies anymore.

Because they will probably comit their crimes again. They lost their freedom by their own choice, Their not innocent. They proved they were capable of doing it, why shouldn't they do it again?
For one not a 100 percent of convicted people are guilty not by a long shot.. For two depending on the crime they are not “most likely” to recommit

We have the ability to be doing a better job tracking those most at risk of recommitting and making sure they don’t. But we fail because too many people view prison as too of revenge instead of rehabilitation

In Texas, we know exactly where every child molestor is, we know their address, phone number, and driver's license number.

No, you don't, and you know it's absurd to claim that you do. A society that perpetuates the perversion of some people into child molestors will continue to 'produce' more molestors, and you certainly don't know who or where those people are. "Band-aid" laws like the topic of this discussion will not prevent the existence of child molestors, and that should be the goal and focus of any new related legislation or, more usefully, reforms to social customs.

OOC, I'm sorry, my dear fellow americans, your country is fucked, and there are no cures. :(

How is locking them away with other criminals going to make them better people? It's a methed of Justice to some, a method of rehibilitation to others. To me, it's simply a matter of keeping the destructive members of society segregated.

Mexico is a good example of this. The prison system in Mexico is utterly unconcerned with rehabilitation, justice, or even if inmates are fed. Aside from the hugely, personally-profitable industry of being a judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney, the legal system is concerned only with quarantining anyone who doesn't want to live in line with the establishment. For example, while drug use is rampant and strictly illegal in Mexican society, it is standard behaviour and permitted in prisons. Even the prison guards are often meth addicts, themselves. Bizarre.

...Is this all sex offenders, or just like, child molesters? Ah, nevermind, I'll just read it.

If this passes, Lynch mobs will not only be the stuff of black and white movies anymore.

Yeah, how many paediatricians are going to get their houses burned down because of this? If paedophiles are still a danger to childeren, they shouldn't be in the community at all. If they've served their time, and no longer a danger, all criminals have a right to start over, including sex offenders.

No, you don't, and you know it's absurd to claim that you do.

Yes .... we DO ...

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm

Just gotta put in my zip code and *boom* ... there it is.

We already have that in Texas. I'm sorry California is so behind in this matter.

In Texas, we know exactly where every child molestor is, we know their address, phone number, and driver's license number. We also have the right to petition a landlord or apartment manager to evict a child sex offender if we find out they live in our neighborhoods.

What's California's problem?

Edit: Incidently, I do not wish to take away a child sex offender's right to live, but I will gladly take away their right to live next door to me.


Hear, hear. I haven't read Jessica's law yet cos its taking ages to download. But if it does what Keruvalia says then I agree. We had a situation in Ireland recently where a man Mr. A managed to get his conviction for the rape of a 13 yr old, (he fed her drink as his daughters slumber party, she passed out and when she woke up he raped her) because there was some flaw in the law while they supreme court overturned and new legislation re underage sex was brought it (which btw way will be challenged because if underage boys can be arrested if they have sex with an underage consenting girl, the girl can't making the law unconstitutional). People who do this to children are the most vile creatures on the planet, words cannot express how I feel about them, there are 2 molesters living in my area, everyone knows who the scum are and its better that way. No one takes it out on their families cos its not their fault their fathers are inhuman pigs. There life should be ruined just as their victims has.

Yes .... we DO ...

https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm

Just gotta put in my zip code and *boom* ... there it is.
I think what Dharmalaya's trying to point out is that you only know where every convicted child molester is.
There's obviously still hundreds (if not thousands) out there who have gotten (or are getting) away with it.

If it's for serious sex offenders, I don't see any reason why not.

I do, however, balk at some of the misdemeanors that can get someone onto the sex offenders list.
A guy got caught doing it with a shop dummy and was put on the list. What harm is he to anyone (other than himself if he ever got a job say in a firm that tests cars with crashtest dummies).
A guy got caught with a farm animal and is stuck on the list. Again, where's the proof that a guy who loves animals is going to become a child sex offender?
And of course there's the inevitable 16 yr old having sex with his 15 yr old g/f a week before her birthday stories. He's put on the list for rest of his life.

Problem I have with the list is it doesn't differentiate in levels of severity. Once you're on the list, everyone will assume you're a child rapist.

Jessica's law should only apply to people who are considered to be a risk to children. But it doesn't appear to. It applies to all registered sex offenders.
I just don't much like knee-jerk blanket bans.

If it's for serious sex offenders, I don't see any reason why not.

I do, however, balk at some of the misdemeanors that can get someone onto the sex offenders list.
A guy got caught doing it with a shop dummy and was put on the list. What harm is he to anyone (other than himself if he ever got a job say in a firm that tests cars with crashtest dummies).
A guy got caught with a farm animal and is stuck on the list. Again, where's the proof that a guy who loves animals is going to become a child sex offender?
And of course there's the inevitable 16 yr old having sex with his 15 yr old g/f a week before her birthday stories. He's put on the list for rest of his life.

Problem I have with the list is it doesn't differentiate in levels of severity. Once you're on the list, everyone will assume you're a child rapist.

Jessica's law should only apply to people who are considered to be a risk to children. But it doesn't appear to. It applies to all registered sex offenders.
I just don't much like knee-jerk blanket bans.
Agreed … though if they are an ulta high risk repeat offender or just high risk they probably should not be released to start with …

I'm oposed in principle to any law named after a person. Laws named after the victums of crimes are never the kinds of laws that would have prevented the crime they were created in response to. Such laws are just the hand waving responses of politicians to the cry "you have to do something!" These laws are almost never thought out, and simply serve as a mouthpiece to public hysteria, rather than serving, as laws should, to make the public at large safer.

Now, as to the specific nature of this law, I consider sex offender registries to be a worthless exersise in "I'm tougher on crime than you" which result in everyone being less safe rather than more safe.

Like Upward Thrust said, if someone's a danger to society, don't let them back into society. This isn't that complicated. There's a reason we have parole boards. They're there to determine if a person has been successfully rehabilitated.

Now, let's consider two sex offenders, and let's for the sake of arguement say they were both rapists, guilty of the same crime, shall we? One is subject to such a register and the other isn't.

The one not subject to the register is able to get a job, live in a friendly community, and establish positive relationships with other people. He's been through the system and has no intention of risking that again.

The one subject to registration finds himself turned away from job after job on the grounds of the negative publicity the company would suffer if their address were listed publicly as the workplace of a sex offender. When he finally finds a place he's allowed to live, after being forced to study the locations of every school, playground, and park to determine where it is legal for him to live, the people in his community object to his presence, refuse to speak with him, and he occasionally recieves anonomous death threats which the police shrug at and say, "There's nothing we can do. You have to expect ths sort of thing. You did rape someone." He's still in the system, and the risks are significantly midigated by the fact that the outside world isn't so much better than prison. (And of course a reminder that he was forced to study the locations of every school, playground, and park in the area so he would know where he could legally buy a house.)

Which of the two is more likely to reoffend?

Very true.

I'm oposed in principle to any law named after a person. Laws named after the victums of crimes are never the kinds of laws that would have prevented the crime they were created in response to. Such laws are just the hand waving responses of politicians to the cry "you have to do something!" These laws are almost never thought out, and simply serve as a mouthpiece to public hysteria, rather than serving, as laws should, to make the public at large safer.

Now, as to the specific nature of this law, I consider sex offender registries to be a worthless exersise in "I'm tougher on crime than you" which result in everyone being less safe rather than more safe.

Like Upward Thrust said, if someone's a danger to society, don't let them back into society. This isn't that complicated. There's a reason we have parole boards. They're there to determine if a person has been successfully rehabilitated.

Now, let's consider two sex offenders, and let's for the sake of arguement say they were both rapists, guilty of the same crime, shall we? One is subject to such a register and the other isn't.

The one not subject to the register is able to get a job, live in a friendly community, and establish positive relationships with other people. He's been through the system and has no intention of risking that again.

The one subject to registration finds himself turned away from job after job on the grounds of the negative publicity the company would suffer if their address were listed publicly as the workplace of a sex offender. When he finally finds a place he's allowed to live, after being forced to study the locations of every school, playground, and park to determine where it is legal for him to live, the people in his community object to his presence, refuse to speak with him, and he occasionally recieves anonomous death threats which the police shrug at and say, "There's nothing we can do. You have to expect ths sort of thing. You did rape someone." He's still in the system, and the risks are significantly midigated by the fact that the outside world isn't so much better than prison. (And of course a reminder that he was forced to study the locations of every school, playground, and park in the area so he would know where he could legally buy a house.)

Which of the two is more likely to reoffend?

We don’t often agree but in this case we do …

If the person is a risk that we deem sufficiently high they should not be allowed in general society in which they are a risk to.

If they have done their time and we feel it fit to release them then we should not be infringing on their rights.

I don’t know I think some of this comes from treating the prison system as an avenue for revenge rather then a utilitarian tool to both protect society and rehabilitate those convicted if possible

The trouble is that, while Five Castes is obviously correct, most people will succomb to the "But their frickin' child molesters!" argument and through reason right out the window.

The trouble is that, while Five Castes is obviously correct, most people will succomb to the "But their frickin' child molesters!" argument and through reason right out the window.
yeah, but they're frickin child molesters!:p

We don’t often agree but in this case we do …

If the person is a risk that we deem sufficiently high they should not be allowed in general society in which they are a risk to.

If they have done their time and we feel it fit to release them then we should not be infringing on their rights.

I don’t know I think some of this comes from treating the prison system as an avenue for revenge rather then a utilitarian tool to both protect society and rehabilitate those convicted if possible
Regardless of our differences elsewhere, on this subject, I feel your view is perfectly in line with my own.

You know, it was only just this thread that I considered the fact that by forcing sex offenders to remain outside a certain radius of places children congregate, you force them to familiarise themselves with all the places in the area children congregate. I mean isn't that going to cause more problems, rather than less?

Regardless of our differences elsewhere, on this subject, I feel your view is perfectly in line with my own.

You know, it was only just this thread that I considered the fact that by forcing sex offenders to remain outside a certain radius of places children congregate, you force them to familiarise themselves with all the places in the area children congregate. I mean isn't that going to cause more problems, rather than less?
Interesting thought .. agreed

Kind of weird forcing them to study information about the potential object of their desire. (I say potential because there ARE people despite the bad track record with any sexual offense that are rehabilitated)

You know, it was only just this thread that I considered the fact that by forcing sex offenders to remain outside a certain radius of places children congregate, you force them to familiarise themselves with all the places in the area children congregate. I mean isn't that going to cause more problems, rather than less?

And how is forcing them to live 2000 ft away going to accomplish anything? Don't most child molesters attack children they already know?

And how is forcing them to live 2000 ft away going to accomplish anything? Don't most child molesters attack children they already know?
Who needs to go to a school when you got teh interweb

And how is forcing them to live 2000 ft away going to accomplish anything? Don't most child molesters attack children they already know?
Actually, most child molesters molest their own children. Stranger rapes involving children are as rare as stranger rapes involving adults.

Who needs to go to a school when you got teh interweb

This bill deals with the internet as well.

This bill deals with the internet as well.
Ahhh I read it last night forgot about that part (that’s what you get for reading it at like 2 in the morning)

Now, anyone who knows anything about me knows that I use the Internet a LOT. Just like it's difficult to tell a 10-year-old from a cop, it's equally diifficult to tell a 19-year-old from a 15-year-old, even with pics. Some women are naturally short or have smaller chests (Asian / Oriental women especially fall into this category) and often look younger than they are, so less attention is paid to their apparent age, you put it in a 17-year-old, and BANG! Instant sex offender.

Off the net... the rigid tracking only applies to those who have gotten CAUGHT, and THEN served 15+ years in prison at the end of which they are usually quite old. How long do you think a child molester goes before being caught? There are cases where people have molested hundreds or even thousands of children in their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Arthur_Schwartzmiller

Is Jessica's law going to stop THAT?

What needs to be done is to encourage people who were molested to come forward, and get more of these people actually CAUGHT. Then, we can talk about treating them, but I personally don't think it can be helped any more than homosexuality can. Why would someone choose a sexual orientation that gets them ostracized from society and targeted by vigilantes?

Now, anyone who knows anything about me knows that I use the Internet a LOT. Just like it's difficult to tell a 10-year-old from a cop, it's equally diifficult to tell a 19-year-old from a 15-year-old, even with pics. Some women are naturally short or have smaller chests (Asian / Oriental women especially fall into this category) and often look younger than they are, so less attention is paid to their apparent age, you put it in a 17-year-old, and BANG! Instant sex offender.

Off the net... the rigid tracking only applies to those who have gotten CAUGHT, and THEN served 15+ years in prison at the end of which they are usually quite old. How long do you think a child molester goes before being caught? There are cases where people have molested hundreds or even thousands of children in their lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Arthur_Schwartzmiller

Is Jessica's law going to stop THAT?

What needs to be done is to encourage people who were molested to come forward, and get more of these people actually CAUGHT. Then, we can talk about treating them, but I personally don't think it can be helped any more than homosexuality can. Why would someone choose a sexual orientation that gets them ostracized from society and targeted by vigilantes?
Um, I agree with most of what you said there, but you seem to be mixing up pedophiles (people who are attracted to children) with child molesters (people who rape children).

I've linked this statistic before, but 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles. Like many people have said before, in various places, on various threads, rape is not the result of "uncontrolable" sexual attraction to the victum. It's about desire for control and power over the victum.

Um, I agree with most of what you said there, but you seem to be mixing up pedophiles (people who are attracted to children) with child molesters (people who rape children).

I've linked this statistic before, but 90% of child molesters aren't pedophiles. Like many people have said before, in various places, on various threads, rape is not the result of "uncontrollable" sexual attraction to the victim. It's about desire for control and power over the victim.

My mistake. I am indeed aware of the difference, having been involved in these debates before. I'm not sure what should be done about pedophiles, but rapists should indeed be dealt with severely, but the registry, as I've said, isn't the way to go about it, encouraging victims to come forward will.

As for teenagers... they're mature enough to make their own decisions. In South Korea and Spain the AOC is 13 (source: http://www.ageofconsent.com) and they don't exactly have widespread social upheaval or increased mental illness / trauma from early sexual activity.

I feel that someone who rapes a child (or adult) is sick, and people who let someone think they love them, child, teenager, or adult, and have sex with them while the other person thinks it's more than just sex is selfish scum, but a 16-year-old (or a 26-year-old, for that matter) involved in a loving, consensual relationship with a 15-year-old (provided the older partner isn't an authority figure like a priest, scout leader, teacher, or parent [God forbid!]) isn't someone to be condemned or have a jail cell wasted on them, let alone castigated for life.